6 ms·

If you want to save the oceans, ban plastic fishing equipment, as nets and other gear is the biggest plastic polluter in the oceans: https://www.theguardian.com

If you want to save the oceans, ban plastic fishing equipment, as nets and other gear is the biggest plastic polluter in the oceans: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/06/dumped-fishing-gear-is-biggest-plastic-polluter-in-ocean-finds-report https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/06/dumped-f...

jjcm 4y ago
What material would you recommend instead?
- drewg123 4y ago
  Hemp, or anything else non-toxic and biodegradable.
- chillingeffect 4y ago
  Also: we don't need to eat seafood.
munificent 4y ago
This article is a great example of how poor use of math can do a disservice to the public. The article says: > Lost and abandoned fishing gear which is deadly to marine life makes up the majority of large plastic pollution in the oceans This is one of those statistics that shouldn't even pass the sniff test. Think about all of the millions of ways that humans use plastic across every single industry, job, and area of life. And yet somehow ghost gear is supposed to be greater than all of that put together?! Are fisheries just dumping a hundred nets in the ocean for every one they use or something? The number makes no sense. And, indeed, the report in question says no such thing. What it does say is: "12 million tonnes of plastic ends up in the ocean every year" and "640,000 tonnes of ghost gear enters the ocean every year". So that means ghost gear is only around 5% of the plastic that ends up in the ocean per year. In fact the report itself states that "Ghost gear is estimated to make up 10% of the plastic waste in our oceans". Of course, that's not alarming enough, so it also goes on to state that "[ghost gear] represents a much higher proportion of large plastics found floating at the surface" and "over 85% of the rubbish on the seafloor on seamounts and ocean ridges, and in the Great Pacific Gyre." That sounds bad but... it should come as no surprise. Most plastic that ends up in the ocean is trash. Land-based trash plastic that is large or heavy enough to sink is less likely to flow down rivers and end up in the middle of the ocean. It will get broken up by trash processing, sink to the bottom of rivers, or otherwise not make it all the way to the ocean intact. So of course you'll see a disproportionate amount of ghost gear when you look on the seafloor or at large items—ghost gear is large plastic that is deliberately designed to sink in seawater and then is deliberately dragged out into the middle of the ocean and thrown overboard. If your primary goal is to save animals, then Greenpeace's focus on ghost gear makes sense. But if your goal is to reduce the overall amount of plastic ending up in the ocean (which also saves animals), then ghost gear is only a relatively small fraction of the problem.
- drewg123 4y ago
  It seems like the study folks are quoting is a peer reviewed article in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22939-w?fbclid=IwAR2s0iX2t6BZ_wz8FkWNRD8DK6ROwuQcE6k7nXM4rjz1LAdQZmlXfeluOuo https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22939-w?fbclid=Iw... It states "Over three-quarters of the GPGP mass was carried by debris larger than 5 cm and at least 46% was comprised of fishing nets."
  - munificent 4y ago
    Ah, good catch! That does agree with the article, so maybe that's where the claim comes from and not directly from the Greenpeace article. There's still a difference between "quantity dumped per year" and "total amount measured right now". It seems like ghost gear is not a large fraction of the plastic entering the ocean, but it a large fraction of the accumulated large pieces in the garbage patch. I presume that's because fishing gear is designed to survive in the ocean so takes longer to break down than other plastics.
    - verdverm 4y ago
      Here's a NOAA page on the topic https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/marinedebris/plastics-in-the-ocean.html https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/marinedebris/plastics-...
- nine_k 4y ago
  Humans use metals in colossal quantities, but only a small proportion of that, used to make weapons and ammo, is responsible for the majority of human deaths induced by metal items. Similarly, fishing gear is specifically produced to lure, trap, catch, and ultimately kill marine life. One abandoned fishing net could be much more deadly than 10x of the same plastic by weight in the form of plastic straws, spoons, and cups. I don't know if it's indeed so, but I can easily see why it could be so.
- McNutty 4y ago
  I think you've overlooked the keyword large in the opening statement

jjcm 4y ago

What material would you recommend instead?

drewg123 4y ago
Hemp, or anything else non-toxic and biodegradable.
chillingeffect 4y ago
Also: we don't need to eat seafood.

munificent 4y ago

This article is a great example of how poor use of math can do a disservice to the public. The article says: > Lost and abandoned fishing gear which is deadly to marine life makes up the majority of large plastic pollution in the oceans This is one of those statistics that shouldn't even pass the sniff test. Think about all of the millions of ways that humans use plastic across every single industry, job, and area of life. And yet somehow ghost gear is supposed to be greater than all of that put together?! Are fisheries just dumping a hundred nets in the ocean for every one they use or something? The number makes no sense. And, indeed, the report in question says no such thing. What it does say is: "12 million tonnes of plastic ends up in the ocean every year" and "640,000 tonnes of ghost gear enters the ocean every year". So that means ghost gear is only around 5% of the plastic that ends up in the ocean per year. In fact the report itself states that "Ghost gear is estimated to make up 10% of the plastic waste in our oceans". Of course, that's not alarming enough, so it also goes on to state that "[ghost gear] represents a much higher proportion of large plastics found floating at the surface" and "over 85% of the rubbish on the seafloor on seamounts and ocean ridges, and in the Great Pacific Gyre." That sounds bad but... it should come as no surprise. Most plastic that ends up in the ocean is trash. Land-based trash plastic that is large or heavy enough to sink is less likely to flow down rivers and end up in the middle of the ocean. It will get broken up by trash processing, sink to the bottom of rivers, or otherwise not make it all the way to the ocean intact. So of course you'll see a disproportionate amount of ghost gear when you look on the seafloor or at large items—ghost gear is large plastic that is deliberately designed to sink in seawater and then is deliberately dragged out into the middle of the ocean and thrown overboard. If your primary goal is to save animals, then Greenpeace's focus on ghost gear makes sense. But if your goal is to reduce the overall amount of plastic ending up in the ocean (which also saves animals), then ghost gear is only a relatively small fraction of the problem.

drewg123 4y ago
It seems like the study folks are quoting is a peer reviewed article in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22939-w?fbclid=IwAR2s0iX2t6BZ_wz8FkWNRD8DK6ROwuQcE6k7nXM4rjz1LAdQZmlXfeluOuo https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22939-w?fbclid=Iw... It states "Over three-quarters of the GPGP mass was carried by debris larger than 5 cm and at least 46% was comprised of fishing nets."
- munificent 4y ago
  Ah, good catch! That does agree with the article, so maybe that's where the claim comes from and not directly from the Greenpeace article. There's still a difference between "quantity dumped per year" and "total amount measured right now". It seems like ghost gear is not a large fraction of the plastic entering the ocean, but it a large fraction of the accumulated large pieces in the garbage patch. I presume that's because fishing gear is designed to survive in the ocean so takes longer to break down than other plastics.
  - verdverm 4y ago
    Here's a NOAA page on the topic https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/marinedebris/plastics-in-the-ocean.html https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/marinedebris/plastics-...
nine_k 4y ago
Humans use metals in colossal quantities, but only a small proportion of that, used to make weapons and ammo, is responsible for the majority of human deaths induced by metal items. Similarly, fishing gear is specifically produced to lure, trap, catch, and ultimately kill marine life. One abandoned fishing net could be much more deadly than 10x of the same plastic by weight in the form of plastic straws, spoons, and cups. I don't know if it's indeed so, but I can easily see why it could be so.
McNutty 4y ago
I think you've overlooked the keyword large in the opening statement