5 ms·

> Most captains would obviously want to avoid such a costly and dangerous situation, but the sheer number of nets draped on Stellwagen wrecks indicates that som

> Most captains would obviously want to avoid such a costly and dangerous situation, but the sheer number of nets draped on Stellwagen wrecks indicates that some are willing to risk it. Nets are a great source of Microplastics in the ocean, whether lost during fishing or flying away of landfills [0]. New kind of ropes degrades slowly but that’s just a “timer on the bomb”. What can we do ? At a society level legislation does not work off the coast: near impossible to find consensus on international zones laws and even more complicated to enforce them. At a personal level you can stop eating fishes. You won’t change the world alone but still have a small but real impact, about the same as when you go to the polls. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X21011498 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X2...

mikewarot 3y ago
>Nets are a great source of Microplastics It seems to me the solution is to require (and subsidize) the use of cotton (or other natural fiber) based netting, which is biodegradable.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  Cotton in particular is a bad crop choice because it uses a lot of water. Cotton cultivation is a contributing factor to the shrinking of the Aral Sea.
  - laci37 3y ago
    Is cotton cultivation that bad in areas that were not artificially made suitable for the crop by the Soviet Union?
    - aziaziazi 3y ago
      > artificially made suitable Don’t know what you mean by that but the Soviet having made worse does not mean other countries approach is water-friendly. See https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/files/6843583/water_footprint_of_cotton_consumption.pdf https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/files/6843583/water_footprint_of_c...
    - bobthepanda 3y ago
      To produce a kilo of cotton (roughly equivalent to a t-shirt and a pair of jeans) takes 20,000L of water. It’s just fundamentally an extremely thirsty crop. Not to mention that cotton is notorious for depleting soil nutrients, so it is often grown with very large amounts of fertilizer, which also polluted waterways and their outlets into the oceans.
dappermanneke 3y ago
if only there was actually any good evidence of microplastic impact on health instead of a moral panic. microplastics will sink to the bottom of the sea and get buried under dirt on land, becoming part of the geology anyhow. for something with no clear evidence of harm, is it really worth replacing it with materials that require multipliers more fossil fuels to produce, increase carbon emissions, which are very much proven to cause harm to both human health and ecosystems?
- gibolt 3y ago
  Animals consume them. We consume animals. They re-enter the cycle and repeat. They are made of fossil fuels, while alternative netting are not.
- rex_lupi 3y ago
  Microplastics is hardly the only concern about plastic nets. In garbage patches, nets are a major constituent. Marine animals, small and big, get strangled in the nets. Marine animals indirectly consume plastic nets which doesn't get passed on with feces and they die of gastric obstruction.
  - dappermanneke 3y ago
    that is basically a fringe issue considering 80% or so of plastic pollution in the ocean comes from mismanaged waste streams in the third world. fix that and I’m sure marine animals will have a much easier time avoiding the rest certainly the question is: every plastic alternative tends to have higher impacts with regards to emissions to produce it or transport it. knowing that netting is only a minor contributor to plastic pollution, it is worth trying to solve plastic pollution by worsening the problem of carbon emissions? everything is a trade-off, to solve one problem you have to contribute to another
    - rex_lupi 3y ago
      The problem isn't plastic, the problem is everyone throwing it onto the oceans. And blaming the "third world" isn't gonna help
lynx23 3y ago
According to 2016 FAO data, roughly 59 mio people are directly involved in fishing. Do you consider taking away their ability to have some income "small impact"? Besides, most of the fish I eat are sweetwater fish. I doubt me stopping to eat fish would have any impact with the micropastics situation. Besides, what else am I supposed to stop? Breath, drink, think, or maybe exist?
- throwbadubadu 3y ago
  Pretty much unnecessary rhetoric black-white argumentation though there are many shades in between? There are a lot of compromises that can be made without resorting to "am I supposed to stop existing" nonsense, come on!
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

mikewarot 3y ago

>Nets are a great source of Microplastics It seems to me the solution is to require (and subsidize) the use of cotton (or other natural fiber) based netting, which is biodegradable.

bobthepanda 3y ago
Cotton in particular is a bad crop choice because it uses a lot of water. Cotton cultivation is a contributing factor to the shrinking of the Aral Sea.
- laci37 3y ago
  Is cotton cultivation that bad in areas that were not artificially made suitable for the crop by the Soviet Union?
  - aziaziazi 3y ago
    > artificially made suitable Don’t know what you mean by that but the Soviet having made worse does not mean other countries approach is water-friendly. See https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/files/6843583/water_footprint_of_cotton_consumption.pdf https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/files/6843583/water_footprint_of_c...
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    To produce a kilo of cotton (roughly equivalent to a t-shirt and a pair of jeans) takes 20,000L of water. It’s just fundamentally an extremely thirsty crop. Not to mention that cotton is notorious for depleting soil nutrients, so it is often grown with very large amounts of fertilizer, which also polluted waterways and their outlets into the oceans.

dappermanneke 3y ago

if only there was actually any good evidence of microplastic impact on health instead of a moral panic. microplastics will sink to the bottom of the sea and get buried under dirt on land, becoming part of the geology anyhow. for something with no clear evidence of harm, is it really worth replacing it with materials that require multipliers more fossil fuels to produce, increase carbon emissions, which are very much proven to cause harm to both human health and ecosystems?

gibolt 3y ago
Animals consume them. We consume animals. They re-enter the cycle and repeat. They are made of fossil fuels, while alternative netting are not.
rex_lupi 3y ago
Microplastics is hardly the only concern about plastic nets. In garbage patches, nets are a major constituent. Marine animals, small and big, get strangled in the nets. Marine animals indirectly consume plastic nets which doesn't get passed on with feces and they die of gastric obstruction.
- dappermanneke 3y ago
  that is basically a fringe issue considering 80% or so of plastic pollution in the ocean comes from mismanaged waste streams in the third world. fix that and I’m sure marine animals will have a much easier time avoiding the rest certainly the question is: every plastic alternative tends to have higher impacts with regards to emissions to produce it or transport it. knowing that netting is only a minor contributor to plastic pollution, it is worth trying to solve plastic pollution by worsening the problem of carbon emissions? everything is a trade-off, to solve one problem you have to contribute to another
  - rex_lupi 3y ago
    The problem isn't plastic, the problem is everyone throwing it onto the oceans. And blaming the "third world" isn't gonna help

lynx23 3y ago

According to 2016 FAO data, roughly 59 mio people are directly involved in fishing. Do you consider taking away their ability to have some income "small impact"? Besides, most of the fish I eat are sweetwater fish. I doubt me stopping to eat fish would have any impact with the micropastics situation. Besides, what else am I supposed to stop? Breath, drink, think, or maybe exist?

throwbadubadu 3y ago
Pretty much unnecessary rhetoric black-white argumentation though there are many shades in between? There are a lot of compromises that can be made without resorting to "am I supposed to stop existing" nonsense, come on!

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]