Plastic bag fees pass in Northern Virginia

Consumers in some Northern Virginia communities will have to pay for plastic bags starting next year.Fairfax County became the first Virginia locality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to pass a five-cent fee on the use of plastic retail bags when the measure was approved by its Board of Supervisors in mid-September. Alexandria and Arlington followed suit later the same week, passing their own versions of the measure.

Trash piles up in a portion of Little Hunting Creek, a tributary of the Potomac River, just downstream from the Janna Lee Avenue bridge in Alexandria, VA. 

Whitney Pipkin

The purpose of the fee, sometimes called a tax, is to discourage use of disposable plastic bags, which are among the most common items found as litter in local waterways.Plastic bags “damage aquatic ecosystems and the micro-particles of plastics created when they break down make their way into our water sources,” Fairfax County Board Supervisor James Walkinshaw wrote in a statement.
“Plastic bag taxes are proven in jurisdictions across the nation,” he said. “This measure will reduce plastic pollution, and the modest funds collected will be reinvested into litter prevention and to providing reusable bags for low-income community members.”

Plastic bags and bottles are among the most common forms of plastic that wash into waterways. Plastics break down into microscopic pieces that carry toxins and are found in streams, rivers, oceans and the Chesapeake Bay. (Donna Morelli)

The City of Roanoke, which is not within Virginia’s portion of the Chesapeake watershed, was the first locality in the state to pass a plastic bag fee. The Virginia General Assembly, which must give cities and counties permission to pass such local measures, approved legislation in 2020 allowing them to adopt plastic bag ordinances.The District of Columbia and several localities in Maryland already charge five-cent fees on plastic bags. Maryland’s General Assembly nearly passed a statewide plastic bag ban in 2020 and 2021. Studies have shown a correlation between such fees and bans on certain disposable products and reduced plastic waste in nearby rivers.Fairfax County’s five-cent fee on plastic bags will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2022.

Coastal Resources Commission digs in on artificial turf

Artificial turf. Photo: Mabel Amber/pixabay
State regulators are cracking down on where property owners may install artificial turf near coastal waterways.
During the meeting of the Coastal Resources Commission Wednesday, Sept. 15, Robb Mairs, minor permits coordinator with the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management’s Wilmington office, said the use of artificial turf within the state’s 75-foot coastal shorelines area of environmental concern, or AEC, and associated 30-foot buffer “suddenly emerged” this year.
The seemingly new trend has raised concerns about certain materials used to install artificial grass, the different types of material used to make artificial turf, whether those materials are pervious or not, and how their proximity to coastal waters may affect water quality.
Coastal Resources Commission rules restrict development within the 30-foot buffer to water uses, including docks, piers, boat ramps, bulkheads and accessways. There are some exceptions to the rules, such as pile-supported signs, elevated, slatted wooden boardwalks, crab shedders, decks and grading, excavation, and landscaping as long as it excludes wetland fill — unless required by permit in a shoreline-stabilization project.
However, the state does not have standards for artificial turf being installed within that buffer, Mairs explained.
Coastal AECs include wetlands, estuarine waters, public trust areas and estuarine and public trust shorelines.
The 30-foot buffer within those AECs is considered by state coastal officials to be particularly crucial in protecting water quality.
Division of Coastal Management officials this past May first caught wind of artificial turf being installed within the 75-foot AEC in Wrightsville Beach, according to Christy Simmons, division spokesperson.
“That case was resolved through an enforcement action and the shoreline buffer was restored,” Simmons said in an email.
Since then, the division has been reviewing cases in Corolla in Currituck County, Topsail Beach in Pender County and Wrightsville Beach in New Hanover County, she said. In some of those cases, artificial turf will have to be removed, at least from within the 30-foot shoreline buffer.
“In the limited enforcement cases we’ve had so far, we’ve only required removal of the artificial turf and have not assessed any civil penalties,” Simmons said.
As division permit officers are handling these cases, they’re fielding a growing interest from property owners and landscapers asking about placing artificial turf within the coastal shoreline AEC.
Part of the debate about regulating artificial turf within the AEC goes to the question whether fake grass and the materials used to install it are impervious.
Coastal Resources Commissioner Neal Andrew said at the commission’s Sept. 15 meeting that he’d seen some of the artificial turf that has been installed in Wrightsville Beach.
“It appears water does drain through this material and therefore appears to act as a pervious surface,” he said. “I personally don’t see an issue with it being outside that 30-foot range.”
Division Director Braxton Davis said it had yet to be determined whether artificial turf is pervious and that any such determination may have to be concluded on a case-by-case basis.
Mairs said the problem is that some components of artificial turf appear to be inconsistent with standards set by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources and state Energy, Mineral and Land Resources, or DEMLR, state stormwater section.
DEMLR staff say they would have to decide case-by-case whether artificial turf is pervious.
Any such determination would not preclude DEMLR’s regulations that require vegetated setbacks from surface waters in coastal stormwater permits. The rules mandate that the area within the buffer remain vegetated unless one or more exceptions in the rules have been met.
Artificial turf is not an exception.
Buffer rules in the Tar-Pamlico and Neuse rivers do not include artificial turf in their table of uses.
Division of Water Resources officials advised that artificial turf appears to contradict the intent of the rules to preserve the buffer as a function for removing nutrients.
Water resources officials have expressed concerns about the potential of small plastic fibers, and rubber or silica beads sometimes mixed into soil under the turf during installation getting into nearby waters and potentially violating state water quality standards.
Larry Baldwin, vice chair for the Coastal Resources Commission, said that if artificial turf is installed for the purpose of stormwater infiltration, design could make a difference, especially if it were to cut down on potential nutrient runoff if turf is used replace fertilized grass.
“I’m kind of torn on this in terms of what’s better for water quality,” he said.
Commissioners voted 10-1, with Baldwin dissenting, to prohibit the installation of artificial turf within the 30-foot buffer.
“I think if we’re all concerned about water quality I’m going to make it as simple for staff as possible and protect the last line of defense for our waters,” said commission Chair Renee Cahoon.
Commissioner Craig Bromby said the commission should look further into the matter.
“I think we can maintain the status quo and endorse (the division’s) interpretation, but I think this needs looking at,” he said.

Baby poop is loaded with microplastics

An alarming new study finds that infant feces contain 10 times more polyethylene terephthalate (aka polyester) than an adult’s.Whenever a plastic bag or bottle degrades, it breaks into ever smaller pieces that work their way into nooks in the environment. When you wash synthetic fabrics, tiny plastic fibers break loose and flow out to sea. When you drive, plastic bits fly off your tires and brakes. That’s why literally everywhere scientists look, they’re finding microplastics—specks of synthetic material that measure less than 5 millimeters long. They’re on the most remote mountaintops and in the deepest oceans. They’re blowing vast distances in the wind to sully once pristine regions like the Arctic. In 11 protected areas in the western US, the equivalent of 120 million ground-up plastic bottles are falling out of the sky each year.And now, microplastics are coming out of babies. In a pilot study published today, scientists describe sifting through infants’ dirty diapers and finding an average of 36,000 nanograms of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) per gram of feces, 10 times the amount they found in adult feces. They even found it in newborns’ first feces. PET is an extremely common polymer that’s known as polyester when it’s used in clothing, and it is also used to make plastic bottles. The finding comes a year after another team of researchers calculated that preparing hot formula in plastic bottles severely erodes the material, which could dose babies with several million microplastic particles a day, and perhaps nearly a billion a year. Although adults are bigger, scientists think that in some ways infants have more exposure. In addition to drinking from bottles, babies could be ingesting microplastics in a dizzying number of ways. They have a habit of putting everything in their mouths—plastic toys of all kinds, but they’ll also chew on fabrics. (Microplastics that shed from synthetic textiles are known more specifically as microfibers, but they’re plastic all the same.) Babies’ foods are wrapped in single-use plastics. Children drink from plastic sippy cups and eat off plastic plates. The carpets they crawl on are often made of polyester. Even hardwood floors are coated in polymers that shed microplastics. Any of this could generate tiny particles that children breathe or swallow. Indoor dust is also emerging as a major route of microplastic exposure, especially for infants. (In general, indoor air is absolutely lousy with them; each year you could be inhaling tens of thousands of particles.) Several studies of indoor spaces have shown that each day in a typical household, 10,000 microfibers might land on a single square meter of floor, having flown off of clothing, couches, and bed sheets. Infants spend a significant amount of their time crawling through the stuff, agitating the settled fibers and kicking them up into the air. “Unfortunately, with the modern lifestyle, babies are exposed to so many different things for which we don’t know what kind of effect they can have later in their life,” says Kurunthachalam Kannan, an environmental health scientist at New York University School of Medicine and coauthor of the new paper, which appears in the journal Environmental Science and Technology Letters. The researchers did their tally by collecting dirty diapers from six 1-year-olds and running the feces through a filter to collect the microplastics. They did the same with three samples of meconium—a newborn’s first feces—and stool samples from 10 adults. In addition to analyzing the samples for PET, they also looked for polycarbonate plastic, which is used as a lightweight alternative to glass, for instance in eyeglass lenses. To make sure that they only counted the microplastics that came from the infants’ guts, and not from their diapers, they ruled out the plastic that the diapers were made of: polypropylene, a polymer that’s distinct from polycarbonate and PET.All told, PET concentrations were 10 times higher in infants than in adults, while polycarbonate levels were more even between the two groups. The researchers found smaller amounts of both polymers in the meconium, suggesting that babies are born with plastics already in their systems. This echoes previous studies that have found microplastics in human placentas and meconium.What this all means for human health—and, more urgently, for infant health—scientists are now racing to find out. Different varieties of plastic can contain any of at least 10,000 different chemicals, a quarter of which are of concern for people, according to a recent study from researchers at ​​ETH Zürich in Switzerland. These additives serve all kinds of plastic-making purposes, like providing flexibility, extra strength, or protection from UV bombardment, which degrades the material. Microplastics may contain heavy metals like lead, but they also tend to accumulate heavy metals and other pollutants as they tumble through the environment. They also readily grow a microbial community of viruses, bacteria, and fungi, many of which are human pathogens.Of particular concern are a class of chemicals called endocrine-disrupting chemicals, or EDCs, which disrupt hormones and have been connected to reproductive, neurological, and metabolic problems, for instance increased obesity. The infamous plastic ingredient bisphenol A, or BPA, is one such EDC that has been linked to various cancers. “We should be concerned because the EDCs in microplastics have been shown to be linked with several adverse outcomes in human and animal studies,” says Jodi Flaws, a reproductive toxicologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who led a 2020 study from the Endocrine Society on plastics. (She wasn’t involved in this new research.) “Some of the microplastics contain chemicals that can interfere with the normal function of the endocrine system.” Infants are especially vulnerable to EDCs, since the development of their bodies depends on a healthy endocrine system. “I strongly believe that these chemicals do affect early life stages,” says Kannan. “That’s a vulnerable period.”This new research adds to a growing body of evidence that babies are highly exposed to microplastic. “This is a very interesting paper with some very worrying numbers,” says University of Strathclyde microplastic researcher Deonie Allen, who wasn’t involved in the study. “We need to look at everything a child is exposed to, not just their bottles and toys.”Since infants are passing microplastics in their feces, that means the gut could be absorbing some of the particles, like it would absorb nutrients from food. This is known as translocation: Particularly small particles might pass through the gut wall and end up in other organs, including the brain. Researchers have actually demonstrated this in carp by feeding them plastic particles, which translocated through the gut and worked their way to the head, where they caused brain damage that manifested as behavioral problems: Compared to control fish, the individuals with plastic particles in their brains were less active and ate more slowly.But that was done with very high concentrations of particles, and in an entirely different species. While scientists know that EDCs are bad news, they don’t yet know what level of microplastic exposure it would take to cause problems in the human body. “We need many more studies to confirm the doses and types of chemicals in microplastics that lead to adverse outcomes,” says Flaws.In the meantime, microplastics researchers say you can limit children’s contact with particles. Do not prepare infant formula with hot water in a plastic bottle—use a glass bottle and transfer it over to the plastic one once the liquid reaches room temperature. Vacuum and sweep to keep floors clear of microfibers. Avoid plastic wrappers and containers when possible. Microplastics have contaminated every aspect of our lives, so while you’ll never get rid of them, you can at least reduce your family’s exposure.More Great WIRED Stories📩 The latest on tech, science, and more: Get our newsletters!Rain boots, turning tides, and the search for a missing boyBetter data on ivermectin is finally on the wayA bad solar storm could cause an “internet apocalypse”New York City wasn’t built for 21st-century storms9 PC games you can play forever👁️ Explore AI like never before with our new database🎮 WIRED Games: Get the latest tips, reviews, and more🏃🏽‍♀️ Want the best tools to get healthy? Check out our Gear team’s picks for the best fitness trackers, running gear (including shoes and socks), and best headphones

McDonalds vows to reduce plastic in Happy Meal toys

By 2025, the fast-food chain aims to “drastically” cut plastic in Happy Meal toys worldwide. More-sustainable toys could be made from cardboard and recycled materials, the company says.
US-based fast-food giant McDonald’s announced plans on Tuesday to reduce plastic in its famous Happy Meal toys. McDonald’s said it was considering alternatives, such as three-dimensional cardboard toys or board games with plant-based or recycled materials, to help it “drastically reduce plastics.”  Sustainable Happy Meal toys will be rolled out by the end of 2025, McDonald’s said. “In a few more years, every Happy Meal toy in every Happy Meal around the world, no matter where you are, will be more sustainable,” said the company’s chief sustainability officer, Jenny McColloch. McDonald’s restaurants in the UK and Ireland already offer only soft toys, paper-based toys or books with the kids meal.  Eliminating 90% of ‘virgin’ plastic McDonald’s sells more than 1 billion toys each year. “Transitioning to more renewable, recycled, and certified materials for our Happy Meal toys will result in an approximately 90% reduction in virgin fossil fuel-based plastic use against a 2018 baseline,” McDonald’s said in a statement.  In recent years, the world’s largest restaurant chain has tried to respond to criticism over its use of plastic. In 2018, Mcdonald’s said it would make recycling available in all of its restaurants by 2025. The company has also switched to environmentally friendly packaging materials.  As the name implies, virgin plastic is newly produced rather than recycled. Since the 1950s, roughly 8.3 billion tons of plastic have been produced, with only around 9% of that recycled.

Scooping Plastic Out of the Ocean Is a Losing Game | Hakai Magazine

Article body copy
A garbage truck turns off the road, engine rumbling, brakes wheezing, and the smell of rot trailing in its wake. The truck stops short and starts to reverse—beep, beep, beeping down a boat launch. With salt water lapping at its rear tires it stops, opens its tailgate, and dumps its load of cups, straws, bottles, shopping bags, fishing buoys, and nets.
A minute later, this plastic waste is floating away on a journey to pollute the ocean and poison the food chain. As the garbage truck drives away it passes another truck preparing to back down the ramp. And another pulling into the marina—one of an endless stream of garbage trucks, each lining up to dump its own load of plastics.
It doesn’t happen like this, of course, but eight million tonnes of plastic does end up in the ocean every year—the equivalent of a garbage truck’s–worth every minute. And the rate is increasing. If nothing changes, the amount of plastic sloshing around the ocean could double in 10 years. By 2050, that mass of plastic could exceed the weight of all the fish in the sea.
The costs to society and the environment are huge. A study by the consultancy firm Deloitte shows that, every year, up to 1,000,000 seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals and sea turtles die after ingesting or being entangled by plastic. Microscopic bits of plastic are working their way up the food chain, including in the seafood we eat. Plastic floating around the ocean carries invasive species that compete with or prey on native species. And when it washes onto beaches, plastic pollution affects tourism and devalues real estate. In its examination for 2018, Deloitte pegged the price of ocean plastic pollution at US $6-billion to $19-billion. That’s cheap compared with another study, which calculated the cost at up to $2.5-trillion per year, or $33,000 per tonne. None of that accounts for plastic’s costs to human health. Yet along its production cycle from oil and gas refining to use and disposal, plastic produces chemical emissions that have been linked to hormone disruption and cancer.
It’s enough to motivate teenage entrepreneurs, philanthropists, corporations, nonprofit organizations, governments, university students, and afflicted communities around the world to take action. Their ideas are seemingly as diverse as the species living in the sea: a Korean program pays fishermen to collect plastic at sea. In Baltimore, Maryland, the cartoonish Mr. Trash Wheel skims up to 17 tonnes of garbage out of the city’s harbor in a day. Inspired by the plankton-filtering ways of the whale shark, Singapore-based Drone Solutions created the WasteShark, an autonomous drone that sucks up floating bits of plastic in harbors. Chinese and Australian researchers are exploring the potential to use nanotechnology to pull microplastics out of the water in wastewater treatment facilities. Other efforts range from collecting old nets at harbors, to making plastic itself a currency to incentivize its collection, to using multimillion-dollar booms to skim plastic from the ocean’s surface, to volunteers diving to the seafloor to clean it up. There’s little doubt these efforts are well intentioned. But they are not all equal.
There is a harsh reality that all of us concerned with the mounting ocean plastic problem must confront: the vast majority of the plastic in the ocean is too small or too out of reach to ever be cleaned up. It is suspended in the water column, settled on the ocean floor, or degraded into microscopic particles that are difficult to detect, let alone collect.
That realization is vital. With the plastic pollution problem growing increasingly dire, and with so many potential solutions on offer—all competing for limited funding, resources, and public support—it is more urgent than ever to focus on the approaches that are most likely to succeed.

One of the best-known and best-funded efforts, the Ocean Cleanup, is instructional in understanding not only the size of the ocean plastic problem, but also the challenge of cleaning it up.
Founded in 2013 by then-18-year-old Boyan Slat, the nonprofit has raised more than $35-million to clean up the five gyres, convergence zones in the world’s oceans where plastic tends to concentrate. Slat’s first target is the North Pacific’s infamous Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
The Ocean Cleanup has tested multiple iterations of its plastic-catching booms. Though the project has seen some success in capturing plastic waste, a fundamental flaw plagues the approach. Photo by Abaca Press/Alamy Stock Photo
Slat’s plan is to harness the currents and the wind to herd the bigger floating pieces of plastic into horseshoe-shaped booms. Just as windblown trash gets ensnared in a fence, the plastic should get trapped in the booms until a boat can come to haul the debris to shore. Sounds simple. But after its first two pilot projects failed to gather trash, the Ocean Cleanup is years behind schedule. With a successful test of its third design in 2019, the organization says it is back on track to deploy 60 of its devices in all the world’s oceans within the next decade. In 2018, it estimated it could clean up 50 percent of the plastic in the ocean by 2023. It’s an audacious claim that many doubt is possible (not just because, by 2021, the organization had yet to deploy any operational booms). Yet Slat notes he has hired more than 100 staff and experts to help develop the project’s signature booms. He also likes to say that, sometimes, tackling big problems requires an outside perspective and a venture capitalist’s attitude.
“Rather than doing many small things that you hope add up, it’s much more effective to work on projects that are high risk and high reward,” he told Digital Trends in 2019. “If one of them works, you can actually solve the whole problem, or at least a large part of it.”
Through its trials, the Ocean Cleanup has helped spread awareness of the problem of plastic pollution. The organization has improved the scientific understanding of the kinds of plastic in the ocean and where it’s coming from. But from its inception, independent scientists have been critical of the Ocean Cleanup. Some expressed concerns about the unintended harm the booms could pose to marine life, such as pelagic fishes, sea turtles, and marine mammals. A well-discussed issue has been the booms’ effects on the neuston, a little-known community of organisms that lives in the ocean gyres. The neuston includes animals, plants, and microorganisms—like the Portuguese man-of-war, sea snails, and the sail jellyfish—that drift with the wind and currents. Neuston and plastic debris, maneuvered by the same forces, occur in the same areas. Collecting the plastic means collecting neuston, with unknown consequences for the open-ocean food chain.
Sail jellyfish and other neuston, creatures that are carried around the ocean by the wind and currents, are at risk of being ensnared by the Ocean Cleanup’s booms. Photo by Flip Nicklin/Minden Pictures
But a more direct concern for the Ocean Cleanup’s goal of cleaning up the five gyres is just how difficult it is to trap plastic in the open ocean. While there is plenty of plastic floating on the surface of the North Pacific gyre, even more is out of reach, suspended in the water column and degraded into tiny pieces that slip right through the booms.
Sönke Hohn, a biologist specializing in mathematical modeling at the Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research in Germany, is one of the Ocean Cleanup’s many skeptics. Last year, in collaboration with researchers in the United Kingdom and Germany, Hohn published an analysis of what it would take for the Ocean Cleanup to collect only the floating plastic in the largest five gyres. Hohn and his colleagues took the current amount of plastic in the ocean, added annual inputs, and compared it with how much plastic the Ocean Cleanup’s successful pilot collected. In the project’s 20-year estimated timeline, Hohn’s math showed that the Ocean Cleanup’s efforts would have no noticeable effect on the amount of plastic in the ocean. To clean up a fraction of one percent of the total, the Ocean Cleanup would have to run nonstop until 2150. Even when Hohn artificially increased the fleet to 200 booms, the project still only recovered five percent of the floating plastic.
“That was with an optimistic scenario,” Hohn says.
Logistics aside, Hohn also worries about the optics of the Ocean Cleanup’s efforts. If the project even appears to be working, the rest of us could feel absolved from action, he says. “The media and the public love the story of a young guy coming along to save the ocean,” Hohn says. “We like to think: he’s solved the problem. We don’t have to change anything. The truth is, we can’t rely on technology to clean up the ocean.”
Like many of his colleagues in marine plastic research, Hohn thinks the whole principle of cleaning up the ocean is misguided.

In July 2020, the Pew Charitable Trusts and Systemiq released a report called Breaking the Plastic Wave. Yonathan Shiran, the project director and author of an accompanying scientific study, compares cleaning up ocean plastic with mopping up a flooding house.
“First you have to turn off the source of the water,” says Shiran, “then you wipe up the floor. I do worry [cleanup efforts] are distracting us from the real solution—closing the tap.” No cleanup effort is cheaper and more effective than preventing plastic from entering the environment, the study found.
The cleanup quest is so futile, says John Hocevar, the ocean projects lead for Greenpeace USA, that he’d like to see every dollar earmarked for cleanup worldwide redirected to fixing the leaks. “We’re making the problem worse at a pace that far exceeds what we can possibly clean up,” he argues. “We need to close the tap as quickly as possible. Then I’ll be more excited to clean up the mess.”
But closing the tap may be an even more monumental task. In rich countries, cutting off the flow of plastic into the sea will require policy changes to encourage better waste management, a circular plastics industry, banning single-use plastics, and incentivizing reusable options. In poorer places, it requires all that and more widespread waste management.
People living in lower-income countries generally produce far less plastic waste per capita, but the Pew study found that two billion people are currently living without waste collection. With nowhere to put it, Shiran says, they’ll often dump their garbage in the street where rain and wind wash it into rivers, which eventually carry it to the ocean. Surveys of plastic at sea, combined with studies looking at ocean currents and drift patterns, show that more than 80 percent of the plastic in the ocean first bobbed down a river—a quarter of it down just 10 rivers, mostly in Asia. A growing population means that the number of people without garbage services will nearly double by 2040, compounding the problem. Expanding waste collection services to everyone would be nearly impossible, says Shiran.
Plastic debris tends to accumulate in a handful of key sites, such as in harbors and along beaches. Imaginechina Limited/Alamy Stock Photo
Knowing the leak is unfixable, at least for now, strengthens the argument for mopping up in the meantime.
“We don’t say, The oil spill is too big to clean up, so why bother,” says Susan Baer, the executive director and cofounder of Clear Blue Sea, a nonprofit working on a fleet of what are basically ocean-going Roombas. “Leaving that much plastic in the ocean is detrimental to human health and the health of the ocean. Every animal in the sea will eat whatever plastic it can fit in its mouth,” Baer says.
“Cleanup efforts are an important piece of the puzzle, right up until they’re not needed,” adds Chloé Dubois, cofounder of Ocean Legacy Foundation, a Canadian nonprofit that organizes beach cleanups and recycles marine debris among other activities. “They remove bigger pieces of plastic before they become impossible to clean up. They also help shift the narrative and public behavior. That’s what drives policy changes.”
So even if we are going to follow Hocevar’s lead and put as much time and money as we can into closing the plastic leak, that still leaves us in the same spot: figuring out which of the many competing cleanup efforts deserve our funding, support, and attention.
But the struggles of the Ocean Cleanup, and the realization that most plastic in the ocean—small, sunken, and degraded—is nearly impossible to collect, are insightful. Taken together, they lead us to a stance shared by many experts: that the best way to clean up the ocean is to stop trying to clean up the ocean.

After its own research showed plastic’s freshwater source, the Ocean Cleanup in 2015 diversified and started working on the Interceptor, a river boom system that funnels garbage into an anchored collection barge. The organization has installed three Interceptors: in the Klang River in Malaysia, in the Ozama River in the Dominican Republic, and in the Cengkareng drain in Indonesia. A fourth is in the works for the Mekong River in Vietnam. The organization is aiming to place an Interceptor in the 1,000 most polluted rivers by 2025.
The Ocean Cleanup’s Interceptor program recognizes the riverine source of most marine plastic waste and tries to catch it nearer to the source. Photo by Frans Blok/Alamy Stock Photo
But rivers are transportation corridors. To avoid conflicts with boats, the Interceptor only extends partway into the river. Plenty of trash slips by. When it does, it tends to collect in harbors. These sites, experts suggest, are ideal locations for concerted, targeted efforts—like the England-based Water Witch.
In the 1960s, Francis Caddick designed a boat custom made to clean up the water around the dock in Liverpool. More than 50 years later, the family-run company has evolved as marine litter has changed. “In our infancy, our vessels mostly worked clearing wood and vegetation,” says Jackie Caddick, the company director. “Now I would say a good 90 percent of what we remove is plastic, and we have developed our vessels to deal with this.”
The company’s largest dredger can skim up to a tonne of litter every three minutes, gathering up to 100 tonnes a day. Port authorities, marinas, and resort areas operate Water Witch dredgers in 200 locations worldwide.
Cleanup efforts, such as the Water Witch, that focus on key hotspots like harbors and beaches can collect plastic much more efficiently than projects focused on cleaning the open ocean. Photo by Elizabeth Leyden/Alamy Stock Photo
Another place plastic tends to accumulate is on beaches. Experts like the Ocean Legacy Foundation’s Dubois and Marcus Eriksen, the chief scientist with 5 Gyres, an environmental research organization, say that beach cleanups are another effective way to tackle the plastic problem. Cleaning shorelines may not be flashy enough to draw a lot of attention, but doing so prevents plastic that has washed ashore from returning to the ocean where it can sink to the bottom, or from degrading in the sun and breaking into tiny pieces that are impossible to clean up.
Though humble, beach cleanups have impact. Over the past 27 years, volunteers have cleaned nearly 45,000 kilometers of Canadian waterways as part of the Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup. The 2019 effort removed 160 tonnes of litter. In the northern Gulf of Alaska, a similar project, run by Gulf of Alaska Keeper, has cleaned up more than 2,400 kilometers of coastline since 2006, gathering more than 1,300 tonnes of plastic. That’s with just one crew working only during the summer. Imagine what similar efforts could do with the Ocean Cleanup’s $35-million. Even Greenpeace’s Hocevar, who favors better garbage collection over all efforts, says volunteer beach cleanups should continue, because they provide a link between the public and the plastic problem.
An even more concentrated source of plastic debris is the 500,000 to 1,000,000 tonnes of commercial fishing gear that gets lost at sea every year, says Eriksen. By weight, this ghost gear makes up a large percentage of the garbage cleaned off beaches in Alaska—up to 70 percent in one analysis—and at least 46 percent of the large plastic objects floating in the ocean, according to a study by the Ocean Cleanup. This ghost gear is especially damaging, because as well as polluting the ocean, it continues to kill marine life.
Research shows that a majority of floating plastic will, within a few years, wash up on a beach. Collecting it there prevents the plastic from breaking down or reentering the ocean. Photo by David Pereiras/Alamy Stock Photo
The good news is, compared with other industrial sources of plastic, fishing gear is fairly easy to collect or prevent from being lost. Several programs have set up free dump bins at docks to make it easier and cheaper for fishers to safely dispose of old gear. Bureo, a California-based company, buys aging nets from South American fishermen and turns them into skateboards and sunglasses. And Fishing for Litter, a program run by KIMO International, a European pollution prevention and ocean health NGO, plays to fishermen’s desire for sustainability. Since 2004, the program has encouraged commercial fishermen to gather ghost gear and other litter they find at sea and dump it in bins KIMO has set up at ports around Europe. Between 2016 and 2017, nearly 1,000 vessels gathered 470 tonnes of ocean plastics along with their catch—voluntarily.
“We’re aiming to change behavior for the long term, so that fishers are seen as part of the solution to marine litter,” says Arabelle Bentley, KIMO’s executive secretary. For fishers, she says, “it’s a feel-good factor.”
That desire to be part of the solution unites all cleanup efforts. But passion can be misplaced. The unfortunate reality is that there is no key to cleaning up the ocean. The solution is not flashy or sensational. It’s not an entrepreneur with a big idea—a person we can look to as the one who will solve the problem. It’s the boring stuff: when you use plastic, dispose of it properly. If you want to do more, help clean up a river, harbor, or beach. But really, we need to slow the flow of garbage trucks. Because right now, they’re speeding up. We are using more plastic every year. By 2050, the garbage trucks could be unloading every 15 seconds instead of every minute. We don’t have all that long before the ocean is teeming with more plastic than fish.

Sea turtles: Can these great marine migrators navigate rising human threats?

Humanity is quickly crossing critical planetary boundaries that threaten sea turtle populations, their ecosystems and, ultimately, the “safe operating space” for human existence.Sea turtles have survived millions of years, but marathon migrations put them at increasing risk for the additive impacts of adverse anthropogenic activity on land and at sea, including impacts from biodiversity loss, climate change, ocean acidification, land-use change, pollution (especially plastics), and more.The synergistic effects of anthropogenic threats and the return on conservation interventions are largely unknown. But analysts understand that their efforts will need to focus on both nesting beaches and ocean migration routes, while acting on a host of adverse impacts across many of the nine known planetary boundaries.Avoiding extinction will require adaptation by turtles and people, and the evolution of new, innovative conservation practices. Key strategies: boosting populations to weather growing threats, rethinking how humanity fishes, studying turtle life cycles (especially at sea), safeguarding habitat, and deeply engaging local communities. For millions of years, countless sea turtles navigated the world’s oceans, migrating vast distances between foraging sites and natal nesting beaches. But today, those long journeys repeatedly expose them to harmful anthropogenic impacts and disruptive environmental changes. And despite worldwide conservation efforts, all seven sea turtle species are endangered or critically endangered at global or regional levels.
The mass movement of these, and other animals, by land, sea or air, represents one of Earth’s ancient rhythms and one of its great wonders. Those migrations also weave together vital living threads that strengthen ecosystem structure.
Now, for myriad reasons — including human-made physical hazards, climate change, pollution, habitat loss, and much more — the frayed fabric of those global eco-structures is shredding fast. Species are disappearing at unprecedented rates and biodiversity loss is irrevocably altering natural systems, imposing adverse impacts on the world’s migrators.
The burning question: can sea turtles, people and conservation strategies evolve fast enough to protect the world’s epic migrations and the animals that make them?
A leatherback turtle laying eggs. Image courtesy of Florida USFWS.
Crossing planetary boundaries poses multiple threats
Biodiversity is just one of nine planetary boundaries that allow a “safe operating space for humanity,” according to an interdisciplinary team of scientists convened by the Stockholm Resilience Centre. The other eight boundaries that humanity must avoid overshooting are climate change, ocean acidification, land-system change, freshwater use, stratospheric ozone depletion, atmospheric aerosol pollution, biogeochemical flows (imbalances in the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles), and the impact of novel entities (such as chemicals, engineered materials or organisms).
Humanity has already breached the “core borders” of biodiversity loss and climate change, and overstepped the bounds of biogeochemical flows and land-system change. While the overshoot of just one core border could completely destabilize the Earth systems that sustain humanity, the crossing of any single boundary also risks destabilizing others — unleashing a domino effect. In coming decades, human activities will put as many as 1 million more plant and animal species at risk of extinction, according to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) 2019 report.
“Biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people are our common heritage and humanity’s most important life-supporting ‘safety net,’” said Sandra Díaz, an Argentinian ecologist who co-chaired the IPBES in 2019. “But our safety net is stretched almost to breaking point.”
Leatherback hatchlings hustling from nest to sea on Aruba. Image by Elise Peterson via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 3.0).
Turtles at added risk due to boundaries overshoot
Sea turtles hold a tenuous and unenviable position in the planetary boundary framework. Their life cycle requires safe passage across sea and land. Leatherback migrations, for example, can traverse the borders of more than 30 countries.
As humanity rapidly approaches the limits of more planetary boundaries, it puts these intrepid mariners increasingly in harm’s way from a variety of sources. If conservation efforts cannot reverse sea turtle losses, their plight could herald extinction for other migratory species, even perhaps for the greatest migrator of all: Homo sapiens.
The best-known environmental threats to sea turtles mostly involve the biodiversity planetary boundary (fisheries bycatch and human take of turtle eggs, for example), and the land-use change boundary (habitat and/or nesting site losses).
But now, redefined within the context of other human planetary boundary transgressions, the turtles face a plethora of poorly understood new hazards, plus looming questions about how conservation can pivot to help.
Movement patterns for Western Pacific and Eastern Pacific leatherback sea turtle populations. A female leatherback holds the record known migration distance for air-breathing marine reptiles: more than 20,000 kilometers (12,400 miles). Image courtesy of Bailey et al. (2012), PLOS ONE.
Assault on nesting beaches
Sea turtles are most visible to us when females come ashore to lay eggs, and that’s their habitat most studied by science. Climate change is one planetary boundary already known to be altering the sandy beaches where turtles nest and spend a brief but critical portion of their lives, posing multiple existential challenges. For example, because the sex of sea turtles is temperature dependent, more females are hatching as global warming pushes temperatures higher on the world’s nesting beaches. Today, females outnumber males three to one at many global sites.
“But how is feminization affecting populations?” asks Mariana Fuentes, a Florida State University marine conservation biologist. “How many males do there need to be to sustain populations? We don’t know.”
Novel entities, another planetary boundary, may be acting synergistically with global warming to turn up beach heat even more. Human-made microplastics mingled with nesting sand could be raising sand temperatures higher, says Fuentes, who is studying sand’s evolving thermal profile.
Clearly, all those females will need nesting beaches with optimal incubating environments — a key factor in the resilience of global turtle populations, Fuentes adds. But another boundary, land-use change, is reducing the availability and suitability of nest sites. As climate change escalates, more severe and frequent storms will erode more beaches, and primary nesting sites may disappear. Simultaneously, sea level rise due to climate change and the “armoring” of coastlines with human development, especially sea walls, will make the nesting situation worse.
Turtles have adapted and shifted to new nest areas in the past, but as humanity increasingly blocks beach access, will there be enough suitable nesting places?
A 9-centimeter (3.5-inch) sea turtle hatchling and the pieces of plastic found in its gastrointestinal tract. This amount of plastic could crowd out room for food that the hatchling needs to grow quickly and become less easy prey, says Jennifer Lynch, co-director of the Center for Marine Debris Research at Hawai‘i Pacific University in Honolulu. Image courtesy of Jennifer Lynch.
Leatherback turtle nesting on a beach in Grande Riviere, Trinidad and Tobago. Nesting sites help nourish coastal habitats. Image by Jordan Beard via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0).
Trouble at sea
Sea turtles spend the bulk of their life cycle at sea. In the oceans, acidification is causing severe losses of the world’s coral reefs and wiping out critical sea turtle rookeries. Studies also predict that reductions in reef species will change the composition of the sand on nesting beaches, potentially reducing successful egg incubation. In addition, increasing seawater acidity due to carbon emissions is causing some fish species to lose their sense of smell, hearing and homing ability. No one yet knows whether sea turtles could be similarly affected.
And although studies show that turtles hear best underwater, there is limited data about their behavioral responses to noise. As offshore wind farm installations to combat climate change become more commonplace, auditory hazards could alter migration routes or other important habitat, Fuentes says. Studies will be needed to find out.
Additionally, oceans are contaminated with an alphabet soup of industrial pollutants. These so-called novel entities include persistent organic pollutants (POPs) such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesticides, flame retardants, and a host of other toxicants.
“These are invisible threats [whose impacts] are hard to quantify,” says Jennifer Lynch, a research biologist affiliated with the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Meanwhile, industry and society continue flushing thousands of old and new chemicals into the sea, Lynch says. But sick sea turtles might only get tested for a mere dozen of those pollutants. It would be impossible to test for them all, so unknowns are rife: “Is the level of the chemical found in a turtle a toxic dose?” Lynch asks. We’ll probably never know because no one does toxic dosage testing on endangered turtles, she says. “We’ll never get ahead of these [contaminants].”
Even the impacts of oil spills on sea turtles are not well documented. A review of more than 2,000 oil spills worldwide, spanning 60 years, showed that effects on sea turtles were reported in less than 2% of incidents. And most of those documented effects related only to external oiling, not to internal harm from oil exposure, nor the impacts of oil absorbed into beach sand or the effect of chemical dispersants used in cleanups.
As ocean transport increases, novel fuel sources such as diluted bitumen pose potential new toxic perils.
An oil-coated sea turtle caught during the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. With increasing ocean transport using newer fuel sources, such as diluted bitumen or other chemicals, there is more potential for new types of toxic exposures. Image courtesy of Louisiana GOHSEP (Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness).
An oiled Kemp’s ridley sea turtle photographed during a boat-based survey during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. Studies show the effects of oil spills on sea turtles are not well documented. Image by Kate Sampson/NOAA.
Degraded ecosystems and chronic exposure to chemicals or heavy metals also lower a turtle’s immune defenses. Scientists say weakened immune systems could be playing a role in the development of fibropapillomatosis, a fleshy tumor often lethal to sea turtles.
Among novel entities, plastic pollution continues getting the bulk of media attention. These petroleum-based products contaminate all the world’s oceans with plastic nanoparticles, nylon fishing nets, plastic bags, and heaps of other trash.
“Microplastics make the headlines, but it is the macroplastics that are the top-tier threat to sea turtles,” states Lynch, who has analyzed the contents of hundreds of turtle gastrointestinal tracts in her role as co-director of the Center for Marine Debris Research at Hawai‘i Pacific University. While she routinely sees healthy-looking adult turtles that are “chock full” of plastic debris, the turtles that ingest meters-long monofilament fishing lines can die from twisted intestines. Those long lines can also become garrotes around flippers and necks.
The true extent of plastics harm at sea is very hard to quantify, Lynch says. How many turtles, for example, try to transit the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” but get entangled and die amid the plastic accumulation? Designing a study to answer that question feels impossible, Lynch adds. “So, the entanglement issue in the scientific literature is published as case studies, [but] case studies do not tell you anything about population level threat.”
Lynch is now laser-focused on reducing plastic pollution in Hawai‘i. One innovative project tracks derelict fishing gear that washes ashore back to the fishery or manufacturer of origin. “If they’re throwing it into the ocean because it’s scrap, then that’s littering,” says Lynch, who hopes the trace-back program can prevent repeat offenses. “We can do something about that!”
A leatherback sea turtle nabs a brown sea nettle. The large quantities of jellyfish that leatherbacks consume help control jellyfish populations. Unfortunately, plastic bags resemble jellyfish and get consumed by sea turtles. Image courtesy of Scott Benson (NOAA-ESA Permit #15634).
A sea turtle with fibropapillomas. These fleshy tumors are caused by a herpes virus infection and can be lethal for sea turtles. It is not clear why the virus affects only some turtle populations and not others or why the tumors are starting to wane in Hawaiian green turtle populations, yet worsening in other locations. Image courtesy of Peter Bennett & Ursula Keuper-Bennett.
Land-system changes are creating water quality problems for sea turtles, too. With increasing deforestation, cropland and pasture expansion by industrial agribusiness, and human development, the amount of sediment runoff and the cycling of nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients are being altered throughout Earth’s natural systems.
Agricultural runoff delivers an especially intense load of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution to the world’s estuaries. These nutrients then “fertilize” the seas and produce huge mats of algae that reduce water oxygen levels to zero, causing the formation of massive dead zones. Dead zones, like the vast one found annually extending far beyond the mouth of the Mississippi River, are on the upswing globally, and even exist in the open ocean. How sea turtles are being affected is unknown.
Surviving the odds: The Eastern Pacific leatherbacks
The litany of threats seems to stack the odds against sea turtles. Yet, olive ridleys (Lepidochelys olivacea) still appear for arribadas (mass nesting events) in India’s Odisha and Maharashtra states; black turtles (a variant of the green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas), have returned by the thousands to Mexican waters; and green sea turtle populations are thriving in Hawai‘i.
These successes arose from decades of dedicated efforts by local communities, regional conservation collaborations, and multinational agreements to protect marine habitats and nesting beaches, prevent egg collecting, reduce fisheries bycatch, and ban the export and sale of turtle products. But success is unevenly distributed around the globe.
The Eastern Pacific leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), for example, is in a decades-long decline. Since the 1980s, annual counts of nesting leatherbacks and their nests in Mexico and Central America have dropped by more than 90%, according to a 2020 population modeling study by the Laúd OPO Network. Pinpointed chronic losses are occurring due to fisheries bycatch and unsustainable levels of egg collection for human consumption.
But just because success is proving difficult in some regions, that’s no reason to give up, cautions Bryan Wallace, co-coordinator for Laúd OPO, also known as the Eastern Pacific Leatherback Conservation Network. “Just because the population is still on the ropes, doesn’t mean all the previous 30 or 40 years of effort wasn’t effective. We haven’t recovered the population [yet], which no doubt means we’ve got more to do,” he says.
Olive ridley arribada. A mass nesting event of olive ridley turtles in Oaxaca, Mexico. Image by Eder Omar Campos González via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0).
In the face of escalating anthropogenic threats, what is the “more” needed to avoid extinction? Wallace’s forthright answer: the survival of at least 200 more adult or subadult leatherbacks every year — starting within the next five years. His conclusion is based on population modeling scenarios and assumes continued success in protecting nests and hatchlings. Without more reproductive adults, the Eastern Pacific leatherbacks may go extinct in the next few decades.
Altering the way humanity fishes
Wallace makes an important point: Even if a turtle population can adapt to all the new anthropogenic challenges being thrown at it, there still need to be sufficient numbers of adult turtles to mate and survive those impacts: That winning numbers game needs to be a major component of future conservation efforts, according to Fuentes’ research into creating a sea turtle resilience index.
Saving adult turtles begins with a single high priority: preventing fisheries bycatch, long a focal point for conservationists. Recognized solutions include using turtle-friendly fishing gear, teaching fishers how to safely release entangled sea turtles, and restricting fishing along common sea turtle migration routes, while also getting fishing fleets to share information about, and avoid, sea turtle hotspots.
But despite these initiatives, sea turtles, including leatherbacks, spend most of their lives in harm’s way: swimming the global commons of the high seas where most industrial fishing fleets operate — also some of Earth’s least-protected places for marine life. So, targeting conservation toward small-scale fisheries, which account for more than 90% of commercial fishers worldwide that produce nearly 50% of the global catch, could make a big difference.
Joanna Alfaro-Shigueto, co-founder and president of ProDelphinus, a Peru-based NGO, has spent decades working to reduce bycatch by small fisheries along the more than 2,000 kilometers (1,240 miles) of her home country’s coastline.
To make their conservation plans more effective, Alfaro-Shigueto’s team developed a rapid bycatch assessment to fill information gaps. Instead of going to sea and counting actual bycatch, rapid assessments rely on land-based interviews with boat captains and fishers. ProDelphinus’s surveys from 43 ports in Peru, Ecuador and Chile showed that small-scale gillnet fisheries caught more than 46,000 sea turtles — and killed more than 16,000 — every year. The highest counts were in Peru and Ecuador, highlighting where to concentrate conservation work.
Researcher Joanna Alfaro-Shigueto observing bycatch aboard a fishing vessel. “We want to conserve turtles, and they want the fish,” says Alfaro-Shigueto. “So, let’s do something that will benefit the species, fishermen, and conservationists so everybody can see the benefit of working together.” For her work with ProDelphinus, she received the “Architect of Conservation” category of the Carlos Ponce Prize in 2020 and the Whitley Award in 2012. Image courtesy of Joanna Alfaro-Shigueto.
The Laúd OPO Network set up workshops to use this assessment method more widely. That led to a leatherback bycatch survey across 79 fishing communities in Mexico, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama and Colombia. Results estimated that a minimum of 345 leatherbacks were caught annually in small-scale fisheries across that region. The survey also found that ports close to nesting beaches were bycatch hotspots, providing a comprehensive regional map as to where the next phase of conservation should focus. Importantly, fishers reported that 80% of captured leatherbacks were released alive, which means teaching people how to safely release animals could improve bycatch survival rates.
Innovative uses of existing technology could also help reduce bycatch. In the eastern tropical Pacific, use of gillnets harmful to turtles by small-scale fisheries is among the highest in the world. ProDelphinus partnered with researchers at the University of Exeter, U.K., to distribute LED lights among three small-scale Peru fisheries. When fishers attached the lights to gillnets, it helped sea turtles avoid them, and bycatch dropped by more than 70%.
Improving on this idea, scientists at Arizona State University, U.S., designed solar-powered lights. When fishers in Baja California Sur, Mexico, put the flashing, self-charging lighted buoys on gillnets, they reduced sea turtle bycatch by 65-70% while maintaining target fish catch, says Jesse Senko, lead researcher and marine conservation scientist. With fewer turtles to disentangle and less net damage to repair, the fishers also saved time. Unfortunately, Senko estimates that mass production of the solar lights may take another five years. The leatherbacks might not be able to wait that long.
“In the big picture, we are not just trying to conserve turtles. We are also trying to promote sustainable fisheries,” says Alfaro-Shigueto. “The challenge now? Conservation is not fast enough and we are running out of time.”
When fishers attach LED lights to gillnets, it helps sea turtles avoid the nets and drops the rates of bycatch. Image courtesy of Jesse Senko.
Changing the future of sea turtle conservation
If sea turtles lack the time to adapt, perhaps it’s time for conservation to adapt its methods, say practitioners. For example, there’s a long-running terrestrial bias built into sea turtle research. Most studies are conducted on land where researchers can easily walk about, counting nesting females, eggs or hatchlings. “But that is a tiny sliver or snapshot of their overall lives,” says Kate Mansfield, a sea turtle biologist at the University of Central Florida.
For that reason, relatively little is known about males because they don’t come ashore. Likewise, leatherbacks spend most of their lives in the open ocean, and no one knows where they go during their “lost years,” or what may benefit or impair their survival while there.
“These animals live at least as long as humans. And they occur in different parts of the world at different ages and life stages,” explains Mansfield. “In order to best protect and conserve these species, we really need to know this stuff.”
A recent study, for example, changed scientists’ long-held assumption that young turtles cruise along ocean currents to reach distant forage sites. Mansfield and her colleagues stuck solar-powered tracking devices on juvenile greens. Surprisingly, they found that young turtles deliberately swam out of big currents to get to good foraging habitat provided by seaweed mats in the North Atlantic’s Sargasso Sea — sadly also “one of the dirtiest and most damaged parts of the open ocean.” The gyre of four currents bounding this shoreless sea traps huge amounts of plastic waste; turtle impacts aren’t known.
There are similar knowledge gaps about the journeys subadult and adult leatherbacks make. Now, Mansfield is testing a new tracking technology, called ICARUS, which pings satellite signals off the International Space Station for potentially more accurate turtle tracking.
But much more research is needed. The current dearth of data “would be like having human doctors in hospitals only knowing about, and able to treat, teenagers and older people,” says Mansfield. “It’s really important to understand where these animals are going … because they are ultimately the foundation of the rest of the population.”
Green sea turtles help manage seagrass meadows. A new study shows the two-way relationship between healthy seagrass and marine mega herbivores, pointing toward the importance of conservation efforts for ecosystem stability. Image by P. Lindgren via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0).
Protecting habitat key to turtle conservation
Just keeping tabs on turtles and their movements may miss two essential points for successful future conservation: a focus on habitats and humans.
Species-focused approaches to conservation appeared during the 1960s and ’70s, when turtle extinctions seemed imminent, says Kartik Shanker, an ecologist at the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru. “But [since then] we haven’t been able to let go of that [approach] enough.”
In places where populations are recovering, Shanker argues, not enough is being done to safeguard sea turtle habitat, despite ecosystem protections that are part of international agreements, including the Indian Ocean’s Southeast Asian Marine Turtle Memorandum of Understanding, the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.
“When push comes to shove, management and mitigation actions have been species-focused instead of habitat-focused,” Shanker states. “Turtle populations do seem able to bounce back. But what they can’t bounce back from is if [nesting] beaches don’t exist anymore.”
Unfortunately, there’s no perfect strategy for protecting these beaches from human nature, with its penchant for coastal development, or Mother Nature.
“There’s a lot we don’t know about sea turtles,” says David Godfrey, executive director of the Sea Turtle Conservancy. “This is an animal that’s existed for 100-plus million years. They know how to adapt.” Image courtesy of David Godfrey.
“To me, the key [sea turtle] conservation issues are protecting those breeding grounds and eliminating as many marine threats as we can,” says David Godfrey, executive director of the Sea Turtle Conservancy, a Florida-based NGO that monitors major nesting sites in Florida, Costa Rica and Panama, and advocates for policy changes to preserve key habitats.
A key problem: there’s a lot researchers don’t know about the value of potential population and habitat protection initiatives. For example, the outcomes of interventions — such as relocating nests to save them from sea level rise, or the incubation of eggs at cooler temperatures to produce more males — aren’t well understood, Fuentes admits.
With limited resources, it’s important to pinpoint the most effective actions, she urges. “There’s a lot that could be done, but we need to have a better understanding of the tradeoffs or effectiveness, and the return on conservation efforts before implementation.”
Another big blind spot is that threats are typically treated individually, “But we need to be considering the cumulative impacts — the synergies,” says Fuentes.
Whatever scientists discover about sea turtles and their collisions with humanity’s planetary boundary overshoots, it won’t be enough if that knowledge can’t be turned into practical action. “Scientists don’t always know the best way to translate the right information to the right person at the right time to ensure that the best science is used to maximize conservation outcomes,” Fuentes says.
For Godfrey, one of the most important things to know is not just the science, but the people in elected offices: “If you want to protect wildlife and the environment, those people make all the difference.”
Researcher Mariana Fuentes with a loggerhead sea turtle. “We need to be considering the cumulative impacts — the synergies,” says Fuentes, a marine conservation biologist at Florida State University. Image courtesy of Mariana Fuentes.
‘There will be another chance’: Embracing traditional points of view
As big as the anthropogenic impacts ahead may be, future conservation successes will still need to rely heavily on engaged individuals and local communities. “We need to be working towards — not severing — the links that people have with nature,” says Shanker, co-founder of Dakshin, an NGO focused on the human side of conservation.
In many situations, he notes, Indigenous resource utilization has been condemned and not considered part of conservation solutions. “It has become culturally embedded that any use of sea turtles is wrong,” a view Shanker says is predominantly Western in origin, but which drives much of global policy. That outlook is entrenched in places like India, he says, where the dominant paradigm is staunchly protectionist toward sea turtles and other species.
Even sustainable use, such as the legal egg harvest in Ostional, Costa Rica, stirs controversy. There, the monthly arribadas of olive ridleys produce so many eggs that community members can collect during the first nesting wave without major harm, while boosting the local economy.
Seeking to better understand what sea turtles mean to communities near nesting areas took marine biologist Jose Urteaga away from the turtle-nesting beaches of Nicaragua to study the social drivers of poaching and resource use at Stanford University in California.
In the 1980s, unsustainable egg harvesting on Nicaragua’s Pacific coast pushed the leatherback population there to collapse. In 2002, with the NGO Fauna & Flora International, Urteaga started working with communities: He trained locals to run an egg hatchery and created a program paying collectors to bring eggs to the hatchery instead of illegal markets. Those efforts expanded to protect nearly 100% of nest sites on three key beaches.
Still, the population continued crashing. In the 2019-20 season, not a single leatherback nest was found on the protected beaches — an impact that hurt both natural and human communities.
A nest of leatherback eggs. Saving eggs remains crucial to leatherback survival. But without more reproductive adults, the Eastern Pacific leatherback isn’t likely to recover from future impacts. Image courtesy of USFWS Northeast region.
During the early years of his conservation work, a memorable conversation with an elder egg trader forever changed Urteaga’s perception about local peoples’ stake in sea turtle survival. “What do the turtles mean to you?” he asked the old woman, confronting her as if she were the enemy. The elder replied:
I’m going to explain to you what these turtles and the ocean mean to me. When my sons were sick and I needed medicine for my sons, the turtles gave me the money to get medicine. When my sons were hungry and they needed food, the turtles gave me the food to feed my children. And when the children needed to go to the school, the turtles gave me the resources to send them to school. So, if that doesn’t tell you how important the turtles are, and what they mean to me, nothing is going to do it.
Years later, at Stanford, Urteaga analyzed the many human factors affecting turtle conservation. He found direct evidence of community commitment to conservation: I n Nicaragua, most local communities that paid incentives offered less money than the illegal market. But Urteaga found that collectors were willing to accept lower payment for the eggs because they viewed it as their contribution to sea turtle conservation.
The need to better understand people may also apply to conservationists themselves, notes Urteaga. Sea turtles, particularly the giant leatherback, are viewed as almost mythical creatures by many practitioners. “They touch some part of our heart, and sometimes we think that conservation, ultimately, is changing the minds and the souls of people in that direction,” he says.
But people in local communities, who live in totally different realities, don’t need to embrace that same mythical mindset to conserve turtles. “We can just agree on the need to protect a resource that is also important for them.”
Today, female leatherbacks are finally returning to the beaches of Nicaragua. Not many. But enough to reaffirm Urteaga’s optimism, an outlook he acquired from the dedicated community people he worked with over the decades. He says they tell him: “There will be another chance. There will be another turtle that will come. There will be another opportunity to protect the nests and to release those hatchlings to the sea.”
Adapting together — turtles and people — the great migrators may be able to continue their epic journeys for ages to come.
A green sea turtle entangled in marine debris. Studies show that plastics — ranging from nanoparticles to nylon fishing nets — can now be found in every part of the world; in the oceans, air, and at every level of the food chain, to the detriment of wildlife. Image courtesy of NOAA.
A nesting female returns to the sea after laying her eggs on Jamursba Medi Beach, Indonesia. “Sea turtles are survivors,” says researcher Bryan Wallace. Image by Jo Carletti via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0).
Citations:
Alfaro-Shigueto, J., Mangel, J. C., Darquea, J., Donoso, M., Baquero, A., Doherty, P. D., & Godley, B. J. (2018). Untangling the impacts of nets in the southeastern Pacific: Rapid assessment of marine turtle bycatch to set conservation priorities in small-scale fisheries. Fisheries Research, 206, 185-192. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2018.04.013
Bailey, H., Fossette, S., Bograd, S. J., Shillinger, G. L., Swithenbank, A. M., Georges, J., … Hays, G. C. (2012). Movement patterns for a critically endangered species, the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), linked to foraging success and population status. PLOS ONE, 7(5), e36401. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036401
Benson, S. R., Forney, K. A., Moore, J. E., LaCasella, E. L., Harvey, J. T., & Carretta, J. V. (2020). A long-term decline in the abundance of endangered leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea, at a foraging ground in the California Current Ecosystem. Global Ecology and Conservation, 24, e01371. doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01371
Laúd OPO Network (2020). Enhanced, coordinated conservation efforts required to avoid extinction of critically endangered eastern Pacific leatherback turtles. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 4772. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-60581-7
Mansfield, K. L., Wyneken, J., & Luo, J. (2021). First Atlantic satellite tracks of ‘lost years’ green turtles support the importance of the Sargasso Sea as a sea turtle nursery. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 288(1950), 20210057. doi:10.1098/rspb.2021.0057
Mazaris, A. D., Schofield, G., Gkazinou, C., Almpanidou, V., & Hays, G. C. (2017). Global sea turtle conservation successes. Science Advances, 3(9), e1600730. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1600730
Sardeshpande, M., & MacMillan, D. (2019). Sea turtles support sustainable livelihoods at Ostional, Costa Rica. Oryx, 53(1), 81-91. doi:10.1017/S0030605317001855
Santidrián Tomillo, P., Genovart, M., Paladino, F. V., Spotila, J. R., & Oro, D. (2015). Climate change overruns resilience conferred by temperature-dependent sex determination in sea turtles and threatens their survival. Global Change Biology, 21(8), 2980-2988. doi:10.1111/gcb.12918
Urteaga, J., Torres, P., Gaitan, O., Rodríguez, G. & Dávila, P. (2012). Leatherback, Dermochelys coriacea, nesting beach conservation in the Pacific coast of Nicaragua (2002–2010). In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. San Diego, CA, USA. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-631. Retrieved from: https://internationalseaturtlesociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/31-turtle.pdf
Banner image: Loggerhead sea turtle hatchlings crawl to sea. Image by Blair Witherington FWC-FWRI via Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0).
FEEDBACK: Use this form to send a message to the author of this post. If you want to post a public comment, you can do that at the bottom of the page.

Animals, Biodiversity, Climate Change, Coastal Ecosystems, Conservation, Coral Reefs, Endangered Species, Environment, Estuaries, Extinction, Herps, Human-wildlife Conflict, Marine Animals, Marine Biodiversity, Marine Conservation, Ocean Crisis, Ocean Warming, Oceans, Oceans And Climate Change, Oil Spills, Overconsumption, Poaching, Pollution, Reptiles, Research, Sea Turtles, Turtles, Water Pollution, Wildlife, Wildlife Conservation, Wildlife consumption
PRINT

Sunlight can break plastic down into chemicals that dissolve in water

Researchers are looking at the effect sunlight has on plastics. (WHOI)Sunlight can transform some plastics into water-soluble chemicals, new research has shown.Researchers previously thought that sunlight would only ever break down plastics in the sea into microplastics – which then persist in the environment forever.But analysis of real-world bags produced by retailers showed that the effect of sunlight is often very different.Researchers found that the chemical reaction can produce tens of thousands of water-soluble compounds, or formulas, in just weeks.Watch: Plastic threatening islands in CaribbeanThe researchers say this could mean manufacturers can produce plastics that are easier to break down in sunlight.Co-author Collin Ward, assistant scientist in Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution’s Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry Department, said: “It’s astonishing to think that sunlight can break down plastic, which is essentially one compound that typically has some additives mixed in, into tens of thousands of compounds that dissolve in water.“We need to be thinking not only about the fate and impacts of the initial plastics that get leaked into the environment, but also about the transformation of those materials.”Read more: Melting snow in Himalayas drives growth of green sea slime visible from spaceHe added: “We don’t really know yet what impacts these products might pose to aquatic ecosystems or to biogeochemical processes such as carbon cycling. “While plastics breaking down more quickly than expected may seem like a good thing, it’s unclear how these chemicals may affect the environment.”The researchers write: “The growing evidence that photochemical transformation of plastics is an important transformation process in surface waters challenges a widely held assumption about the persistence of plastic in the environment.”They say scientists and policymakers “tend to assume that sunlight exposure merely physically fragments macroplastics to microplastics, which subsequently persist forever in the environment.”Story continuesThe new findings “fundamentally challenge this guideline and indicate that sunlight not only aids physical fragmentation of plastic, it chemically alters it, producing a suite of transformation products that no longer resemble the parent material,” the researchers write.Read more: A 1988 warning about climate change was mostly rightThe study examined the breakdown under sunlight of four different single-use consumer polyethylene plastic bags from three major American retailers that make a lot of plastic bags (Target, CVS and Walmart) and compared them to pure polyethylene film.Most plastic bags are not just a pure base resin, but include a complex formulation of chemical additives to make the plastic behave or look a certain way.Up to about one-third of the mass of each of the retailers’ plastic bags was inorganic additives.The organic compounds produced by sunlight were analysed at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, which designed and developed a mass spectrometer equipped with a 21 tesla magnet that achieves the highest mass resolution and accuracy in the world.Read more: Why economists worry that reversing climate change is hopelessResearchers found that under sunlight exposure, the four retailer bags from about 5,000 formulas (for the Target bag) to 15,000 formulas (for the Walmart bag), while the pure polyethylene film produced about 9,000 formulas.Many previous studies of marine plastics have generally used pure polymers, which don’t reflect the reality of plastics released into the marine environment.Ward said: “If the goal is to understand the fate and impacts of these materials, we need to study plastics that are representative of those that are actually leaked into the environment, as well as study the weathering processes acting on them,”Co-author Christopher Reddy, senior scientist in WHOI’s Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry Department, said: “I am excited about this work because it provides actionable and attainable approaches for making less persistent plastics in the future.“By simply modifying the ingredients in their recipes, the plastic industry can make their products more susceptible to breakdown once the product reaches its useful lifespan.”Watch: Royal Marines complete ‘world’s most dangerous row’ to raise awareness of plastic pollution

Limerick company redesigns bottle caps to reduce plastic pollution

Limerick-based ISHKA Irish Spring Water is on course to dramatically reduce plastic pollution through the use of tethered caps and will trial the caps across its spring water range from this week – three years before EU rules making it compulsory for plastic bottle tops to remain connected to bottles. Pictured are Denis Sutton, Director, and Mark Taylor, Head of Operations, ISHKA Irish Spring Water.
LIMERICK-based ISHKA Irish Spring Water is on course to dramatically reduce plastic pollution through the use of tethered caps, becoming the first bottled water company in Ireland to do so.
The company will trial the caps across its spring water range from this week – three years before EU rules make it compulsory for plastic bottle tops to remain connected to bottles.Bottle tops account for 10% of plastic litter found on European beaches and the EU’s Single-Use Plastic Directive includes a provision to ensure they are recycled together with the rest of the bottle.
Sign up for the weekly Limerick Post newsletter
Later this year, all ISHKA 500ml spring water bottles will have their caps fully attached to the bottle, making them extremely difficult to remove.
“ISHKA is determined to do all we can as a business to drive the necessary change in consumer behaviour to help solve our global waste problem and protect marine life,” said Denis Sutton, Director of ISHKA Irish Spring Water.
“Due to their current design and size, caps are much more likely to be littered – and while this may seem like a small problem, they are one of the top five most commonly found items of litter on beaches worldwide.
“A simple design change that keeps caps attached to bottles means they are much more likely to be recycled with the bottle, hence our early move to launch tethered caps well ahead of the EU Directive deadline.”
Recent research from ISHKA, through iReach, shows many consumers are embracing the green message, with half of all respondents saying the type of water they buy is influenced by whether bottles can be recycled after use.
A separate study by PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that around 1,350 bottling lines EU-wide will need to be prepared to handle tethered caps.
“As a company, we’re continually committed to product innovation and differentiation with sustainability at the core,” said Mark Taylor, Head of Operations, ISHKA Irish Spring Water.
“Over the summer we invested substantially in tooling up our machines and adapting our production lines so that our 500ml bottles can be fully recycled from bottle through to the cap. And from early next year, our full range of bottle sizes will have tethered caps.”
Based in Ballyneety in Limerick, ISHKA Irish Spring Water lays claim to being Ireland’s freshest spring water as it is bottled straight from five certified wells, untouched by human contact and not stored prior to bottling.

California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable

The well-known three-arrows symbol doesn’t necessarily mean that a product is actually recyclable. A new bill would limit the products allowed to feature the mark.The triangular “chasing arrows” recycling symbol is everywhere: On disposable cups. On shower curtains. On children’s toys.What a lot of shoppers might not know is that any product can display the sign, even if it isn’t recyclable. It’s false advertising, critics say, and as a result, countless tons of non-recyclable garbage are thrown in the recycling bin each year, choking the recycling system.Late on Wednesday, California took steps toward becoming the first state to change that. A bill passed by the state’s assembly would ban companies from using the arrows symbol unless they can prove the material is in fact recycled in most California communities, and is used to make new products.“It’s a basic truth-in-advertising concept,” said California State Senator Ben Allen, a Democrat and the bill’s lead sponsor. “We have a lot of people who are dutifully putting materials into the recycling bins that have the recycling symbols on them, thinking that they’re going to be recycled, but actually, they’re heading straight to the landfill,” he said.The measure, which is expected to clear the State Senate later this week and be signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom, is part of a nascent effort across the country to fix a recycling system that has long been broken.Though materials like paper or metals are widely recycled, less than 10 percent of plastic consumed in the United States is recycled, according to the most recent estimates by the Environmental Protection Agency. Instead, most plastic is incinerated or dumped in landfills, with the exception of some types of resins, like the kind used for bottled water or soda.For years, the United States also shipped much of its plastic waste overseas, choking local rivers and streams. A global convention now bans most trade in plastic waste, though U.S. waste exports have not completely ceased.This summer, Maine and Oregon passed laws overhauling their states’ recycling systems by requiring corporations to pay for the cost of recycling their packaging. In Oregon, the law included plans to establish a task force that would evaluate “misleading or confusing claims” related to recycling. Legislation is pending in New York that would, among other things, ban products from displaying misleading claims.In the past year, a number of environmental organizations have filed lawsuits seeking to combat misleading claims of recyclability by major corporations. Environmental groups have also criticized plans by the oil and gas industry to expand its production of petrochemicals, which are the main building blocks of plastic, because the process is highly polluting and creates new demand for fossil fuels.The recycling symbol is “subconsciously telling the people buying things, ‘You’re environmentally friendly,’” said Heidi Sanborn, the executive director of the National Stewardship Action Council, which advocates corporations to shoulder more responsibility for recycling their products.“Nobody should be able to lie to the public,” she said.In California, the bill won the backing of a coalition of environmental groups, local governments, waste haulers and recyclers. Recycling companies say the move will help them cut down on the non-recyclable trash thrown in recycling bins that needs to be transported, sorted and sent to the landfill.Pete Keller, vice president of recycling and sustainability at Republic Services, one of the country’s largest waste and recycling companies, said in an interview that more than a fifth of the material his company processes nationwide is non-recyclable garbage. That means that even on its best day, Republic is running at only 80 percent efficiency, processing materials it shouldn’t be processing, he said.Some of the most common forms of non-recyclable trash marring operations at Republic’s 70 facilities across the United States, which processes six million tons of curbside recycling a year: snack pouches, plastic film, grocery bags and packing material. Plastic bags, in particular, can’t be recycled in most curbside recycling programs and notoriously gum up recycling machines.“There are a lot of products in the marketplace today that have the chasing arrows that shouldn’t” Mr. Keller said. “There aren’t really any true end markets, or any real way to recover and ultimately recycle those materials in curbside programs.”The plastics and packaging industry has opposed the bill, saying it would create more confusion for consumers, not less. An industry memo circulated among California lawmakers urges them to oppose the bill unless it is amended, arguing it “would create a new definition of recyclability with unworkable criteria for complex products and single use packaging.”The letter was signed by industry heavyweights like the American Chemistry Council, the Plastics Industry Association and Ameripen, a packaging industry group. California should wait for Washington to come up with nationwide labeling standards, the groups said.In discussions over the bill, opposition industry groups also said that if a product is deemed non-recyclable, companies won’t invest in technologies to recycle it. Supporters of the bill say the opposite would be true: Tougher rules would incentivize manufacturers to make their products truly recyclable by investing in new packaging, for example.Dan Felton, Ameripen’s executive director, expressed concerns that the bill would actually reduce recycling rates. The bill “could have the unintended consequence of sending more packaging material to landfills at the very time when California needs to boost recycling,” he wrote in an email.The American Chemistry Council referred questions to Ameripen. The Plastics Industry Association, which represents plastic manufacturers, warned that the bill would determine a slew of products to be unrecyclable and therefore would be landfilled. (Supporters of the bill point out those products are landfilled anyway, despite displaying the recycling symbol.)Environmental groups said that strengthening government oversight is critical. “It’s the wild, wild West of product claims and labeling with no sheriff in town,” Jan Dell, an engineer and founder of The Last Beach Cleanup, an environmental organization, wrote in an email.The bill would make it a crime for corporations to use the chasing arrows recycling symbol on any product or packaging that hasn’t met the state’s recycling criteria. Products would be considered recyclable if CalRecycle, the state’s recycling department, determines they have a viable end market and meet certain design criteria, including not using toxic chemicals.In addition to plastics, the bill covers all consumer goods and packaging sold in the state, excluding some products that are already covered by existing recycling laws, such as beverage containers and certain kinds of batteries. Through its environmental advertising laws, California already prohibits companies from using words like “recyclable” or “biodegradable” without supporting evidence.