Category Archives: Plastic Pollution Articles & News

The Archeoplastica project was started by a group of Italian environmental activists who decided to collect and exhibit old plastic products found on beaches and elsewhere in the natural environment to show how plastic may remain intact – and polluting – for decades.

Existing sewage treatment plants in Dhaka treat only 30% of all sewage waste.Emerging pollutants such as antibiotics, microplastics, detergents, toothpastes, shampoos and lotion are found in Dhaka’s urban rivers and lakes.Microplastics are also found in fish, snails, crabs and sediments of the Buriganga River in Dhaka.City authorities suggest installing small treatment plants in residential buildings. DHAKA — Md. Dulal Mia, 50, ferries passengers in his small boat from one end of the Buriganga River to the other. He has been living along the river for the last three decades.
“The stench from the pitch-black water is almost intolerable. Nearby factories and houses release their sewage into the river,” says Dulal.
Not just the Buriganga; most bodies of water in and around Dhaka have become toxic as a result of the city’s inefficient sewage system. The water not only carries toxic substances and harmful bacteria, but recent studies have found further presence of “emerging pollutants” such as microplastics and antibiotics.
All of this has resulted in a spike in waterborne diseases among the city’s inhabitants.
Boatmen queue for passengers to cross the Buriganga River. The passengers can hardly breathe due to the stench of the pitch-black water while they travel. Image courtesy of S.M. Najmus Sakib.
The city’s sewage treatment plants (STPs) have capacity to treat only 30% of the sewage produced daily, while the lack of coordination between two government agencies responsible for managing sewage and waste has exacerbated the situation.
Most residences’ sewage systems are connected to the city’s drains, which carry the wastewater through storm sewers to STPs. Many storm sewers are sealed or damaged, disrupting the flow of sewage, while there are also not enough STPs to treat all the sewage.
The treatment plants usually release the water into rivers after treatment. The city is supposed to have five separate treatment plants at the sewage release points in five rivers — Turag, Balu, Buriganga, Dhaleshwari and Shitalakshya. Not a single one of them, however, is functional.
“We have storm sewage lines in Dhaka because we don’t have a system of ground storage of sewage waste,” Shahriar Hossain, secretary general of Environment and Social Development Organization (ESDO), told Mongabay.
“But the storm sewage lines are also not functional. Most sewage is released into the water without being treated,” he added.
Untreated residential sewage waste releases to urban water bodies in Dhaka. Image by Khalliur Rahman/ESDO.
New research highlight presence of emerging pollutants
A recent study found an alarming presence of emerging pollutants (EPs) in surface water, which has become a new threat to the environment and health, as the existing sewage system is inefficient at treating industrial and household waste.
The study, published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances this October, said an abundance of microplastics was found in water and sediments of Dhaka’s urban lakes and rivers. Nineteen sites (in five lakes and five rivers) were sampled for the study.
Another study also confirmed that EPs, which include antibiotics, microplastics, detergents, toothpastes, shampoos and lotions, are polluting the environment. The study was published in the Journal of the Bangladesh Chemical Society.
There is evidence of coliform, fecal coliform, E. coli and microplastics in Dhaka’s surface water as a result of sewage waste contamination. Such contamination cannot be purified even after boiling the water, experts say.
Shafi Mohammad Tareq, a corresponding author of the Chemical Society study and also a professor at Jahangirnagar University’s Department of Environmental Sciences, told Mongabay, “Dhaka city needs a huge quantity of STPs to treat the city’s sewage waste.”
There’s an alarming presence of emerging pollutants (EPs) in surface water, which has become a new threat to the environment and health. Image by Shafi Mohammad Tareq.
The presence of antibiotics is a particular menace for city dwellers.
Antibiotics are used to neutralize harmful bacteria inside the human body, but antibiotics doses cannot be absorbed 100% by the human metabolic system. Thus, up to 40% of live antibiotics remain in sewage after leaving the human body.
These remaining antibiotics eventually get released into the environment, rivers and lakes.
“When live antibiotics, even in a limited amount, reach the environment, it helps the bacteria available in the environment to develop resistance. Therefore, we become vulnerable to drug resistance, meaning antibiotics become ineffective against bacteria-borne diseases,” said Tareq.
Pharmaceutical companies across the globe have been struggling to develop new antibiotics as existing antibiotics have become drug-resistant.
Meanwhile, microplastics exist in nanograms or micrograms in the sewage, which cannot be treated by conventional effluent treatment plants, or ETPs.
Bangladesh mostly imports ETPs from India and China and has found they are inefficient to treat microplastics, according to the researchers of the study.
The presence of antibiotics in water sources is also a menace for city dwellers. Image by Khalliur Rahman/ESDO.
Read more: Humans are dosing Earth’s waterways with medicines. It isn’t healthy.
Health hazard
Microplastics have a serious adverse effect on the environment and public health. The chemicals used in making plastic are toxic and can lead to cancer in the human body. There is evidence of microplastics in the food chain, including in sea and river fish, salt and sugar.
Excessive amounts of harmful microplastics have been found in the soil, water and animals in the Buriganga River.
In another study, researchers examined the soil, water, 11 species of fish, snails and crabs of the Buriganga River, and found the presence of microplastics. Riverbed sediment, water and fishes are affected by microplastics and metals. Sediments host most of the pollutants.
The study was published this October in the peer-reviewed journal Science of The Total Environment.
Emerging pollutants like microplastics, antibiotics, lotions, toothpastes, whitening detergents and shampoos, which are being released into the environment through water sources, also enter agricultural land. They enter food grains and eventually the human body, creating long-term health effects.
“All drinking water, including WASA [Water Supply and Sewerage Authority] water and bottled water of different companies, carry E. coli bacteria, which we find in the toilet,” ESDO secretary Hossain added.
Such bacteria cannot be treated using conventional methods, so they remain in the water and food chain. The growing number of waterborne stomach diseases among Dhaka city residents is an indication of that, Hossain pointed out.
Gastric medicines have recently become the top-selling medicine in Bangladesh over the last five years. Taka 34.18 billion ($331 million) in gastric medicines was sold last year, a 30% increase, according to a recent report by Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University.
Dumping solid and liquid wastes alike together has killed part of the Old Dhaka urban area. Image courtesy of S.M. Najmus Sakib.
Lackluster authorities
The Dhaka city corporation is supposed to monitor and manage the storm sewage system while the Dhaka Water Supply and Sewerage Authority (WASA) is supposed to manage waste treatment for the city’s residential water supply.
But there is a serious gap between the two government agencies in ensuring service to city dwellers.
Dhaka North City Corporation (DNCC) chief executive Md. Selim Reza told Mongabay that an “embarrassing” situation prevails in sewage waste management in Dhaka, mainly due to the lack of cooperation among the government agencies.
“People who are responsible for managing it have shown negligence,” he said, admitting there were no waste treatment plants in most of the sewage points in Dhaka, while the rest were not functioning properly.
He suggested Dhaka residential building owners install treatment plants to treat household sewage waste to keep the environment safe.
The city authority said it had taken up a number of fresh programs to reconstruct the faulty sewage system, apart from efforts to stop sewage contamination of rivers and other water sources.
Pitch-black water of Buriganga River in Dhaka’s river port. The water color changes due to the indiscriminate dumping of industrial and household liquid and solid wastes. Image courtesy of S.M. Najmus Sakib.
The city authority has also warned building owners of Dhaka’s upscale residential areas like Gulshan, Banani and Baridhara that they will seal their sewage line if any building is found releasing sewage water into city lakes.
Gholam Mostofa, chairman of the Dhaka WASA board, also admitted to the coordination gap between the two government agencies. However, he told Mongabay the city corporation is leading the city’s sewage waste management system.
“It is crucial there is coordination among government agencies to have a sound sewage management and ensure a healthier environment in Dhaka,” he said, adding the situation would have been better if the ongoing projects of WASA gathered momentum in implementation.
DNCC Mayor Md. Atiqul Islam recently said that in Dhaka city, authorities had tried to culture fishes in city lakes, and even in posh areas, but failed completely. The lakes have become breeding grounds for mosquitoes instead.
The city authority has already written to the capital development authority, RAJUK, to impose requirements for installation of treatment plants in residential buildings in order to treat household sewage waste before it is released into the environment.
Experts say the city sewage system needs to be improved and redesigned, zone-wise, one after another, and not in unison or concurrently.
Related reading: 
Weak waste management leaves Dhaka communities at risk from landfill sites

Banner image: Used polythene waste on the banks of Buriganga River in Dhaka. Polythene releases emerging pollutants, including microplastics. Image courtesy of S.M. Najmus Sakib.
Citations:
Parvin, F., Hassan, M. A., & Tareq, S. M. (2022). Risk assessment of microplastic pollution in urban lakes and peripheral rivers of Dhaka, Bangladesh. Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances, 8, 100187. doi:10.1016/j.hazadv.2022.100187
Niloy, N. M., Sharmin, F., Shajed, S. N., & Tareq, S. M. (2022). Identification and characterization of sources and fate of emerging pollutants (EPs) in surface water of Bangladesh using three-dimensional excitation-emission (3DEEM) spectroscopy. Journal of the Bangladesh Chemical Society, 34(1), 126-36.
Haque, M. R., Ali, M. M., Ahmed, W., Siddique, M. A., Akbor, M. A., Islam, M. S., & Rahman, M. M. (2023). Assessment of microplastics pollution in aquatic species (fish, crab, and snail), water, and sediment from the Buriganga river, Bangladesh: An ecological risk appraisals. Science of The Total Environment, 857, 159344. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159344

Chemicals, Development, Diseases, Environment, Health, Lakes, Microplastics, Pollution, Public Health, Rivers, Waste, Water Pollution
Print

“Our government has a duty to set, and enforce, ground rules that protect public health and safety. We are the referees, we are here to prevent big corporations and the powerful industries from harming our communities or running over the rights of citizens. When it comes to fracking, Pennsylvania failed.”

Gov.-elect Josh Shapiro made that statement in 2020 as attorney general in response to the findings of the 43rd statewide grand jury commissioned by his office. The two-year investigation exposed systemic failures by state agencies to protect Pennsylvanians living in close proximity to fracking operations and an absence of effective regulation and oversight of the industry.

Now, Shapiro prepares to take office as governor in the wake of one of the largest methane leaks in U.S. history in Cambria County, as Shell’s cracker plant begins producing plastics from fracked ethane and while residents in rural Greene County are still without safe drinking water after a ‘frack-out’ impacted the local aquifer. 

On the campaign trail, Shapiro pledged support for a set of more stringent regulations recommended by the grand jury for Pennsylvania’s hydraulic fracturing industry. And in one of his closing acts as attorney general, he announced a plea agreement with the fracking corporation Coterra, addressing fracking’s impact on the water in the Susquehanna County town of Dimock.

The midterm election pitted the Democrat Shapiro against Doug Mastriano, a Republican state senator who pushed for deregulation of the state fossil fuel industry and called for more lands to be opened for fracking and drilling.

With the election in the past, it remains to be seen how Shapiro will govern, what obstacles he will face and to what extent his vision for natural gas regulation will be seriously pursued or successfully implemented.

A record to run on

As the commonwealth’s chief prosecutor, Shapiro took actions that he said would hold fracking companies accountable.

The world now has eight billion people, according to the United Nations. The milestone, reached late this year, comes at a time when climate change is increasingly disrupting life on Earth as we know it. Wildfires and droughts continue to rage in the American West. Floods are destroying towns. Heatwaves are making summers deadly. And the greenhouse gas emissions that worsen these disasters are increasing. Hope, however, is not lost for all eight billion of us.Scientists are creating new ways for us to coexist with nature, from hacking the genome of plants to creating marine reserves that protect people and the planet. Politically, the environment also won some major victories this year. Here are six environmental wins from 2022. 1. Global climate deal addresses a longtime injusticeSome of the countries most affected by climate change have done the least to cause it. That’s why world leaders at a global climate conference—COP27—this past November agreed to a financing system that would help developing nations access financial assistance to adapt to and recover from climate change. The deal is being hailed as historic recognition of a growing global climate injustice. Countries seeking restitution have seen their claims bolstered by what’s called “attribution science”—the science of linking individual storms, heatwaves, and other weather disasters to global climatic changes. For example, when Pakistan was hit by deadly, catastrophic floods this summer, research showed the floods were worsened by climate change. Even though Pakistan contributed less than one percent of the world’s carbon emissions that propelled the disaster, the country was on the hook for billions in damages.2. Protecting nature has surprising benefits for us  Marine protected areas are stretches of ocean that limit human activity to protect animal and plant species. Scientists say these reserves are important for limiting the rapid rate of extinction happening as a result of climate change and human activities like drilling, mining, and shipping.The world’s largest marine reserve, Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in Hawai’i, has shown it not only protects marine life in the park’s boundaries, but also helps the marine life living outside its borders flourish. And, as an added bonus, it helps us, too.A study on the reserve published this October found that boats fishing for lucrative tuna species outside of the park’s boundaries have been catching more tuna since the park was created. Scientists think these catch rates are a result of the “spillover effect” of marine reserves—meaning when fish populations in the park flourish, they “spill over” into nearby areas. Evidence that protected areas like these can benefit both people and nature shows that more sustainable ways of doing business are possible. 3. U.S. makes historic investment in fighting climate change In the U.S., the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was a political win for the planet. Signed into law in August, the IRA invested $369 billion in clean energy projects and incentives for energy-efficient technology such as electric vehicles. “This is the most consequential piece of U.S. legislation for the climate ever,” Richard Newell, chief executive of Resources for the Future, a nonprofit energy research organization, told National Geographic writer Craig Welch at the time.Scientific analysis of the bill showed it could help the U.S. more quickly transition to renewable energy. By the end of the decade, 81 percent of the country’s energy could come from sources such as wind and solar power. The bill also quietly introduced the nation’s first-ever fee on a greenhouse gas—methane, a more potent source of planet-warming pollution than carbon dioxide. 4. Hacking into the technological power of plants As humans pump more carbon dioxide pollution into the atmosphere, plants—from prairie grasses to rainforest trees—play an essential role in removing that carbon from the air and storing it underground. Using CRISPR gene editing technology, scientists are embarking on an $11 million research project to try to hack photosynthesis to suck carbon out of the air more efficiently. A man works to grow baby leafy greens on a reusable substrate made from recycled plastic bottles. Vertical farms like these are an innovative way food producers are experimenting with growing more fresh food for a growing population. Photograph by Luca Locatelli, Nat Geo Image CollectionPlease be respectful of copyright. Unauthorized use is prohibited.In addition to carbon storage, scientists are also changing how plants are grown for food. Living on an increasingly populous planet means we’ll need new ways to feed more people nutritious food grown on even less space. To do so, scientists are making strides in food innovation that rival science fiction. Research published in June showed it was possible to grow some edible plants—including algae, edible yeast, and mushrooms—without photosynthesis. This promising first step to growing food in the dark could be useful for astronauts traveling through space or as an insight into how to make crops grow more efficiently on Earth. Scientists are also constructing experimental greenhouses at the bottom of the sea to conserve water and energy. Photographer Luca Locatelli’s recently published photographs show an underwater farm in Italy. 5. Cracking down on plastic  Plastic is everywhere—in our water, air, and even our blood. That’s why governments, internationally and at the local level, are trying to curb the amount of plastic flowing into the environment. In March, 175 United Nations delegates agreed to negotiate a global treaty by 2024 that would curb the flow of plastics. The treaty would legally require countries to clean up their plastic pollution, a framework that is stricter than the voluntary emissions reductions countries make under the Paris Climate Agreement. And in June, California passed a game-changing plastics law that aims to reduce the amount of plastic in single-use products by a quarter over the next 10 years. Restricting production, instead of improving recyclability, is a significant shift in how governments tackle plastic pollution.6. Finding ways to protect—and restore—nature In the tropical coral reefs of Hawai’i, nature is finding a way to adapt to climate change. Two commonly found species of coral may be able to successfully live in warmer ocean temperatures, according to research published in March. This adaptation offers some hope that reefs, which experience massive die-offs during heatwaves, may survive rising temperatures.  Meanwhile, humans are giving nature a large helping hand through the rewilding movement. Rewilding is loosely defined as the process of bringing back lost plant and animal species. Scotland, which is committed to becoming the world’s first “rewilded nation,” is bringing back to life forests that have been lost for centuries. In California and Louisiana, nature is being allowed to correct its own course. A federal energy agency recently approved a plan to demolish four dams along California’s lower Klamath River to restore critical salmon habitats. Along the Gulf Coast, Louisiana took a major step toward its plan to alter the flow of the Mississippi River delta and divert river sediment downstream—a last-ditch effort to restore the state’s disappearing shoreline.On our radar for 2023—new regulations for drinking water.The Environmental Protection Agency has until the end of the year to propose a new drinking water rule to address chemicals called PFAS. Short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS is technically a class of chemicals that includes as many as 9,000 different iterations of the substance. They are in everyday household items: raincoats, carpet, curtains, non-stick pans. But studies show most of us have it in our blood, too—and we’re only just starting to learn about the long-term health consequences. The EPA rule would regulate two types of PFAS called PFOS and PFOA.A drinking water standard would be a major step toward regulating PFAS in our tap water and an environmental win for next year.

This week in Uruguay, scientists, environmentalists, and government representatives—and, of course, lobbyists—are gathering to begin negotiations on a United Nations treaty on plastics. It’s only the start of talks, so we don’t know how they will shape up, but some of the bargaining chips on the table include production limits and phasing out particularly troublesome chemical components. A draft resolution released in March set the tone, acknowledging that “high and rapidly increasing levels of plastic pollution represent a serious environmental problem at a global scale, negatively impacting the environmental, social and economic dimensions of sustainable development.” Which is a bureaucratic way of saying that plastic pollution—both macroplastics like bags and bottles, and microplastics like fibers from synthetic clothing—is a planetary catastrophe of the highest order, and one that’s getting exponentially worse. Humanity is now churning out a trillion pounds of plastic a year, and that’ll double by 2045. Only 9 percent of all the plastic ever produced has been recycled—and currently the United States is recycling just 5 percent of its plastic waste. The rest of it is either chucked into landfills or burned, or escapes into the environment. Wealthy nations also have a nasty habit of exporting their plastic waste to economically developing nations, where the stuff is often burned in open pits, poisoning surrounding communities. Plastics are also a major contributor of carbon emissions—they’re made of fossil fuels, after all.Environmentalists and scientists who study pollution agree that the way to fix the plastic problem isn’t with more recycling, or with giant tubes that collect trash floating in the ocean, but by massively cutting its production. But while we don’t know what will eventually make it into the treaty—negotiations are expected to extend into 2024—don’t expect it to end the manufacturing of plastic the way a peace treaty would end a war. Instead, it could nudge humanity toward treating its debilitating addiction to polymers, by for instance targeting single-use plastics. “We’re not going to have a world without plastic—that’s not in the very foreseeable future,” says Deonie Allen, a plastics scientist at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand. “However, the way we currently use it, that is a choice we can make today.” Think of the unmitigated flow of plastic into the environment as a stream. If you want to treat the problem downstream, you remove the waste that’s already in the environment, the way a beach cleanup does. Farther upstream—literally so—you might deploy river barges to intercept plastic before it reaches the ocean. But the farthest upstream you can go is just not producing the plastic in the first place. That’s why the treaty needs to include a limit on plastics production, an international team of scientists argued in the journal Science after the draft resolution was published. “What we’re really going to be pushing for is for mandatory and obligatory caps on production,” says Jane Patton, campaign manager of plastics and petrochemicals at the Center for International Environmental Law, who’s attending the talks. “We’re going to be pushing for changes in the way the plastics are produced, to eliminate toxic chemicals from the production and the supply chain.”The draft resolution does indeed call for addressing the “full lifecycle” of plastic, meaning from production to disposal. But time will tell how successful negotiators will actually be in getting agreement on a cap. Ideally they’d agree to an internationally binding limit, but it’s also possible that individual countries will end up making their own commitments. 

Globally, waste pickers are responsible for collecting and recovering – from homes, businesses and landfills – up to 60% of all plastics which are then recycled. These workers do more than any other people to prevent plastic contaminating the environment, yet their work is rarely valued and they struggle to earn a decent living.

Despite recycling the waste of others, waste pickers often lack waste collection services themselves. They suffer the consequences of pollution more than most by inhaling fumes from burning plastic and breathing air and drinking water that is heavily contaminated with microplastics. Waste pickers are also vulnerable to abuse and exploitation as a result of being women, immigrants, indigenous or belonging to ethnic minorities and oppressed castes.

Punta del Este, an affluent resort town in Uruguay, is hosting the first intergovernmental negotiations to create a legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution on land and sea. Punta normally hosts high-end tourists from Argentina and Brazil. Now, it is welcoming more than 1,000 delegates and observers from 160 nations and a range of environmental campaign groups, plastic industry representatives and waste pickers.

Waste pickers are known in Uruguay as clasificadores and can be found working in Punta’s nearest municipal landfill, a 20 minute-drive from the convention centre where the negotiations will take place. There, and in Uruguay’s capital of Montevideo, clasificadores have long carried out the lion’s share of plastics recycling. They scour landfills and bins and organise collections from homes and businesses before sorting recyclable from non-recyclable waste.

Clasificadores risk their lives doing this. In August 2022, a waste picker was found dead at Punta’s landfill – crushed by a reversing dump truck. While such deaths are thankfully rare, accidents, chronic illnesses and low life expectancy are common among waste pickers. Nevertheless, a new book by one of the authors, Patrick O’Hare, Rubbish Belongs to the Poor, shows how recyclable waste also offers a readily accessible source of income and provides a refuge for the poor and marginalised.

Historic recognition

Waste pickers are increasingly included in municipal waste management plans and services in various countries. Beyond collecting and sorting waste, waste pickers have also taken roles teaching people how to recycle waste properly. Multinational companies which generate a lot of plastic packaging, including Coca-Cola, Pepsico, Unilever and Nestlé, recently signed up to an initiative which would commit them to improving the rights of people in the informal waste sector who recover plastic to make recycled packaging with. It’s hoped this process might eventually lead to manufacturers buying recycled material directly from waste pickers, fairer prices and improved health and safety standards.

Plastic packaging is a major contributor to environmental litter.
Nokuro/Shutterstock

Now, waste pickers are also partners in devising the global treaty to curb plastic pollution. A ten-strong delegation from the International Alliance of Waste pickers (IAW) is attending the negotiations in Uruguay to influence the treaty as it takes shape. The IAW demands to be represented in all future treaty discussions – and, for this reason, has called for ring-fenced UN funding for six waste pickers from different regions to attend subsequent meetings.

Efforts to clean up pollution will fail if new plastics continue to be produced at an increasing rate as forecasts suggest is likely. The treaty is expected to introduce new rules forcing plastic manufacturers to change the design of their products and restricting their production of non-recyclable plastic. It will also seek to increase recycling rates, since only around 9% of the plastic that has ever been produced has been recycled. The IAW are keen to ensure that waste pickers benefit from these changes.

Plastics are more likely to find their way into and pollute the environment if there is no market for recycling them. Unrecyclable or difficult to recycle materials, which are likely to face production limits in the treaty (such as expanded polystyrene and sachets), offer little value to waste pickers. Where plastic bans and caps would affect livelihoods, the IAW has called for waste pickers to be given opportunities to transition into other forms of work.

At the negotiations for a global plastics treaty, waste pickers are asking to be involved in how plastic waste and recycling policies are designed and implemented within countries and internationally. It may be too late for reforms to benefit the Uruguayan clasificador who died in August. Yet if negotiations in Punta del Este end with overdue recognition of the role of waste pickers in tackling plastic pollution, this will be a small step towards honouring his memory.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 10,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Ross Kemp enjoying a pint in a ‘self-destructing’ cup that leaves behind no microplastics or toxins (Picture: Lyfecycle)Ross Kemp has voiced his disgust at plastic pollution as he recalls seeing the impact first-hand while filming for a new documentary.
The former Emmerdale star has become renowned for his documentaries since leaving the soap, with Ross Kemp on Gangs winning a Bafta for best factual series.
Kemp has also faced the Taliban, Somali pirates and been in actual war zones for his Extreme World series.
However he recently came across something which disgusted him to the core while filming a new documentary much closer to home.
The star is working on the second season of Shipwreck Treasure Hunter, which sees him dive deep off the coast in search of items of significance.
When recently diving in the UK, Kemp saw animals covered in plastic due to the ‘atrocious’ pollution in our seas.
‘The amount of plastic pollution in our oceans is absolutely atrocious,’ he tells Metro.co.uk.

Ross Kemp has decried the ‘atrocious’ plastic pollution in our seas as he recalls seeing the effects first-hand (Picture: AETN)

The former Emmerdale star was diving off the coast for the new series of Shipwreck Treasure Hunter (Picture: AETN)‘You might see it washed up on the beach but that is a fraction of what is in our oceans. Only recently, diving off Lundy, I saw a seal with plastic wrapped around one of its fins.
Elsewhere in the UK, ‘I saw a cormorant moving past me when I was 25 metres deep, and it had plastic around its neck. The amount of times I’ve been out on small boats and we’ve had to stop because there’s plastic around the propellor.’
The actor and environmental activist has teamed up with company Lyfecycle, which has developed a biodegradable or ‘self-destructing’ plastic.

Kemp recalls seeing a seal and bird with plastic around their fin and neck while taking part in the show (Picture: AETN)Together, they are calling for sport stadiums around the world to bring in the biodegradable plastic cups, which have already been in use at Twickenham for some time.
He was at the stadium over the weekend ahead of England’s match against South Africa where he showcased a ‘self-destructing’ cup which biodegrades within two years, leaving no microplastics or toxins behind.
He said: ‘If you can come up with a plastic that biodegrades…you are lifting a heavy heavy weight off the planet.
‘A weight that I’m sadly responsible for and generations before me have been responsible for.

Kemp is calling for sport stadiums around the world to bring in the use of biodegradable plastic cups to help protect the planet (Picture: Backgrid)‘I was born in the 60s, and in the 70s everything was made of plastic. And now as I travel the world making documentaries, everywhere I go I see plastic.
‘In Libya, where the sands blow by the side of the road you see sand, plastic, sand, plastic. Eight years of sand under layers of plastic.
‘My generation are more guilty probably than any other generation before us. Particularly in the last 60 or 70 years, in human beings’ ability to pollute the world, we’ve done an outstanding job.’
Mainstream use of Lyfecycle’s technology, which can be used in everything from plastic bottles to baby wipes and face masks, could be ‘globe-changing,’ he said.

The documentary-maker says the new technology could be ‘globe-changing’ (Picture: AETN)‘If people start adopting this in venues around the world using the Lyfecycle cup and the technology it brings, it will change plastics forever.’
As well as seeing the damage of plastic pollution first-hand, Kemp says he got involved in the campaign as it’s making a difference without ‘ramming it down people’s throats.’
‘It’s having a positive effect on the environment without being lecture-y, without those issues… it’s an excellent way of doing something about it, being part of something, without necessarily having to get a big flag out to do so.’
More: Trending

The products work by being ‘self-destructing’ or biodegradable, with Kemp explaining: ‘If this cup doesn’t end up in a recycling bin and it ends up somewhere on street, in a field, in the ocean, over two years it will degrade itself.
‘There’s so much plastic out there. If the technology exists to make it self-destruct and no longer harm this planet then we should embrace it.’
Liepa Olsauskaite, Lyfecycle spokesperson, said: ‘Plastic pollution is still out of control, and change is not happening fast enough – which is where Lyfecycle’s self-destructing technology and visionary partners like Twickenham come in.
‘We are delighted that rugby fans at Twickenham have engaged so strongly with this campaign. We have to act now: if we continue down our current path, 450 million further tonnes of plastic will reach the oceans by 2040.’
Got a story?
If you’ve got a celebrity story, video or pictures get in touch with the Metro.co.uk entertainment team by emailing us celebtips@metro.co.uk, calling 020 3615 2145 or by visiting our Submit Stuff page – we’d love to hear from you.

MORE : Ross Kemp would ‘never say never’ to returning to EastEnders: ‘It’s either that or pantomime forever’

MORE : Ross Kemp recalls terrifying moment he was almost ‘dragged away fighting currents’ while filming new documentary

Eating roasts wrapped in plastic leads to even more microplastics in the food, scientists have warned. (Getty Images)Eating a Sunday roast can result in swallowing 230,000 particles of microplastics, a study has warned.Microplastics are tiny pieces of plastic less than 5mm in size, which scientists believe can harm wildlife – and may pose health risks to humans.Researchers said that eating a Sunday roast every day is the equivalent to eating two plastic bags every year.The study, conducted by University of Portsmouth scientists in partnership with Good Morning Britain, found that a chicken roast dinner made with plastic packaging contained seven times more microplastics than it would without.The research suggests that plastic packaging is a major route for microplastics to get into human bodies.Read more: A 1988 warning about climate change was mostly rightDr Fay Couceiro, reader in environmental pollution at the University of Portsmouth, said: “From the results it would appear that the majority of microplastics in our food come from the plastic packaging it is wrapped in. However, there are other ways that plastic can enter the food chain.”It could be getting into the vegetables through the soil or into our meat through grazing. Air has lots of microplastics in it too, so they could be falling on top of the food and finally it could be from the cooking utensils used when preparing a meal.”Usually food samples are analysed for microplastics in their raw state under laboratory conditions. This allows us to understand how much plastic is inside a particular type of food.”This study differs because we chose to look at what was actually on your plate after the food had been cooked.”Instead of a sterile laboratory, the food was cooked in a normal kitchen, so it is likely the microplastics will come from a combination of the food, the packaging, cooking utensils and the air.”Read more: Melting snow in Himalayas drives growth of green sea slime visible from spaceAlberto Costa MP, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on microplastics, said: “Plastic can enter our bodies through the air we breathe and through our food as highlighted in this investigation.Story continues”We don’t yet know the effect this has on our health, but I would very much welcome more research and investigation into this so we can understand if there are any impacts.”Earlier this year, a study suggested that tiny particles of microplastic are already polluting every lake and river in Britain, posing as-yet-unknown risks to wildlife.Even remote bodies of water such as Loch Lomond are polluted with plastic particles.Researchers from Bangor University and Friends of the Earth collected water samples from rivers, reservoirs and lochs in England, Scotland and Wales.Every sample contained plastic, with the River Tame in Greater Manchester having more than 1,000 particles per litre, and Loch Lomond having 2.4 particles per litre.Ullswater in the Lake District had 29.5 shards of microplastic per litre.Watch: Study suggests whales ingest 10 million pieces of plastic per day

Many American households are beginning to prepare for one of the biggest holidays of the year: Christmas. And for those who celebrate, that often means figuring out what to do about a tree — the time-honored centerpiece of the season’s festivities.What type of tree or, in some cases, trees you choose largely comes down to personal preference. For many people, a real tree represents tradition — a chance to re-create memories of finding “The One” and hauling it home from the forest or a neighborhood tree lot — with a fresh scent that helps create a holiday atmosphere. On the other hand, artificial trees offer convenience, since they can be reused year after year and typically come with built-in lights or decorations.But with more consumers becoming increasingly concerned about their purchases’ environmental impact, you might be wondering which type of Christmas tree is more planet-friendly. Here’s what you need to know when it comes to whether real or artificial trees are better for the environment.The argument for real treesWhile you might worry that chopping down tens of millions of trees each year amounts to an environmental nightmare, a real Christmas tree can be more sustainable than an artificial one, says Bill Ulfelder, executive director of the Nature Conservancy in New York.“There should be no remorse, no guilt, like, ‘Oh my goodness, it’s a cut tree.’ It’s absolutely the contrary,” says Ulfelder, who has a master’s degree in forestry. “Trees are a renewable resource. When they’re being cut, they’re being harvested in ways that they’re being replanted, so it’s a great renewable resource that provides lots of environmental, conservation and nature benefits.”For one, living trees absorb carbon dioxide — a main contributor to global warming — from the air and release oxygen. It can take at least seven years to grow a Christmas tree to its typical height of between six and seven feet, according to the National Christmas Tree Association (NCTA), a trade group that in part represents growers and sellers of real trees. While estimates can vary significantly, one study suggests that growing Christmas trees may sequester nearly a ton of carbon dioxide per acre, according to the Sightline Institute. What happens to that carbon depends on how these trees are treated once they’re cut and discarded.As many as one in six U.S. tree species is threatened with extinctionAs these trees grow, not only do they provide clean air, but they can also serve as wildlife habitats, help improve water quality and slow erosion, and preserve green spaces. Christmas trees are often grown on hillsides that wouldn’t be suitable for farming other types of crops and for every tree harvested, one to three seedlings are planted the following spring, according to NCTA.What’s more, real trees can be repurposed in ways that continue to benefit the environment even after they’re no longer living. Cities such as New York and D.C. have municipal programs that collect dead Christmas trees and turn them into mulch. The trees can also be used to prevent dune erosion or sunken in ponds and lakes to create natural habitats for freshwater wildlife, Ulfelder says.“There’s life for [real] Christmas trees after Christmas,” he says.Gene editing could revive a nearly lost tree. Not everyone is on board.But Ulfelder and other experts recognize that there is an environmental cost to farming and distributing real trees. Growing trees requires water and, in many cases, fertilizers and pesticides. On top of that, harvesting trees and shipping them from farms to stores or lots can produce emissions.Still, real trees may be the preferred choice over artificial ones when it comes to overall sustainability, which also takes into account economic and social impacts, says Bert Cregg, a professor of horticulture and forestry at Michigan State University. “That’s where I think the real trees are head and shoulders above” artificial trees, Cregg says.There are nearly 15,000 Christmas tree farms in the United States, the vast majority of which are family-owned operations, and the industry provides full or part-time employment to more than 100,000 people, according to NCTA.“Like any other agriculture, are you going to support local farmers or are you going to support a large manufacturer someplace else?” Cregg says.Sign up for the latest news about climate change, energy and the environment, delivered every ThursdayGoing artificialMost of the artificial trees sold in the U.S. are manufactured in China, according to NCTA, citing data from the U.S. Department of Commerce. The trees are typically loaded onto fossil-fuel-burning ocean freighters bound for the U.S., where they are distributed to retailers nationwide. But experts say the emissions associated with transporting artificial trees are less significant than what is produced when making them.Artificial trees are often made of plastic, a petroleum-based material, and steel. Many trees use polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, which has been linked to health and environmental risks. Trees can also be made of polyethylene, another type of plastic, says Mac Harman, founder and CEO of Balsam Hill, a leading retailer of artificial Christmas trees and holiday decor in the United States.Although not much about artificial trees initially sounds Earth-friendly, in certain cases they can be the more environmentally conscious choice, according to the American Christmas Tree Association (ACTA), a nonprofit industry group that represents artificial tree manufacturers.One 2018 study analyzed real and artificial Christmas trees across different environmental metrics, including global warming potential, primary energy demand and water usage, among others, and found that artificial trees may have less environmental impact if they are reused for at least five years compared to buying a new real tree each year.“The impact of both types of trees varies based on how far consumers travel to get their tree, how they dispose of their tree (for live trees, landfill, incinerate, or compost), and how long consumers use their trees,” according to a summary of the study from ACTA, which released the assessment conducted by WAP Sustainability Consulting.But another in-depth study released in 2009 concluded that artificial trees would only become better than natural ones if they were used for 20 years.According to Harman, a Nielsen survey paid for by ACTA found that nearly 50 percent of artificial tree owners reported planning to use their trees for 10 or more seasons.He adds that artificial trees also are often given away or donated, which can extend their life span. The downside, though, is that once these trees are no longer of use to anyone “they do end up mostly in landfills at this point,” he says.More plastic eventually winding up in landfills should worry consumers, Ulfelder says.“If you keep artificial trees truly long enough, the carbon footprint may be smaller, but then you’ve still got plastic and then there’s plastic going into the landfill,” he says. “So that’s just one way of looking at the comparison, and I think we just need to look at the whole of the nature benefits of the natural trees.”What you should doIf you’re interested in a real tree, Ulfelder recommends trying to buy local whenever possible. Driving a long distance in a gas-guzzling car to get to a farm or seller can be a significant source of emissions. Buying your tree from a farm or lot in your area can also help support the local economy. The top Christmas tree producing states include Oregon, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Washington, according to NCTA.Looking for an organically grown Christmas tree is an additional step you can take to help the environment, Ulfelder says.The U.S. Forest Service also sells permits to people who want to go out into the wild and cut down their own tree. “For every tree that is found, cut and carried home as a holiday fixture, you’re also contributing to the overall forest health,” according to a government website selling the permits.Buying a living tree, or one that can be replanted outdoors, is another option. “The big trick is getting the tree to live afterward,” Cregg says.If you have a living tree, it’s critical not to keep it inside your home for too long, especially if you’re in northern parts of the country, or it may begin to lose its ability to withstand cold temperatures, he says. He suggests leaving the tree up for two weeks at most before moving it to an unheated garage or patio until springtime. “Then, you can plant it just like your normal spring planting routine.”It’s also important to take care of real trees, Cregg says. The trees need a lot of water and he recommends checking your tree stand daily to make sure your tree isn’t drying out.And how you dispose of your real tree matters. “If people put the tree in a bonfire, all that carbon is back in the atmosphere,” Cregg says.If you’re planning to mulch your tree, make sure to remove any decorations, Ulfelder says. Leftover ornaments, lights or pieces of tinsel can create a headache for mulchers.For those who prefer artificial trees, try to keep them in use and out of landfills for as long as possible.And although real and artificial trees can have varying impacts, experts say it’s important to consider this holiday decision in the context of other personal choices that can contribute to climate change.“At the end of the day, assuming that an artificial tree is used for at least five years, neither tree has a significant impact on the environment when compared to other activities of daily living like driving a car,” Harman says.