Category Archives: Plastic Pollution Articles & News

Microplastics can deposit and linger within riverbeds for as long as seven years before washing into the ocean, a new study has found.Because rivers are in near-constant motion, researchers previously assumed lightweight microplastics quickly flowed through rivers, rarely interacting with riverbed sediments. Now, researchers led by Northwestern University and the University of Birmingham in England, have found hyporheic exchange — a process in which surface water mixes with water in the riverbed — can trap lightweight microplastics that otherwise might be expected to float.The study was published today (Jan. 12) in the journal Science Advances. It marks the first assessment of microplastic accumulation and residence times within freshwater systems, from sources of plastic pollution throughout the entire water stream. The new model describes dynamical processes that influence particles, including hyporheic exchange, and focuses on hard-to-measure but abundant microplastics at 100 micrometers in size and smaller.Aaron Packman“Most of what we know about plastics pollution is from the oceans because it’s very visible there,” said Northwestern’s Aaron Packman, one of the study’s senior authors. “Now, we know that small plastic particles, fragments and fibers can be found nearly everywhere. However, we still don’t know what happens to the particles discharged from cities and wastewater. Most of the work thus far has been to document where plastic particles can be found and how much is reaching the ocean. “Our work shows that a lot of microplastics from urban wastewater end up depositing near the river’s source and take a long time to be transported downstream to oceans.”Packman is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Northwestern’s McCormick School of Engineering and director of the Northwestern Center for Water Research. He also is a member of the Program on Plastics, Ecosystems and Public Health at the Institute for Sustainability and Energy at Northwestern. Jennifer Drummond, a research fellow at the University of Birmingham and former Ph.D. student in Packman’s laboratory, is the study’s first author.Modeling microplastic movementTo conduct the study, Packman, Drummond and their teams developed a new model to simulate how individual particles enter freshwater systems, settle and then later remobilize and redistribute. The model is the first to include hyporheic exchange processes, which play a significant role in retaining microplastics within rivers. Although it is well-known that the hyporheic exchange process affects how natural organic particles move and flow through freshwater systems, the process is rarely considered microplastic accumulation.“The retention of microplastics we observed wasn’t a surprise because we already understood this happens with natural organic particles,” Packman said. “The difference is that natural particles biodegrade, whereas a lot of plastics just accumulate. Because plastics don’t degrade, they stay in the freshwater environment for a long time — until they are washed out by river flow.” To run the model, the researchers used global data on urban wastewater discharges and river flow conditions. Trapped in headwatersUsing the new model, the researchers found microplastic pollution resides the longest at the source of a river or stream (known as the “headwaters”). In headwaters, microplastic particles moved at an average rate of five hours per kilometer. But during low-flow conditions, this movement slowed to a creep — taking up to seven years to move just one kilometer. In these areas, organisms are more likely to ingest microplastics in the water, potentially degrading ecosystem health. The residence time decreased as microplastics moved away from the headwaters, farther downstream. And residence times were shortest in large creeks.These deposited microplastics cause ecological damage, and the large amount of deposited particles means that it will take a very long time for all of them to be washed out of our freshwater ecosystems.”Aaron Packmancivil and environmental engineerNow that this information is available, Packman hopes researchers can better assess and understand the long-term impacts of microplastic pollution on freshwater systems.“These deposited microplastics cause ecological damage, and the large amount of deposited particles means that it will take a very long time for all of them to be washed out of our freshwater ecosystems,” he said. “This information points us to consider whether we need solutions to remove these plastics to restore freshwater ecosystems.”The study, “Microplastic accumulation in riverbed sediment via hyporheic exchange from headwaters to mainstems,” was supported by a Royal Society Newton International Fellowship, Marie Curie Individual Fellowship, the German Research Foundation, the Leverhulme Trust and the National Science Foundation.

About 82% of U.S. voters support stopping the sale of single-use plastics at national parks, according to a poll released today by the non-profit Oceana.

U.S. national parks average 33 million visitors and nearly 70 million pounds of waste each year, according to the National Parks Conservation Association, so a ban on single-use plastics would be substantial.

The national poll, conducted by nonpartisan polling company Ipsos, surveyed 1,005 U.S. adults last November. And, in a true rarity these days, the poll found the support crossing political lines. The findings included:

90% of Democrats and 73% of Republicans would support a decision by the National Park Service to stop selling and distributing single-use plastic in national parks;
78% of Republicans and 90% of Democrats agree it is important that national parks remain free of plastic trash;
82% of Democrats and 70% of Republicans agree that single-use plastic items have no place in national parks.

Plastic policies

[embedded content]
The U.S. is woefully behind the rest of the world in tackling plastic waste.
What remains unclear is whether the bipartisanship shown in the new poll over plastics can extend to Washington DC. There is a bill, Reducing Waste in National Parks Act, that, if passed, would ban the sale and distribution of single-use plastics in the parks. The bill was introduced last October by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ill.) and Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ore.).
Another bill, the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act, is not specific to national parks but, if passed, would comprehensively address plastic production, consumption, and waste management in the country. That bill was first introduced in 2020 and reintroduced in March 2021 by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Representative Alan Lowenthal (D-CA).
In responding to EHN about the bill’s specifics last year, Congressman Lowenthal wrote “this bill incorporates best practices and important common-sense policies. While it may be ambitious—it is by no means radical.”

Take action 

Single use plastics remain a menace in our National Parks and beyond. Across the globe:

More than 1 million plastic bags are used every minute, with an average “working life” of only 15 minutes.
500 billion plastic bags are used annually—and that’s just plastic bags.
Of all plastics the world has produced, only 9% of the nine billion tons has been recycled—most ends up in landfills, dumps, or in the environment.
The ocean is expected to contain 1 ton of plastic for every 3 tons of fish by 2025 and, by 2050, more plastics than fish (by weight).
Studies suggest that the total economic damage to the world’s marine ecosystem caused by plastic amounts to at least $13 billion every year.
If current consumption habits continue, we’re on pace to have discarded 12 billion tons of plastic waste into landfills and our environment by 2050.

See the full poll at Oceana’s website, and check out our plastics guide to stay on top of plastic pollution news.Banner photo: Tunnel View, Yosemite National Park. (Credit: Mike McBey/flickr)
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

Tumble dryers found to be a leading source of microfibre air pollutionHong Kong scientists design simple filter system to capture the harmful microplastics – but there’s a catch A single tumble dryer could be responsible for releasing 120m micro plastic fibres into the air each year, a study has found.Tumble dryers are one of the main sources of microfibre pollution in the atmosphere, according to research by Prof Kenneth Leung, director of the State Key Laboratory of Marine Pollution (SKLMP) and department of chemistry at City University of Hong Kong.He described the findings as “essential” for managing microfibre emissions, which are known to damage human health and the environment.“Once we know the source, we can begin to control it using simple methods,” said Leung, the lead author of the study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology Letters. Microfibres are a common group of microplastics – plastic pieces less than 5mm in length. During washing and drying, friction causes materials to shed these fibres. Because of their small size, many slip through the filters in tumble dryers and are released into the environment, where they have been found in water, food and even the placentas of unborn babies.These tiny plastic particles have been found in even the most remote regions, from the Arctic to high up in the Earth’s troposphere.Researchers tumble dried polyester and cotton clothes in separate 15-minute cycles and measured how many microfibres were released through the vent. While natural materials such as cotton shed fibres too, they can be digested by animals and “decompose in the environment relatively quickly”, said Leung.The team estimated that between 90m and 120m microfibres are produced and released into the air outside by each dryer annually.Using 3D printing, Leung and colleagues have designed simple filters that prevent microplastics being dispersed from washing machines, and are in the process of designing a similar system for tumble dryers.“These [filter systems] effectively remove most of the microfibres from the laundry,” he said. However, it is still unclear where these microplastics would end up when the filters were cleaned.“If people just put these [fibres] in the dustbin, some of the fibres will be released back into the air,” he said. “We suggest the particles should be collected in a bag.”Even if fitting these filters is “possible, as Leung says, microfibres will still be pervasive until the clothing industry uses more environmentally friendly fabrics.“Manufacturers need to make textiles and clothing that are more resistant to wear,” Danyang Tao, a PhD student at SKLMP, said.Microfibres are inhaled and ingested by humans and animals each day. These plastics are known to harm wildlife, and studies are beginning to uncover the damaging health consequences they have on humans. In 2021, scientists found microplastics caused damage to human cells in the laboratory. These tiny fibres have also been linked to intestinal inflammation and other gut problems.Leung said he hoped the research would help “raise the alarm and trigger more innovation” to tackle the problem.TopicsPlasticsnewsReuse this content

Preventing food waste without using plastic is a challenge for grocery stores. A new discovery could help unlock it: a simple coating made from cellulose that protects the produce.
[Source Image: Lassi Kaukonen/Sketchfab]
By

Meet Mr Trash Wheel – and the other new devices that eat river plastic From ‘bubble barriers’ to floating drones, a host of new projects aim to stop plastic pollution before it ever reaches the oceanThe Great Bubble Barrier is just that – a wall of bubbles. It gurgles across the water in a diagonal screen, pushing plastic to one side while allowing fish and other wildlife to pass unharmed.The technology, created by a Dutch firm and already being used in Amsterdam, is being trialled in the Douro River in Porto, Portugal, as part of the EU-supported Maelstrom (marine litter sustainable removal and management) project.It is the latest in a series of new technologies designed to find sustainable ways to remove and treat river debris before it reaches the sea.Plastic can be spread by natural disasters, such as a tsunami, which can push invasive species and debris halfway across the world. But rivers carry a much more regular supply of plastic to the oceans. Research in 2017 found that 10 river systems transport 90% of all the plastic that ends up in the world’s oceans (two in Africa – the Nile and Niger – with the other eight in Asia: the Ganges, Indus, Yellow, Yangtze, Haihe, Pearl, Mekong and Amur).Molly Morse, a scientist at UC Santa Barbara’s Benioff Ocean Initiative and lead on its global Clean Currents Coalition, says: “In some cases, communities don’t have access to proper waste pickup services and must turn to what might seem to be the only alternative: dump the trash directly in the river to be carried away.“In other cases, plastic litter on land is moved by rain or wind into a river, where […] the plastic may make its way to the ocean.”An estimated 0.8m to 2.7m tonnes of plastic are carried by rivers to the ocean each year. That is the equivalent of 66,000 to 225,000 doubledecker buses.Without barriers, river currents carry plastic directly to the sea, where it becomes far trickier to tackle: plastic often floats for vast distances, can host invasive species and becomes part of the wider plastisphere, such as the concentration of seaborne waste in the Great Pacific garbage patch.That is why some scientists are calling for greater efforts to stop plastic going into rivers in the first place. A 2020 study found that a “significant reduction” of plastic in the ocean could be achieved only by stopping it reaching the sea, or through a combination of river barriers and other clean-up devices.Cue inventors, who have developed an array of river barriers and collection devices to catch and remove riverine plastic – from simple nets and booms to conveyor belts and robots.Mr Trash Wheel, known officially as the Inner Harbor Water Wheel, is a conveyor-belt system powered by currents and solar energy, launched in 2014 in the US city of Baltimore. Long booms with submerged skirts funnel waste into a central hub, where autonomous rakes scoop it on to a conveyor belt that deposits it on a barge, with more than 17 tonnes collected in a day.Once full, the barge takes the rubbish to be incinerated in a power plant, though it is hoped that eventually the collected waste can be sorted and recycled. There is now a whole family of Trash Wheels in Baltimore, the latest addition being Gwynnda, the Good Wheel of the West.graphic explaining how a Bubble barrier can divert plastic waste but let wildlife throughOr there’s the Interceptor, a floating, solar-powered device developed by the non-profit organisation The Ocean Cleanup, billed as the “world’s first scalable solution” to rid the oceans of plastic. Similar but larger than the trash wheel, it has barriers that guide rubbish on to a conveyor belt, where a shuttle distributes it among five onboard waste bins.Another design, the Azure barrier, developed by the UK-based startup Ichthion to operate in any river, can remove up to 80 tonnes of plastic a day using durable, tide-sensitive booms that direct plastic to extraction points along the bank. The plastic is processed into flakes for recycling.Other more hi-tech inventions include the WasteShark, an electronically controlled “aquadrone” that preys on plastic – up to 350kg at a time. Using algorithms from the German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence, the WasteShark moves around and back to its docking station autonomously, where up to five of the catamaran-shaped vessels can deposit the collected plastic and recharge. The design, developed by a Dutch startup, RanMarine, is due to be showcased at CES 2022 in Las Vegas this month.While the cost of implementing these technologies may be feasible for some cities and towns – and vastly preferable to the cost of plastic pollution, which it is estimated will reach $7.1tn (£5.25tn) by 2040 – there are many other factors to consider. These include, says Morse, “the physical river characteristics, amount of waste, seasonal changes, ecology, power sources, workforce availability, security, boat traffic [and] funding”.Philip Ehrhorn, co-founder of the Great Bubble Barrier, says: “One of the biggest challenges we face is the lack of regulation regarding plastic pollution in our waterways and thereof the lack of ownership and responsibility for the problem.“The urgency to solve our plastic pollution problem in rivers is down to forward-thinking water authorities and governments, since plastic is not yet officially considered a water pollutant,” he says.Most of the world’s top 20 plastic-polluting rivers are in developing countries. But Ehrhorn adds: “Europe still has a huge issue with plastic pollution, which shouldn’t be ignored nor underestimated.”EU laws were introduced in January last year to tackle the “wild west” of plastic waste being dumped in poorer countries; the UK is one of Europe’s worst offenders, exporting about 70% of its plastic. But the wildest west lies across the Atlantic: the US is the world’s biggest plastic polluter, accounting for more than all EU countries combined.There is no one-size-fits-all solution, says Morse. “Rivers vary immensely in respect to factors such as depth, width, flow and seasonality. What might work in a massive river like the Mississippi in the United States, which flows all year round, likely will not work for a smaller, more seasonal river like the Tijuana in Mexico.”In Ecuador, Ichthion’s Azure prototype had problems on the Portoviejo River. Data had suggested the river’s depth varied in the wet and dry seasons by two metres; in reality, it fluctuated by as much as four metres within a few days.Getting support from the local people and permission for new infrastructure can also be difficult. For the Clean Currents Coalition, which is working with eight teams around the world, simplicity works best.“The most successful solutions have been the simpler technologies – such as booms, barriers and traps – that are manufactured locally and require manual removal of the captured waste,” Morse says. This can also create extra jobs.One example of these is Wildcoast’s “brute boom” at the Los Laureles Canyon, a tributary of the Tijuana River. The double-walled float stretches across the river and allows the boom to move with the changing depth. A suspended steel mesh catches the plastic, which is taken for processing once the boom is full. Reports from San Diego in California suggest that it has succeeded in reducing plastic downstream.TerraCycle’s river traps, which are installed in some of Bangkok’s 1,600 polluted canals, catch up to 2.5 tonnes of waste a day, helping to recycle plastic instead of sending it to landfill.A German startup, Plastic Fischer, has installed TrashBooms in waterways in Indonesia, India and Vietnam. It advocates a local, low-tech and low-cost approach, using locally manufactured mesh-and-float barriers to catch rubbish.These Maldives islanders once saw sharks as the threat. Now they fear the plasticRead moreMany environmentalists argue that these innovations treat the symptoms, not the problem, and that the only real solution is to curb plastic production. But, with plastic manufacturing shipments estimated to have risen by 2.2% last year by the Plastic Industry Association, this is not likely any time soon.“If we’re going to keep producing, consuming and disposing of plastics at, or near, our current rate, our ability to manage it needs to catch up – and quickly,” says Morse.TopicsPollutionSeascape: the state of our oceansPlasticsOceansWasteRiversMarine lifeWildlifefeaturesReuse this content

Plastic pollution plays a significant role in global greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.As India’s petrochemical industry expands, experts question how the 2070 net zero target would be met with industrial targets headed in a different direction.India continues to invest in recycling technologies, for lack of alternatives but stronger solutions are needed to achieve the net zero target. Several reports and assessments in the recent past have tracked the sharp growth of plastic pollution and canvassed for the need to tackle plastic pollution at a global level. There is also an increasing number of reports that indicate linkages between plastic pollution and climate change. In the run-up to the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released a global assessment of the marine plastic crisis, titled From Pollution to Solution. An update to a 2016 report on Marine Plastic Debris and Microplastics, this assessment hopes to raise awareness of the magnitude and severity of marine litter, especially plastics and microplastics. This evidence-based report is aimed at identifying gaps in knowledge, promoting effective solutions and global interventions for marine pollution, and safeguarding ecological and human health.
In October 2021, two publications by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) provided updated information and recommendations on addressing plastic pollution. Other global organisations also took a firm stance on plastic pollution. The Common Seas’ evaluation tool for national governments, Plastic Drawdown, focuses on a country’s available resources to assess effective mitigation strategies. The Zero Waste framework for reducing plastic waste targets legal and financial solutions in European cities to reduce greenhouse emissions. Youth ambassadors from the Plastic Pollution Coalition also petitioned the leaders at COP26 to act on the issue of plastic pollution and the climate crisis. So have The Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), Break Free From Plastics (BFFP), Beyond Plastics and Recycling Association.
To understand why many organisations tried to raise the issue of plastic pollution at a climate conference, we must understand the impacts of plastic on oceans, ecosystems, and human health. The most critical yet lesser-known fact about plastic pollution is that it plays a significant role in global greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
Demonstrations outside the COP26 venue. Photo by Priyanka Shankar/Mongabay.
In 2019, a report titled Plastic & Climate: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet examined the lifecycle of plastics and identified major sources of greenhouse gas emissions,  unaccounted sources of emissions, and uncertainties that lead to an underestimation of plastic’s climate impacts. In October 2021, Beyond Plastics released another report built on previous findings, titled The New Coal: Plastics & Climate Change, to assess the devastating impact of plastics on climate, much of it happening with little public scrutiny and lesser government and industrial accountability. While both reports focus on the plastic industry in the United States – the worst global plastic polluter, the findings will hold true for other nations with expanding petrochemical industries.
Plastic is manufactured from naphtha, a crude oil-based substance, and ethane, liquid natural gas, with the addition of other chemicals, most of which are fossil fuel-based. Hence, plastic manufacturing is a significant source of greenhouse emissions. A recent study identified over 8,000 chemical additives used for plastic processing, some of which are a thousand times more potent as greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide. Products like single-use packaging, plastic resins, foamed plastic insulation, bottles and containers, among many others, add to global greenhouse emissions. Most plastic cannot be recycled, only downgraded, and is often incinerated, or used as fuel in waste-to-energy plants, sometimes known as chemical recycling. While plastics are worth three to four times as much for fuel than as scrap, these recycling processes release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, adding to the greenhouse effect.
India’s plastic cycle
India is among the many countries scaling up its petrochemical industries. With an investment of $100 billion to boost domestic production by 2030, the next decade will catalyse India’s crude oil demand and accelerate petrochemical production. Industrial practices like decarbonisation, and plastic-based fuels touted to be sustainable, are less optimal and cost-effective than claimed, with the result contributing to more emissions and a larger carbon footprint.
On the recycling front, India generates 9.46 megatons of plastic waste each year, of which 40% is not collected and is either burnt, lost, or dumped into landfills or waterways. Of the total plastics produced, half are used in packaging, most of which are single-use in nature. Despite the existence of 5,000 registered recycling units, plastic recycling is largely informal. A complicated aggregator system segregates, recycles, and makes some profit off the plastic economy.
Waste-to-energy plants and refuse-derived fuels are examples of suboptimal processes with high emissions. Despite many setbacks, from shutdowns due to poor waste-to-energy efficiency, fines for flouting environmental safety norms, and high operational costs, India continues to invest in these recycling technologies, for lack of alternatives.
“While these are scientifically proven methods to dispose or process waste, more mechanisms are needed to address the challenges of efficiency and cost,” says Kaushik Chandrasekhar, a solid waste management expert at The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI). Incineration and recycling-as-fuel can only be a part of the solution if they add to India’s greenhouse emissions. To meet India’s net-zero targets by 2070, it needs stronger solutions.
India’s net-zero aim for 2070
In November 2021, India’s ambitious net-zero target for carbon emissions were celebrated by many, as the country committed to becoming carbon-neutral by not adding any greenhouse emissions to the atmosphere by 2070.
As the world’s fourth-biggest carbon emitter, these targets marked India’s cognizance of the issue of climate change, and its commitment to address it. But with the country’s industrial practices headed in a different direction, can it realistically achieve net-zero in the next 50 years?
As per the CEEW estimates, if India is to achieve net-zero carbon goals in the next 50 years, our solar-based electricity generation capacity must increase to 1689 GW by 2050 and to 5,630 GW by 2070. Photo by Sarangib/Pixabay.
A recent analysis by the Council for Energy, Environment and Water Research (CEEW), a think tank in New Delhi, estimated a cost of over $10 trillion (Rs. 700 lakh crore), for the upgraded infrastructure of renewable energy sources for electricity, transport, building, and industry sectors to meet the net-zero targets. “If we are to account for the petrochemical industry emissions in future scenarios, data on energy use for plastic production, both as fuel and as feedstock – the raw material used but not burned during an industrial process – is essential,” surmised Vaibhav Chaturvedi, co-author of the CEEW report. “However, it is in the petrochemical sector’s commercial interests to introduce circular economies that allow plastics to remain in the industrial ecosystem, rather than find non-plastic-based alternatives,” he added.
The report is a grim reminder that recycling plastics as an industrial fuel is not a viable long-term solution to pollution. As India’s petrochemical industries expand, could infrastructure interventions that consider the plastic lifecycle help turn the tide on climate change?
Circular economy approach for the lifecycle of plastics
In April 2021, TERI’s roadmap proposed a circular plastic value chain to address the problem of both plastic pollution and greenhouse emissions. The roadmap aims to dissociate plastic production from virgin fossil fuels and incentivise the reduce-reuse-recycle principles to address the issue of waste.
Bio-based plastics, manufactured partially or wholly from biomass, and oxo-biodegradable plastics that degrade under favourable conditions offer more viable, less GHG-emitting alternatives to fossil-fuel plastics. Yet neither are completely biodegradable, and industries need to look for other packaging solutions.
In September 2021, the India Plastics Pact (IPP) was signed under a collaboration between the World Wildlife Fund, the Confederation of Indian Industries, with support from UK Research and Innovation. The IPP, the first of its kind in Asia, aims at a circular economy for plastics with innovative ways to eliminate, reuse, or recycle the plastic packaging across the plastics value chain, and forge collaborations between businesses and NGOs to collectively achieve long-term targets. International brands like Amazon, Coca-Cola, and Indian companies like Hindustan Unilever, ITC Limited, Tata Consumer Products Limited, and three of Godrej’s trademarks, have signed the pact.
Corruption is a big challenge in the recycling sector. “When government land is allocated for public recycling infrastructures, such as a landfill, a waste-to-energy plant, or a biogas plant, the informal sector is largely ignored. Yet they are the largest investors in the recycling business. Instead of spending on public infrastructure, the government could strengthen the informal sector, allow them to expand in scale, capacity, and technology, so that they have a vested interest not just in making a profit but in addressing the issue of pollution,” advises Bharati Chaturvedi of Chintan, an environmental research and action group in Delhi.
Both TERI and Chintan, along with other grassroots organisations like the Integrated Mountain Initiative and Development Alternatives, are partners of the Japan-funded UNEP project, CounterMEASURE. The project is committed to identifying sources and pathways of plastic pollution in river systems in Asia, with a focus on the Mekong (China) and Ganges (India) rivers – among the top contributors of marine pollution. Their policy-driven approach hopes to tackle plastic at different stages of its lifecycle and ensure that rivers transport lesser plastic into the marine ecosystem.
Finally, to deal with discarded plastics in the ecosystem, restoring coastal blue carbon habitats such as mangroves, tidal marshes and seagrass meadows becomes important. These habitats trap and bury plastics, preventing them from entering marine ecosystems, with the added advantage of sequestering more carbon than terrestrial forests. Financing integrated solutions to address two of the most critical global problems of this century, namely plastic pollution and climate change, would help us achieve net-zero goals, while protecting communities and habitats.

Read more: The cost of plastic waste

Banner image: The roof of an informal recycling unit in Dharavi slum. As per some estimates, 60% of Mumbai’s plastic is recycled in Dharavi without which the city would be choking in waste. Photo by Cory Doctorow/ Flickr.

Lisa Chen founded Let’s Talk Butts to provide social justice while cleaning up cigarette butt litter. She is also a dive master involved in marine conservation and research, environmental education, habitat protection and waste reduction and is the founder and CEO of Marine Way, an app-based solution for ghost fishing gear. Chen is a master’s of marine management candidate at Dalhousie University. This piece is part of a series of profiles highlighting young people across the country who are addressing the climate crisis. These extraordinary humans give me hope. I write these stories to pay it forward.Tell us about Let’s Talk Butts. Get top stories in your inbox.Our award-winning journalists bring you the news that impacts you, Canada, and the world. Don’t miss out.We want to eliminate cigarette butt litter through cleanups, outreach, litter mapping, creating butt collection cans and educating the public. I have worked on this in many Canadian communities, in Vietnam, the Philippines, and the United States. How did you get the idea? I wanted to use my biology degree to fight climate change but had trouble finding a relevant job. One day a friend and I quit our jobs and booked a one-way ticket to Singapore to travel. On a small Malaysian island, I wandered off the usual tourist track and found myself on a beach surrounded by plastic bottles, bags and cigarette butts. As is common in tourist destinations in the Global South, wealthy tourists never saw this beach as they were isolated on their own. Naively, I wondered why local people didn’t clean it up. Curious, I walked into the backstreets of the town. It was piled in litter. I understood then how utterly unfair it would be to expect impoverished local people to solve this problem on their own. They lack the education to understand the toxicity of the plastics, clean disposal options and have no access to decision-makers who could change things. I had a revelation: we cannot solve the climate crisis unless we also address global inequality. What people are reading I came back to Canada and joined the Canadian Wildlife Federation-sponsored Canadian Conservation Corps where I conceived the Let’s Talk about Butts campaign. The Chantiers jeunesse social entrepreneurship and Ocean Wise Ocean Bridge programs gave me additional training and funding, which supported the successful launch.Lisa Chen removing trash while on a dive in Vietnam. Photo courtesy of Lisa ChenWhy did you focus on butts? Meet Lisa Chen, who wanted to use her biology degree to fight climate change but had trouble finding a relevant job. #Oceans #Litter #YoungClimateLeaders Approximately 4.95 trillion cigarette butts are littered annually, more than any other item. A deadly combination of microplastics and toxins, one butt can contaminate up to 500 litres of water with toxins that remain active for 10 years. In a litre of water, one butt will kill marine life and fish. Discarded on land, they contaminate soil and groundwater and eventually the food chain. But they are also made of recyclable cellulose acetate and can be made into plastic pallets and lumber products. Let’s Talk Butts helps communities map out cigarette butt hot spots, make safe, readily available collection containers and ensure they get recycled. Ninety-five trillion butts are littered annually around the world.What else happens besides a cleanup?Each campaign provides education about the toxins, their impacts and the benefits of recycling. But I have learned this is not enough to bring change. People need to understand the potential economic risks of not doing anything and the upsides of acting. They have to learn how to approach decision-makers to develop local collection points and recycling capacity. A side benefit is that once people know they can have agency and access, they are empowered to ask for more justice about other things too. In one Vietnamese community, plastics filled their lakes and rivers. After we made information available on postcards in their language about the health hazards and what to do about it, people enthusiastically joined in the cleanup. Now the community has seen its economy benefit from tourism and has been empowered to demand centralized waste management. Lisa Chen doing a microplastics survey with the Ucluelet Aquarium on Vancouver Island. Photo courtesy of Lisa ChenTell us about your thesis.My research focused on strategies for developing, evaluating and improving ocean literacy. I have learned we will not win the race against climate change unless we fund more than just science education. We also have to fund economic development and empower people to be confident about reaching decision-makers. How did you come to care about the environment?I was raised in a conservative Chinese Canadian family. I am sure my parents hoped I would be an accountant or other professional. But I have always been drawn to the ocean and feel most at home outside. Studying sciences was acceptable, but I had a narrow view of how to apply that understanding until I learned about the dangers of biodiversity loss, climate change and plastic pollution to the oceans. I am happy to be working on this now from a variety of perspectives, understanding that solving these challenges requires decision-making and science to be woven together. Lisa Chen on a research dive in Thailand. Photo courtesy of Lisa ChenDo you have any advice for other young people?Step outside your comfort zone. That is where the greatest learning happens and where you will be most likely able to apply what you know in other disciplines, which is what the world needs.What would you like to say to older readers?It is never too late to take action. Use your money and power to influence decision-makers to work with scientists and vice versa. If you have young people in your life, inspire them to take action by doing it yourself.

Credit: Unsplash/CC0 Public Domain

Researchers have, for the first time, simulated both micro- and macroplastics accumulation in Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). They found that the majority of Mediterranean countries included in the study had at least one MPA where more than half of macroplastics originated elsewhere. The study, published in Frontiers in Marine Science, highlights the need for international collaboration on plastic pollution management in marine protected areas.

Reprinted from GreenBuzz, a free weekly newsletter. Subscribe here.Remember plastic pollution?
It wasn’t long ago that the world seemed wrapped up in plastic: outrage over plastic drinking straws and bags, mostly, but also the entire plastics and packaging industries. We fretted over the fate of various critters, notably a hapless sea turtle whose viral video led many to treat plastic straws with roughly the same disdain as nuclear waste. Consumer brands scrambled to commit to ending plastic waste sometime in the future, in many cases by making their packaging recyclable or compostable, never mind the wholly inadequate global infrastructure available to actually recycle or compost the stuff. The whole thing inevitably spawned a culture war that led some American politicians to ban plastic straw bans as an expression of “freedom.”
It was a war on plastic that, it seemed at the time, might actually curb plastic’s environmental excesses.
That was so 2018.
Today, the skirmishes have largely faded from public attention. The plastics problem hasn’t gone away, of course — quite the opposite. Sanitation and public health concerns have given single-use plastics new life and put the wraps on some jurisdictional bans on disposable plastic packaging. Global sales of plastics continue to climb, a growing profit center for beleaguered oil and gas companies, which are seeing demand for their principal fuels plateau in an era of a fossil-fuel phaseout.
But that reprieve of public attention may be short-lived: The climate crisis represents a new front on the war on plastics. It may lack the viral video and social media cachet of straw bans and nasal-impacted reptiles (and let’s briefly be thankful for that) but it is arguably a more powerful leverage point among advocates and activists.
And most companies — from polymer producers to consumer brands to retailers — are ill-prepared for what’s likely to come.

The climate crisis represents a new front on the war on plastics.

Consider a report issued last fall by a group called Beyond Plastics, warning that “The U.S. plastics industry’s contribution to climate change is on track to exceed that of coal-fired power in this country by 2030.” It cites the dozens of plants that have recently opened, are under construction or are in the permitting process. “If they become fully operational, these new plastics plants could release an additional 55 million tons of greenhouse gases — the equivalent of another 27 average-sized coal plants.”
And then it landed this zinger: “Plastics are the new coal.”
Other groups have been ramping up their efforts to link plastics and climate. Back in 2019, for example, the Center for International Environmental Law, the Environmental Integrity Project, the FracTracker Alliance and others pointed out that “The plastic and petrochemical industries’ plans to expand plastic production threaten to exacerbate plastic’s climate impacts and could make limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius impossible.”
Up in smoke
Carbon emissions can be found throughout the plastics lifecycle, starting with fracking, which yields the natural gas that is the basis for most plastics, and from “cracking,” which turns that gas into ethylene, a key precursor to many plastics. There are emissions from transporting and converting plastics into countless goods and materials. There are yet more emissions at the back end, too, including a range of carbon-intensive waste-management processes such as incineration and so-called chemical or “advanced” recycling, which can turn waste plastics into feedstocks to make more plastics.
It doesn’t stop there. Plastic marine waste emits methane when it is exposed to sunlight. Microplastics can undermine oceans’ resilience to climate change, including by disturbing the carbon stored in marine and coastal ecosystems.
And let’s not even get started on emissions from open burning, a common method of plastics disposal in the developing world, which sends all of those embedded petrochemicals up in smoke.
True, plastic has climate advantages, from lightweighting goods, which reduces their transportation emissions, to protecting foods from spoilage. And those may counterbalance some of the above problems.
Still, environmental advocacy groups are likely to stoke the plastics-climate linkage, two issues that to date have largely been seen as separate. And as the linkages are more widely understood, pressure could be directed toward the same brands that, less than three years ago, committed to ending plastic waste but not the use of plastic itself.
What’s not clear is whether plastics and climate activists will find common cause. It’s hardly a slam-dunk. Activist groups are notoriously myopic, steering clear of adjacent issues as if they were fully disconnected. To take a system’s view of plastics and climate would mean flexing some muscles that long ago atrophied within that community.
Even academics are culpable: “Now is not the time to be distracted by the convenient truth of plastic pollution, as the relatively minor threats this poses are eclipsed by the global systemic threats of climate change,” wrote two British professors in the journal Marine Policy back in 2019. They worry that corporations and governments may use the plastics issue to distract from the climate one. Perhaps, but there’s a vast anti-plastics ecosystem to watchdog that.

Activist groups are notoriously myopic, steering clear of adjacent issues as if they were fully disconnected.

Policymakers also seem to be missing the big picture. The world “plastic” doesn’t appear in the text of either the 2015 Paris Agreement or the more recent Glasgow Climate Pact. United Nations-sponsored talks next month in Nairobi to draft a global plastics treaty appear to avoid bringing climate change into the picture.
Can the myriad of groups focused on plastic waste, toxicity, marine pollution, climate change, public health, water pollution, environmental justice, beach cleanups and other issues come together? It won’t be easy.
It also may not be necessary. Given the growing focus on net-zero commitments and Scope 3 supply-chain accountability, and the rising concern by investors over risks associated with climate change, waste disposal, toxicity and other ESG issues, all of this could turn in a heartbeat. Companies may find themselves taking stock of — and being held responsible for — the upstream and downstream climate impacts of the materials they source. That, in turn, could engender legislation, litigation, consumer boycotts and more.
And brands, once again, will be taking the heat.
I invite you to follow me on Twitter, subscribe to my Monday morning newsletter, GreenBuzz, from which this was reprinted, and listen to GreenBiz 350, my weekly podcast, co-hosted with Heather Clancy.