Meet Mr Trash Wheel – and the other new devices that eat river plastic

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

Tackling the integrated challenge of plastic pollution and climate change

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.

From poison in cigarette butts to fair futures

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.

More than half of plastics in Mediterranean marine protected areas originated elsewhere

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.

South Coast researcher leads effort to ease ocean pollution by using microbes to decompose plastics

Our beautiful oceans are facing a very ugly problem.The world is producing about 300 million tons of plastics a year. Of that, an estimated 14 million tons is ending up in our oceans. And, experts say plastics make up about 80% of all ocean pollution.”There are plastic materials that wouldn’t degrade in the oceans over thousands of years,” said UC Santa Barbara marine microbiologist Alyson Santoro.She is leading a team of researchers looking at a novel solution: using nature to help create biodegradable plastics.”There’s actually bacteria that has evolved a way to break that down, and they naturally occur in the oceans,” said Santoro. “What we’re trying to do is figure out what things those microbes might need to help break down those plastics faster.”Santoro is a Marine Microbiologist in UCSB’s Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology. The National Science Foundation has funded a project to start exploration of the concept.The initial effort is looking at a specific type of plastics ocean pollution, which can be used to test the concept. They’ll work with people who manufacture oceanographic sensors, devices used for things like monitoring ocean temperature. It’s more expensive to go out and retrieve the sensors than to deploy new ones. Lots of them get deployed, but are never recovered.Santoro hopes the initial research will help demonstrate the feasibility of the concept, and set the stage for expanded research.The UCSB researcher feels there’s no question the concept will work, and can help ease the global ocean plastics pollution problem. She thinks the real questions are around developing a balance which allows the plastics to do their intended job without existing on for years, or even decades.While it’s just research at this point, the team is hoping that what they are working on could help lead to solutions to a growing global pollution crisis.

The war on plastics, 2022: A change of climate

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.

Plastic Ocean Project working to protect biodiversity of the Carolina coastline from plastic pollution

January 4, 2022

WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) — From birds to fish, plastics floating in the water kill millions of animals annually.
Plastic Ocean Project (POP) is a nonprofit that tries to create awareness about plastics in our oceans and they’re hosting a fundraiser later this month at the N.C. Aquarium at Fort Fisher.

According to the organization’s website, the nonprofit’s mission is to educate through field research, implement progressive outreach initiatives, and incubate solutions to address the global plastic pollution problem, working with and for the next generation to create a more sustainable future.
“We work closely with universities as well the community on how to reduce waste in our environment as well as come up with solutions to diverting those plastics from those environments,” said POP Executive Director Bonnie Monteleone.
The organization is hosting a fundraiser called “For the Ocean Gala” from 6:30-9:30 p.m. on Jan. 29 at the NC Aquarium at Fort Fisher.
“This is an opportunity for us to bring people out to learn more about POP as well as a film project we’re working on called ‘If the Ocean Could Talk: A voice for the North Atlantic,’” Monteleone said.
During the gala, POP will show a trailer for the documentary called “Save the Whales 2.0.” They’re also hoping to solicit sponsors and supporters to contribute financially to the project.

Monteleone says many documentaries don’t address the issue of plastic pollution.
“So we decided to take that on ourselves, to create the film so we could educate people that the problem isn’t over in the Pacific but it’s also here in the Atlantic,” she said.
North Carolina has more than 322 miles of ocean shoreline and is one of the most biodiverse locations in the world.
“When we think about plastics having a negative impact on the marine environment and then the abundant biodiversity that we have here, it made perfect sense for us to start educating people,” she said. “We really should start taking care of the north Atlantic as well.”
Monteleone says there’s a growing body of research that supports the critical role whales play in the health of our oceans.

“Without the whales, we lose the phytoplankton that actually exchanges co2 into oxygen,” she said. “It really behooves us to start taking care of these whale populations because the more we lose those, the more we lose the biggest defense we have against climate change.”
If we fail to protect the habitat for whales and other sea life, Monteleone says it will create a domino effect of negative impacts.
“We’re the ones causing the problem,” and she added, “we’re the ones who can solve it.”
When attendees of the gala watch the ‘Save the Whales 2.0’ trailer, Monteleone says it will them a sense of hope.
“There are plenty of industries as well as nonprofit organizations and educators that are taking this issue head on, and so we’re going to be putting a big spotlight on the hope and what each and everyone of us can do to help save the whales,” she said.
The “For the Ocean Gala” takes place Saturday, Jan. 29, from 6:30-9:30 p.m. at the North Carolina Aquarium at Fort Fisher. Click here for ticket information.

Categories: Brunswick, Carolinas, Local, NC, NC-Carolinas, New Hanover, News, Pender, SC, Top Stories, World

Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault: ‘we need to learn to do things faster’

Canada’s new environment and climate change minister has some first-hand experience when it comes to living in a resource town that goes through boom and bust cycles.

Steven Guilbeault, 51, hails from La Tuque, a small town of 11,000 people in north-central Quebec, about 290 kilometres northeast of Montreal.

As a young boy, he climbed a tree to stop loggers from cutting it down — perhaps foreshadowing a 2001 stunt, scaling the CN Tower to draw attention to the pressing issue of climate change.

In his new role, Guilbeault will have his work cut out for him. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has assigned the minister 40 distinct tasks in a mandate letter that is perhaps the longest one sent to any minister in the federal cabinet. It all means that Guilbeault will need to work with other federal cabinet ministers and stakeholders to assist energy workers in transitioning away from fossil fuel jobs.

He tells The Narwhal that it’s a mission that hits home.

“I come from a small pulp and paper town, mono-industrial town near Lac Saint-Jean which has gone through a series of shock waves because of what has happened in the forestry industry,” says Guilbeault, who took over the federal portfolio in October. 

Get The Narwhal in your inbox!People always tell us they love our newsletter. Find out yourself with a weekly dose of our ad‑free, independent journalism

Guilbeault studied industrial relations, computer sciences and then political science at the Université de Montréal in the early ‘90s. While there, climate activism started to shape Guilbeault’s career and, in 1993, he and several colleagues established Action for Solidarity, Equity, Environment and Development — the forebearer to Équiterre, Quebec’s leading environmental organization. He later acted as Greenpeace Canada’s director and campaign manager for 10 years, which spurred him to the highest point of the Toronto skyline. 

Though we both now live in Guilbeault’s Montreal riding of Laurier-Sainte-Marie, I speak to the minister over Zoom as the latest wave of COVID-19 is sweeping across Quebec. Guilbeault’s embattled bicycle hangs on the wall behind him. 

Last November, when the minister appeared on a hybrid session of parliament with this same background, Conservative MP Ed Fast accused him of making a political statement. After I comment on the fact that he hasn’t changed his decor, Guilbeault quickly points out that his — year-round — chosen mode of transportation never made waves during his two years as heritage minister. 

But today, Guilbeault is the driver of the Trudeau government’s climate plan, putting some leaders, oil and gas companies and their allies on edge. Meanwhile, some of his former allies say he betrayed the environmental movement by joining the governing Liberal party in 2019 after it orchestrated the takeover of the Trans Mountain oil pipeline and expansion project.

“Sometimes you decide to work with people with whom you don’t necessarily agree on everything, but if you find common ground, and if you think that by working together you can move the dial along, then you do it.”

I spoke with the minister about a looming ban on plastics, slashing pollution from industry, being labelled a climate alarmist for recognizing what’s now common sense, and how the word “compromise” became a go-to word in his vocabulary. 

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

You once stood side-by-side with CEOs of oil companies on a stage as Rachel Notley unveiled her government’s climate change plan for Alberta. How has that experience prepared you for your current role as environment minister and what do you hope to accomplish with the oil and gas industry?

It wasn’t the first time I worked with industry, it wasn’t the first time I worked with oil companies, it certainly wasn’t the first time I worked with provincial or other levels of government. But I think it certainly shows that I can work with people who have views that are not my own. Certainly it shows that I’ve worked with the Alberta government before and that I’m perfectly happy and capable of doing it again. And in terms of how I intend to work with oil companies, I mean I intend to work with these companies or the sector as I will with any other sector. 

Steven Guibeault, MP for Montreal’s Laurier-Sainte-Marie riding, was named Canada’s environment minister in October, after two years as heritage minister. Photo: Selena Phillips-Boyle / The Narwhal

We have to decarbonize our society and that includes transportation, and we’ve made a number of commitments on that, some previous to the last election campaign but certainly since then as well. We want to decarbonize the steel sector, the cement sector, the auto sector, the aluminium sector and the oil and gas sector. So I will be working with them as I would be working with others. 

It is true that oil and gas and transportation are our two biggest challenges in Canada, which is why when you look at our approach, you’re seeing more measures towards these sectors than towards others. Not because others aren’t important, we’re doing stuff in the building sector, we’re doing stuff on landfill, but both these sectors are 50 per cent of our emissions so they should receive a large portion of our attention. And for those who said that the cap was unfairly targeting the oil and gas sector, I’d said look at transportation, we are putting a cap on the transportation sector as well because at least for light duty vehicles, new sales will have to be zero emissions, 100 per cent by 2035, so in essence we’re also putting a cap on that sector as well. 

In your recent ministerial mandate letters, there are several ministers who have been tasked with setting up a Just Transition Fund for workers in oil-producing provinces: Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador. What is your message to workers whose jobs might not exist, two, five or 10 years from now and do you think your government is working fast enough to help them? 

Our society has gone through a number of technological transformations since the industrial revolution. It’s not the first, unlikely to be the last one. And I mean ultimately just transition is about how do we adapt our workforce to changing technological conditions in the workplace. We could not be talking about climate change and still be having conversations about the need to make sure that people are properly trained, people are properly ready for the jobs that will be in vogue in five years, in 10 years, in 15 years. 

The difference this time is that I think in many cases before we didn’t really see [technological changes] coming or we didn’t want to see them coming, this time we do. We know it’s happening, it’s happening around the world, it’s certainly happening in Canada and, in answer to your question, are we doing enough? I’d say not yet. I’d say we need to do more and the fact that you’re seeing this in many ministers’ mandate letters is a clear sign that this is a priority for our government. 

Speaking of the mandate letters, you might have the longest of all the ministers in cabinet.

I’ve heard, I haven’t compared them, but yeah. 

Something like three dozen items. Have you given yourself any personal deadlines or goals of how to achieve everything on your list?

Well, I mean some deadlines are self-imposed. We have a commitment to phase out fossil fuel subsidies by 2023. So in some cases they’re very clear. In others they’re not necessarily as clear, but on a number of either legislative or regulatory measures we want to implement, we have said we want to do this in the very near future. As a minority government, it would be optimistic to think that we have more than two years. We might, but at this point I’m not assuming that this is the case, so I have to do everything that I can to ensure that we deploy as many of the measures that we’ve announced. Certainly on climate, but on plastics, we want to see movement very soon on that, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, I have announced we’ll be tabling the bill, a similar version to the one that was tabled by minister Wilkinson, that will happen early in the New Year when the House resumes. 

A long-time environmental activist, Guibeault says the current concerns around climate change were labelled alarmist 30 years ago. Photo: Selena Phillips-Boyle / The Narwhal

Are you able to speak more about the movement on plastics that we’re going to be seeing more of soon?

Well, we had committed to present regulations by the end of 2021. [Editor’s note: the regulations were published on December 25, with public comment open until March 5.] The initial rounds of consultation we did while elaborating the regulations, we received something like 24,000 submissions, which is probably one of the highest number we’ve ever received on anything at Environment Canada. And the overwhelming majority of these comments were in favour of governments doing more to combat plastic pollution. So we will be moving ahead with banning a certain number of single-use plastic items. 

And, rightly so, people are focusing on that, but I think there is also a broader conversation that needs to happen in this country about how we recycle. We’re at roughly nine per cent of plastics being recycled, how do we get to 90 per cent by the end of the decade?

And that work has started, last week at the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, plastic pollution was on the agenda; How do we better co-ordinate between the federal government, provinces and municipalities to ensure that we have higher levels of recycling to ensure that the plastics that we’re using in this country are not only recyclable but also recycled all across the country, which is not the case right now. So banning certain substances is super important, but we also need to do better on the recycling side. 

This past year, as we all know, B.C. has experienced some of its worst wildfires quickly followed by record disastrous torrential rain, landslides, flooding. Do you have climate adaptation plans for these kinds of issues and similar ones to come elsewhere?

Yes. Well, you know, there are those instances in life where you don’t want to be right and many of us 30 years ago were talking about climate change and talking about upcoming climate impacts and people were saying you’re out to lunch, you’re an alarmist creating problems that are not there. And 30 years ago, scientists with the information that was available, thought that the type of things we’re seeing today would happen in 2050 or something like that, but it’s happening now, unfortunately. 

Fortunately, our government has invested around $4 billion over the last few years in various climate adaptation and resilience programs. That money has started to be deployed. We’ve started investing in nature-based solutions to adapt to climate change. Just west of Montreal the big park we’re doing with the City of Montreal, this park was done interestingly enough using infrastructure dollars. Traditionally in Canada, infrastructure dollars were for concrete and pavement and now we’re using this to build parks that will help us alleviate spring floods. And we’ve done a series of these projects and we will be doing more and more of those. 

More broadly, at the beginning of [2021], we started consultations on a national adaptation strategy. There are five working tables that are composed mainly, at this point, of experts in the field. And the federal government is present at these tables, but we’re not chairing them, it is chaired by experts. We’re looking at different elements of the adaptation, of a national adaptation strategy, infrastructure, human health, resiliency. These consultations are coming to an end soon and then we will start working with provinces, territories and municipalities, Indigenous Peoples too. And it’s deliberately not called a federal adaptation strategy, it’s a national adaptation strategy and we want to have something agreed upon with provinces and other stakeholders, territories by the end of 2022 so that it can guide our work in the coming years. 

The prime minister gave you until March to come up with a plan to meet Canada’s 2030 climate change goals. By the time people read this article, that will be less than three months away. What do you think the hardest part of meeting this goal will be?

I think the work we’re doing right now is some of the hardest work we’ll have to do. … We’ve been able to remove what would otherwise have been 30 million tonnes [of emissions projected for 2030], which is almost equivalent to half of what Quebec emits every year. So our plan is starting to work, but we need to do more and we need to do it faster, clearly. That’s certainly a message we heard during the last election campaign. 

I could talk to you about X measure or that sector, but ultimately, take Clean Fuel Standards for example. We’ve been having public consultations on this for five years. One of the things I told stakeholders when I was in Toronto recently and then in Calgary, one of the things I told the department as well is we don’t have that luxury anymore. We don’t have five years to consult every time we want to introduce a new measure. I told you earlier that my timeline is two years, so in the next two years, more stringent methane regulations, zero emission vehicle standards, net-zero grid by 2035, cap on oil and gas, and obviously phasing out fossil fuels, all of these things must be in place in the coming 18 months. I mean, maybe 2024, but that’s the type of timeframe we have to work with. And it’s going to be tough because, on the one hand, some people are going to criticize us for not giving them enough time to be consulted, but the state of climate change is such that we need to learn to do things faster and that’s certainly true of us as a government, but it’s going to be true of many stakeholders. 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been criticized for not committing to ending fossil fuel use. His government did commit to ending fossil fuel subsidies by 2023. Photo: Adam Scotti / Prime Minister’s Office

I mean, who knows what’s going to happen by 2100. I think we’ve made a commitment to being carbon-neutral, like most of our trading partners and the vast majority of emitters, by 2050. Some like India have said 2070. Ultimately, what is important is what does the atmosphere see? And if the atmosphere sees less emissions, then we’re succeeding, which is why we’re putting a cap on pollution. 

So your tight timeframe ironically reflects…

Yes, time is not my friend. 

You’ve now been on the job as the environment minister for over a month now. In some of your recent comments to journalists you have stressed that you are still an activist, but that you’re taking on a role as a minister for all Canadians. What kind of compromises have you had to make so far, and how do you justify accepting a job that requires you to make compromises on the positions you took publicly in the past?

Even before coming into politics, I would often compromise. I mean, when you’re with a group of people at Équiterre or Greenpeace, did I get 100 per cent of what I wanted 100 per cent of the time? Of course not. People have different views in terms of how to do things, tactics, strategies, so you compromise. I think the key thing is never to compromise on your values and on what you believe in. As a father of four, I can tell you I never get 100 per cent of what I want and if that’s true in my family, I cannot understand how it could not be true in a country of 38 million people. 

Just a few months into his term, Guilbeault says he’s no stranger to compromising and hearing out opposing viewpoints to find a common ground. Photo: Selena Phillips-Boyle / The Narwhal

So I mean compromises are a part of what it means to live in a society, but you can’t compromise on your values. You can find accommodation on the implementation of things. 

Earlier when we started talking you referenced when I was on stage with premier Notley and the contentious issue for many of us environmentalists who decided to be on stage was the cap on oil and gas. If you recall, the cap was set at a higher level than the level of emissions in those days in Alberta. Some environmentalists really criticized me and others who were on stage saying that the cap was too high and of course I would have preferred a cap that was lower. On the other hand, industry would have preferred a cap that was higher than what they got, but overall I felt that everything that premier Notley was proposing at the time, a price on pollution, phasing out coal, more renewables, more efficiency, the cap, I thought that a higher cap than what I would have wanted was better than no cap at all and the sky being the limit. I’m willing to make those types of compromises. But never about what I believe in. 

Oil Change International released a report last October saying that Canadian fossil fuel producers receive more public funding and renewable energy funding than any other G20 country. And now you’re meant to phase out fossil fuel subsidies by 2023. The governments in Canada have been promising to phase out these types of subsidies ever since former prime minister Stephen Harper signed on to a G20 commitment in 2009. So what makes this time different? 

As you know, the timeline that G20 countries set for themselves to phase out these subsidies is 2025. So when people say you haven’t met that promise, it’s true, but we’re not in 2025 and we’ve decided to do it two years earlier. What’s different? Umm. Well it’s in my mandate letter and the mandate letter of the finance minister. It’s an instruction that the prime minister gave to us, it’s a campaign promise. So not delivering is simply not an option. 

And since we’re talking about Stephen Harper, in 2015 he made a commitment at the G7 to end the use of fossil fuels by 2100. How come Harper was able to make a promise to end fossil fuel use, and Justin Trudeau is avoiding doing that?

As you know, natural resource extraction or usage is largely a provincial jurisdiction. But the Supreme Court in the carbon pricing case clearly stated that when it comes to pollution, and climate change pollution, the federal government has a role to play. It’s not a magic wand that we can wave any way we want. We have to use this power with clairvoyance, but that’s why we’re going after pollution. And then, we’ll see what happens to production. 

Rightly so, when we talk about climate change in Canada, we do talk about oil and gas production, because we’re a large producer, but we also have to look at what we’re doing on the demand side for these products. We’re investing record levels in transit, never in the history of this country have more public transit projects been in the works. Three hundred projects under construction now, about 1,000 in preparation, what we’re doing on electrification, what we’re doing on emissions for light duty vehicles, these measures will have significant impacts on the demand, and the net zero grid by 2035, these will have significant impact on fossil fuel demand in Canada. 

And of course, some would say well, Canadian companies can just export their oil to other countries who aren’t doing those things. Theoretically they could, but the reality is that what we’re doing here in Canada, we’re seeing similar things happening in the U.S. and in Europe and clearly some countries are ahead of us [on electric vehicles], like Norway, but one out of two electric vehicles that are sold in the world is sold in China right now. So my question to these people is who, where will the demand be if all the major economies of the world are reducing their demand for fossil fuels? I think, we, companies and provinces that are highly dependent on these resources need to start thinking and looking at what the world will look like in 10, 15, 20 years from now. To think that the past will guarantee what will happen in the future is not necessarily the most responsible thing for these people to be doing. 

Over the past 20 years, you went to many UN climate summits and often criticized the Canadian government for not doing its fair share on the international stage. What do you think activist Steven Guilbeault in 1997 would have told Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault at the 2021 summit in Glasgow?  

I mean in those days we had no pricing, we had no investment in transit, very little investment to speak of in clean tech, no regulation, certainly no legislation to phase out coal use in Canada by 2030, no regulation on methane, we weren’t doing anything on EVs. If you look at my track record, I’ve never shied away from saying congratulations to a government or a company that I felt deserved it. But, I would also say you’ve got to do better and you’ve got to do it faster. 

Canadian Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault speaks at the Ocean Risk and Resilience Action Alliance roundtable at COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland. Photo: Karwai Tang / UK Government / Flickr

How will the Canada Water Agency and updated Canada Water Act address Indigenous Peoples’ access to clean water, which is something that came up a lot recently in elections?

Well, I mean, I can only answer this at 20,000 feet because we only started working on this, but clearly ensuring that everyone in Canada has access to safe, drinkable, fresh water is a priority. As you know, we’ve managed to lift a little over two thirds of the boil water advisories that were in place when we came into power in 2015, and we’re working to eliminate the others in the coming years. So how exactly will the water agency deal with that is a good question, one that I can’t really answer right now, but certainly Indigenous Peoples will be consulted on the elaboration and the mandate of this agency. 

[Editor’s note: Before his 2015 election, Trudeau promised to end all boil water advisories in Indigenous communities by March 2021.]

There are other former environmental activists that have taken on ministerial roles in government, if we think of Peter Garrett in Australia and Nicolas Hulot in France. When Hulot resigned, I’m sure you know, he said he could no longer keep lying and that he hoped the government would learn something from his resignation. Are there lessons that you take from these people who’ve followed similar paths?

As a Francophone, you can bet that I’ve been asked about Nicolas Hulot about 100 times and I know him. When I was at Équiterre, Équiterre worked with Fondation Nicolas Hulot pour la Nature, certainly at the time I think he was nominated ambassador for the French government in the lead up to Paris in 2015. 

I can’t speak on behalf of Nicolas and I don’t know what were the dynamics within the French government when he was there. He said he felt alone, I certainly don’t feel alone. I mean you now have the natural resource minister, who was environment minister, who was before that minister for fisheries and oceans. You have the minister for fisheries and oceans who used to be the B.C. environment minister and someone who did tree-planting as a living, like as a business, before coming into politics. You look at the mandate letter of pretty much all of my colleagues at the cabinet table and everyone has the responsibility to work on climate change and that was the case in 2019 as well. 

When you look at the 2020 Climate Change plan, the enhanced climate change plan, when you look at the number of ministries and ministers that were involved in this plan, they obviously had environment, natural resources, transportation, finance, economic development, I’m forgetting some I’m sure, international trade, it has become a whole of government approach. Again, I don’t know how things were for Nicolas with the Macron government, but what I can tell you is that I have a lot of allies and I have a lot of support around the cabinet table when I’m trying to move forward legislation or regulation, and that makes a whole difference.

Banner:
Environment Minister Steven Guibeault views the next two years as his window to reshape Canada’s climate change policy.
Photo: Selena Phillips-Boyle / The Narwhal

New titleAnd since you’re here, we have a favour to ask. Our independent, ad-free journalism is made possible because the people who value our work also support it (did we mention our stories are free for all to read, not just those who can afford to pay?).As a non-profit, reader-funded news organization, our goal isn’t to sell advertising or to please corporate bigwigs — it’s to bring evidence-based news and analysis to the surface for all Canadians. And at a time when most news organizations have been laying off reporters, we’ve hired five journalists over the past year.Not only are we filling a void in environment coverage, but we’re also telling stories differently — by centring Indigenous voices, by building community and by doing it all as a people-powered, non-profit outlet supported by more than 4,200 members. The truth is we wouldn’t be here without you. Every single one of you who reads and shares our articles is a crucial part of building a new model for Canadian journalism that puts people before profit.We know that these days the world’s problems can feel a *touch* overwhelming. It’s easy to feel like what we do doesn’t make any difference, but becoming a member of The Narwhal is one small way you truly can make a difference.If you believe news organizations should report to their readers, not advertisers or shareholders, please become a monthly member of The Narwhal today for any amount you can afford.

Two cyclists from Maharashtra are pedalling along the Indian coast for a plastic-free world

Milind Tambe and Shriram Kondhawekar are cycling along the Indian coastline covering a distance of about 6,179 kilometres to highlight the ill-effects of single-use plastic

At a time when Indian coasts are battling a tidal wave of plastic pollution, two cyclists from Maharashtra are on a mission to highlight the ill-effects of single-use plastic and its impact on marine life. Naval veteran Milind Tambe, 56, and 49-year old Shriram Kondhawekar are cycling along the Indian coastline covering a distance of about 6,179 kilometres as part of their Indian Coastal Cycling Expedition. The Pedalbums, as they call themselves, started the first leg of their journey from Mumbai last February. The journey had to be halted in Goa due to the second wave of the pandemic. Milind and Shriram resumed their expedition from Goa on November 14 with an aim to complete the remaining three legs of the journey cycling through Kanyakumari, Visakhapatnam, Kolkata and Gujarat before culminating their expedition in Mumbai.“While travelling through the beaches, we came face-to-face with the extent of plastic pollution plaguing our coastline. The beaches are mostly polluted with single-use plastic. Pollution was worse on beaches around urban and semi urban areas, while rural coasts had negligible amounts of single-use plastic,” says Milind during an interaction in Visakhapatnam earlier this week. “We are carrying the little plastic generated along our tour till we find a designated recycling facility. Even today my bag contains used biscuit wrappers and the like, which I will carry with me till I can dispose it off responsibly,” says Milind. “We are against irresponsible disposal of single-use plastic. There are ways to upcycle and that is what we tell whomever we interact with,” adds Shriram.The cyclists’ expedition has been formally recognised by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports under the Fit India Movement.The duo is cycling with Fuji Touring and Marin Four Corners bikes. “These cycles are made for cycle touring and are capable of carrying heavy loads of the touring setup. Also the frame geometry makes it easy to attach panniers and frame bags on the cycle,” explains Milind.Fitness routine Milind says they are following a high protein and carbohydrate diet during the expedition. The duo’s fitness preparation was taken care of by Fittr, their fitness sponsor. “They analysed our body structure and dietary habits and gave us six months of strength training and endurance building exercises. They also made customized diet plans. This has helped us a lot in this expedition,” says Milind.The cyclists were on the road for 50 days before coming to Visakhapatnam. “We found many good souls along the way. People were very generous and more than willing to help us, be it with finding accommodation, or directions or just general advice,” says Shriram. There were instances where the cyclists had food at small wayside hotels. “The owners, after chatting with us and knowing the objective of our tour, refused to accept money,” recalls Milind.The cyclists have been meeting several cycling groups, who hosted them for dinners and showed them around.Talking about the toughest parts of the expedition, Milind says: “The southern coast from Kanyakumari was one of the most challenging. It is not because of the terrain, but the humid climate that was extremely energy sapping. Being physically fit and mentally strong are of equal importance during long-distance cycling. Determination is all that matters,” he says. As far as the gear is concerned, Milind says having a cycle which you can take apart and reassemble is a vital skill. “Cycles need to be suited for the terrain that you would intend to traverse. We have adopted a minimalist approach in our luggage and carry very little in terms of clothes and other accessories,” he adds.What has been the biggest takeaway from the expedition? “That we have to be adaptive to change, and that we can live with very little. One doesn’t need much to live,” says Milind.

Living on Earth: Beyond the Headlines

Air Date: Week of January 7, 2022

stream/download this segment as an MP3 file

Polar bears are one of several Arctic species that would be threatened by oil and gas drilling exploration projects in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve near the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. (Photo: Anita Ritenour, Flickr, CC BY 2.0)
This week, Environmental Health News Editor Peter Dykstra and Host Steve Curwood discuss an oil and gas project in a region adjacent to the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve that could threaten polar bears and the planet. Also, some good news for the planet as France bans many kinds of plastic packaging for fresh produce. And they take a look back in history to President Eisenhower’s 1955 proposal of the Interstate Highway System.

Transcript

CURWOOD: It’s Living on Earth. I’m Steve Curwood. And on the line now from Atlanta, Georgia for our customary look beyond the headlines is Peter Dykstra. Peter is an editor with environmental health news that’s ehn.org and dailyclimate.org. Hi there, Peter. Happy New Year!
DYKSTRA: Happy New Year, Steve. And we’ve got some news about polar bears, among other thing polar bears have become perhaps the enduring symbol of what climate change can do, is doing, to the Arctic. Just before Christmas, the Center for Biological Diversity announced a federal lawsuit against the Interior Department over a massive oil and gas exploration project within the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the North Slope of Alaska.
CURWOOD: Well, that petroleum was right next to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and is almost as big and has many of the species that are protected next door there. And currently, it’s free from oil and gas development.
DYKSTRA: That’s right, the Peregrin exploration program would be a five year, almost year-round oil and gas effort, to see whether there is extractable oil and gas in a portion of the reserve. The Trump administration okayed the exploration, Biden’s Interior Department would have to okay, the permanent oil and gas drilling there. But if it happened, it’s hard to see that there wouldn’t be the same kind of sizable damage that we fought over in the Arctic National Wildlife drilling proposals for the last 40 years.
CURWOOD: Of course, one of the concerns even about exploration is that it involves building snow and ice roads and air strips in areas where the permafrost itself, if it’s disturbed, could become a source of methane and other gases for climate disruption.
DYKSTRA: That’s right, noise pollution from all of that industrial activity is going to add to the burden of an area that has so far been pristine.
CURWOOD: And of course, the big question is, do we really need all this oil at a time of the climate emergency so maybe this lawsuit to protect the polar bears is really designed to protect us.
DYKSTRA: There’s a 60 day comment period on the potential filing of the suit. Once that comment period ends in a couple of months, keep you posted on what happens with the proposal to drill in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
CURWOOD: Okay, Peter, well, tell me what else do you have for us today?
DYKSTRA: A little good news. If you’re concerned about plastic pollution in the world, after climate change, it’s arguably the biggest worry for the environment and growing very quickly. But France has banned the use of plastics for in packaging, most fruit and vegetables. The ban came into effect the first of the year, under the new rules, everything from onions, carrots, tomatoes, potatoes, apples, pears, and about 30 other produce items can no longer be sold, wrapped in plastic. Instead, they should be wrapped at all in recyclable materials.

France has placed a ban on selling certain fruits and vegetables in plastic packaging as part of their process to phase out all single-use plastics by 2040. (Photo: Marco Verch Professional Photographer, Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

CURWOOD: Well, that’ll be helpful because plastic pollution, as you say, is a major threat not just in the ocean, but to human health when it’s used to wrap food because of chemicals that some food wrappings can contain.
DYKSTRA: That’s right and foot in the door in France, so to speak, is hoped to be the first step for all of the EU nations to take in the effort to curb plastic pollution.
CURWOOD: Wouldn’t it be nice that the United States thought the same way.
DYKSTRA: Wouldn’t it be nice?
CURWOOD: Hey, Peter, take a look back in the history books. Tell me what you see.
DYKSTRA: Back in 1955, the first week of the year. And his State of the Union address President Eisenhower proposed the Interstate Highway System, which somewhat ironically, was based on what I saw in World War II, when Hitler guided the creation of the Autobahn system in Germany, not primarily seen as a way for Germans to zip across the country and leisure, but a way for German armaments and soldiers to zip across the country. In World War II, I’d wanted the same kind of mobility for the United States at a time when we were in the middle of the Cold War with Russia.

This photo from 1993 shows a ceremony unveiling the designs for the commemorative signs marking a highway as being part of Eisenhower’s Interstate System. L-R Chairman Nick J. Rahall (D-WV) of the House Surface Transportation Subcommittee, John Eisenhower (President Eisenhower’s son), Federal Highway Administrator Rodney E. Slater, and Chairman Norman Y. Mineta (D-CA) of the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation. (Photo: Federal Highway Administration, Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain)

CURWOOD: So 65 years later, they’re still building parts of the interstate system. Peter, right?
DYKSTRA: That’s right and the interstate system, parts of it that are 65 years old or close to it are falling apart, which is a part of the infrastructure effort now underway in Washington.
CURWOOD: Thanks, Peter. Peter Dykstra is an editor with environmental health news at ehn.org and dailyclimate.org. We’ll talk again real soon.
DYKSTRA: All right, Steve, thanks a lot. Talk to you soon.
CURWOOD: And there’s more on these stories on the living on Earth website, that’s loe.org.
 

Links
The Center for Biological Diversity | “Lawsuit Launched to Protect Polar Bears from Arctic Oil Exploration” The Guardian | “That’s a Wrap: French Plastic Packaging Ban for Fruit and Veg Begins” Read President Eisenhower’s State of the Union Address from 1955 here