Lake Tahoe is filled with trash. I went diving with the crew whose mission is to clean it up

The first pull of the day was a Corona bottle, its label scraped off by the coarse sand just off the shore of South Lake Tahoe. How long it had been there was anyone’s guess.

A freediver in the floating cleanup crew unearthed it from the sand — only about 12 feet deep here — and surfaced to dump it in a green floating trash raft named Darlene.

“Partyyyy! Wooo!” shouted Colin West, amused and sarcastic. “I bet that isn’t the last beer bottle we find today.”

It was Day 15 of the first-ever effort to systematically scoop up submerged litter and junk that has accumulated on the bottom along Lake Tahoe’s 72-mile shoreline. Fluffy clouds hovered above the south shore’s shallow crescent and summer heat warmed up the alpine basin.

Fifteen people, most of them volunteers, had gathered at the Ski Run Marina earlier that morning and loaded three motorboats, three yellow kayaks, one Jet Ski and Darlene with dive gear and snacks in preparation for a long day on the water. Then everyone motored out to a spot a stone’s throw from the Nevada border and the divers hopped in the water.

Divers move a large piece of debris from the bottom of Lake Tahoe to a raft as they collect trash from under the water.

Divers move a large piece of debris from the bottom of Lake Tahoe to a raft as they collect trash from under the water.

Nina Riggio/The Chronicle

From now through the fall, West, 34, of Stateline, Nev., will be leading these roving teams of divers and boaters through his nonprofit, Clean Up the Lake, which he founded three years ago to conduct coordinated beach and underwater trash pickups.

He said he would love to scour the entire lake bed, but Tahoe is deep and craggy, plunging 1,645 feet into the Earth at its lowest point. The deepest a recreational scuba diver can go safely is about 100 feet, but descending past 25 feet at the High Sierra altitude increases the risks of decompression sickness, so that’s about as far down as West’s crews will go.

“We’ve done 12 miles of the Nevada side. Now I’m excited to see how much trash is in California,” West said.

By extracting thousands of pounds of garbage from the sapphire-blue lake, the project speaks to Tahoe lovers who may worry about the lake’s health. The historically clear water has grown relatively murky with sediment and algae in the past decade, a development tied to warmer water temperatures caused by climate change. Invasive weeds and invertebrates are changing the composition of the lake as well.

Combing the entire near-shore environment is an unprecedented act of stewardship. West’s project will provide the first clear look at a mess that has been building since Tahoe’s development explosion in the 1950s, a time when boaters casually tossed empty beer cans and busted fishing gear overboard.

So far, his crew has covered 21 miles and collected more than 5,000 pounds of trash, ranging from the mundane (glass bottles and sunglasses) to the obscure (sex toys, a 1980s-era boom box) to the intentional (abandoned car tires).

I accompanied West’s crew on a cleanup dive in June as a trash-collecting scuba volunteer. Moments before our descent, West warned our group about encountering problematic items underwater.

“If you find anything — let’s say, criminally related — like a gun or a body part, signal to me,” West said. “We have a whole thing we do to let law enforcement know, and then they come out and take care of it.”

On that alarming note, we descended to the sandy bottom and started hunting for trash.


Now Playing:

Video: Courtesy of Terence Reardon

West is tall and broad-shouldered, with a close-cropped blond beard and a fondness for Teva sandals. He’s a filmmaker and television showrunner by trade and organized his nonprofit in 2018 to clean beaches in Belize. But he quickly shifted its focus to Tahoe after hearing about litter buildups in the lake.

The first major Tahoe underwater cleanup took place that same year at Bonsai Rock, a popular summer hangout on the rugged eastern shore marked by clusters of giant, egg-shaped granite boulders poking out of the water. In one day, locals pulled out 600 pounds of litter, including hundreds of beer cans.

“That was when it became obvious that this was a problem,” said Matt Levitt, founder and CEO of local distillery Tahoe Blue Vodka, who volunteered at Bonsai Rock and is sponsoring West’s project. “It had been 50 years of people using this lake as a trash can before the whole eco-conservation movement got legs.”

Since settling in Tahoe, West has happily, obsessively taken on the role of underwater garbage man. He keeps a crate in the bed of his pickup truck for litter he casually picks up running errands. There’s a garbage can in his backyard full of tangled fishing line and lures. He hasn’t bought a pair of sunglasses in four years — the lake is full of free ones.

“The more I dove and the more I researched, the more I saw the problem, and the bigger my plans became,” he said. “I’ve seen Belize, I’ve seen Bali and other places that feel like they’re so far gone already with how bad the trash is. Tahoe feels like it’s still within grasp.”

He couldn’t have picked a better time for this endeavor.

Since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, Tahoe has become a haven for remote workers decamping from the Bay Area and a greater attraction to millions of road-tripping tourists. With more bodies and cars moving through the precious alpine environment, locals are more concerned than ever about how to guard against long-term damages.

“As more and more people come, it’s getting harder and harder to reverse the impact they’re having,” said Jesse Patterson, chief strategy officer for the League to Save Lake Tahoe, the cleanup and conservation nonprofit behind the “Keep Tahoe Blue” campaign. “It’s been several decades of stuff getting into the lake, and we need to take it out and start fresh.”


Volunteer diver Hayden Farris, left, helps Colin West, founder of the nonprofit Clean Up the Lake, move scuba tanks to a raft. The group, which scours the subaquatic environment for trash and debris, hopes to cover all 72 miles of shoreline by this fall.

Volunteer diver Hayden Farris, left, helps Colin West, founder of the nonprofit Clean Up the Lake, move scuba tanks to a raft. The group, which scours the subaquatic environment for trash and debris, hopes to cover all 72 miles of shoreline by this fall.

Nina Riggio/The Chronicle

No one knows exactly how much garbage is in the lake, but Seth Jones, of South Lake Tahoe, probably has the clearest view of the issue. He performs invasive species control in the lake professionally — scuba diving to exterminate Asian clams in Emerald Bay, for example — and has been quietly moonlighting as a subaquatic trash collector since 2012.

Jones and his dive buddies have hauled out tens of thousands of pounds of trash. Last year, he and his dive partner, Monique Rydel Fortner, formed the nonprofit Below the Blue to formalize their efforts.

“There’s so much stuff out there, it’s mind-boggling,” Jones said.

Beyond the litter is a deeper issue of commercial-industrial dumping, he said. Engine blocks and tires. Construction debris. Commercial fireworks canisters. Sunken boats that get pulverized into thousands of pieces.

“They just get ground to a pulp over the years,” Jones said. “No agency dives for that kind of stuff. Everyone knows it’s a problem, but it’s not anyone’s jurisdiction.”

Boats that sink in Tahoe are often left there. Occasionally, authorities will commission a local salvage company (or sometimes Jones) to retrieve a craft’s engine, battery, gas and sewage tanks — the parts that leach toxins and pollutants into the water.

Jones’ dream is to marshal a full-scale trash excavation of the lake with side-scan sonar sweeps, deep divers, remote-operated submersibles, barges with cranes and winches — the works. But that would cost tens of millions of dollars.

Removing trash from the near-shore areas — West’s goal — is the place to start, Jones reckons.

Clean Up the Lake captured the public imagination as soon as it was announced in the spring. A fundraising goal of $100,000 was hit within a week; Levitt matched the total. Several more donors chipped in to fully fund the quarter-million-dollar project.

“It’s one of the most successful projects we’ve ever done,” said Allen Biaggi, board chair of the Tahoe Fund, an environmental nonprofit that oversaw the fundraising campaign. “It really resonated with people. This is just the right thing to do for Tahoe right now.”


Volunteer Luba Guvernator jumps in for her third and final dive of the day to collect debris from the bottom of Lake Tahoe on Tuesday, July 6, 2021.

Volunteer Luba Guvernator jumps in for her third and final dive of the day to collect debris from the bottom of Lake Tahoe on Tuesday, July 6, 2021.

Nina Riggio/The Chronicle

On the day I dived with the cleanup crew, the water off South Lake was swimming-pool clear and mellow. The bottom was flat and sandy, though lousy with the white, dime-size half-shells of dead invasive Asian clams.

After more than 200 dives, West has these operations down to a science.

Four scuba divers comb the terrain, scooping trash into yellow mesh handbags. From the surface, two free divers (no air tanks) wearing fins and snorkels follow along, occasionally swooping down to ferry full trash bags up to Darlene the trash raft.

When a scuba diver finds a cumbersome object — say, an old tire — they signal for assistance, and a free diver brings down a rope attached to a kayak above. Together, they’ll muscle the thing out of the water. For larger or especially heavy junk items, West will mark the GPS location. He hopes to return next year with a crane to haul them out.

The first thing I found was an artisanal clear glass jar, partially buried in the sand. Then a brown hand grenade-shaped beer bottle. Then a 30-foot length of white twine. A strand of electrical wiring. Piece of a broken fishing rod. Length of aluminum pipe. Rimless reading glasses slippery with algae growth.

It felt like a treasure hunt and lasted about an hour. Each of the four divers filled about three bags. By the end of the day, the group had brought up 318 pounds of junk.

One caveat to the cleanup: Any objects that appear to be older than 50 years could carry historical significance and must be left alone — even something as obviously out of place as a rusted tin can. West notes their location and will take his findings to the state when the project wraps.


Divers haul up litter found on the bottom of Lake Tahoe. From now through the fall, volunteers will conduct coordinated underwater trash pickups along all 72 miles of the lake's shoreline.

Divers haul up litter found on the bottom of Lake Tahoe. From now through the fall, volunteers will conduct coordinated underwater trash pickups along all 72 miles of the lake’s shoreline.

Nina Riggio/The Chronicle

The diving gets all the attention, but the trash-sorting is just as important.

Every item is dried, weighed, photographed and logged — there are 77 categories, based on a labeling system designed by the United Nations for underwater materials. Then it is either recycled, stashed for future public art projects or disposed of properly.

By converting the trash into data points, the project will help researchers and conservation nonprofits understand not only what’s in the lake but also where it comes from and where it accumulates in the subaquatic landscape. As microplastics have filtered into the lake, West’s team is providing samples to experts for further research.

It’s worth questioning whether pulling litter out of Tahoe will meaningfully improve the health of the environment. Most of what West’s crew finds probably isn’t leaching high concentrations of heavy metals or chemical pollutants into the water.

“There are things in there that are potentially bad, but given the size of Tahoe, the real negative impact of those things is probably negligible — or not measurable,” said Geoffrey Schladow, who directs the Tahoe Environmental Research Center at UC Davis. “Having said that, this project is great for building awareness.”

First the beach pickups, now the near-shore project, maybe one day the deep clean. The assumption is that we have evolved past chucking beer bottles overboard, that most of the things West’s crew pulls out will not go back in.

“We’re definitely making progress,” he said. “Sometimes, that starts with correcting the mistakes of the past.”

Gregory Thomas is The Chronicle’s editor of lifestyle & outdoors. Email: gthomas@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @GregRThomas

The ingenious ancient technology concealed in the shallows

Article body copy

It was a cool spring morning on British Columbia’s Vancouver Island when the ground began to buckle and heave. On the Richter scale, the earthquake reached a magnitude of 7.3 at a place called Forbidden Plateau. Seventy-five years later, it still holds the title as the most powerful onshore quake ever recorded in Canada. In nearby communities, brick walls fell and three-quarters of all chimneys collapsed. Two casualties were recorded that day: one man died of heart failure and another drowned after his dinghy was overturned by a wave generated when a piece of land gave way and thundered into the sea. For a while, that seemed like the end of the story. But over time, the changes wrought by the quake revealed a mystery that had lain hidden for generations—long enough to be forgotten.

Twenty-two kilometers from the quake’s epicenter, locals started noticing wooden stakes appearing in the intertidal zone of Comox Harbour on the east side of Vancouver Island. They ranged in size from the width of an adult’s thumb to the width of an arm, but stuck out little more than ankle high from the sand and mud. Locals pondered the mystery; many assumed they were the leavings of some relatively recent industrial activity, or a fishing scheme abandoned by immigrants from Japan.

In 2002, Nancy Greene, then an undergraduate anthropology student, walked among the barnacle-encrusted stakes and thought she’d found a fascinating subject for her senior project at Malaspina College (now Vancouver Island University). She had lived in the area since 1978, raised her children here, and was up for a new challenge. Little did she know it would consume countless hours, span more than a decade, or eventually reveal the largest unstudied archaeological feature yet found on the Pacific Northwest coast—one that would tell a remarkable tale of human ingenuity and adaptation in an era of climate change.


On the eastern slopes of the Beaufort Range, rain and meltwater flow down the Puntledge and Tsolum Rivers and converge in the Courtenay River before reaching Comox Harbour. These sheltered waters are part of the Salish Sea, which stretches from British Columbia’s Inside Passage down to Washington State’s Puget Sound. People have been living off the bounty of this marine environment ever since they began arriving in the region near the end of the last ice age, about 13,000 years ago. Comox Harbour lies within the protected waters of a broad, gently sloping estuary that covers an area of 9.6 square kilometers, slightly bigger than Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, California. It is the traditional territory of speakers of the extinct Pentlatch language, whose descendants form part of the 342-member K’ómoks First Nation, which along with the communities of Courtenay and Comox now surround the harbor.

map of Comox Harbour and Koeye River

Map data by OpenStreetMap via ArcGIS

There had always been a few bits of wood poking up through the sand and mud of Comox Harbour, but after the quake of 1946, thousands of stakes emerged across vast stretches of the intertidal zone. This was likely a result of liquefaction, a phenomenon in which shaking reduces the strength of the sediment and leads to erosion. Subsequent periods of dredging near the mouth of the river may have also contributed to the process. It was clear the stakes formed patterns, but just what those patterns represented was a puzzle until quite recently. In her interviews with members of local Indigenous communities, Nancy Greene found only one clue: a K’ómoks elder said that her grandmother told her the stakes were used to catch salmon, and that families owned specific weirs and were tasked with maintaining them.

Cory Frank, manager of the K’ómoks Guardian Watchmen, encountered the stakes as a child and also pondered the mystery. But when he asked his elders what they were, they didn’t seem to know. What was well known were the frequent battles that took place in the harbor before colonization. Those foolish enough to attempt a raid on the people living here, or their rich resources, faced harsh consequences. “What we did with people like that was chop their heads off, put them on a spear, toss them in the sand, and leave them as a reminder for other people not to come.”

Frank clearly relishes relaying the tale, a testament to the abundance of salmon and the tenacity of the people protecting their claim to Comox Harbour. Now, as the history of the stakes is becoming known, he says they are a source of pride in his community.

Nancy Greene

Nancy Greene studying the massive fish trap complex in Comox Harbour on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Photo courtesy of Nancy Greene

Uncovering that history required hands-on research. In 2003, after surveying the entire estuary, Greene pulled on her gumboots and set out with pin flags and a laser theodolite to take geolocations of stakes across an area encompassing a total of approximately 30 hectares. She enlisted her husband, retired geologist David McGee, and a team of volunteers to help find and mark the stakes while trying to outrun the incoming tide. Because not all tides are created equal, she had to account for variations in how much area a tide exposed, available light, and weather. After months of reconnaissance, then weeks of recording geolocations, she recalls that first moment seeing the information they had collected displayed on a computer screen. Suddenly, those individual nubs of Douglas fir and western red cedar became 900 little black points on a field of white—like a photographic negative of stars in the nighttime sky. Patterns began to emerge and repeat. It took months of analysis, she says, before she began to realize what they represented—the remains of an immense, highly coordinated, and sophisticated fish trap system, the largest such system discovered in North America, if not the world.


Think Hotel California for fish—they can easily check in, but they can never leave. Such is the purpose of fish traps, ingenious systems for catching wild fish and practicing fishery management the world over. Fish weirs, like the ones that appeared in Comox Harbour, are a specific kind of fish trap built as an obstruction across a river or tidal waters. Fish seeking shallows, or spawning grounds farther upstream, swim in with the tide and can’t escape. The ancient technology relied on a deep and intimate knowledge of local fish behavior.

Evidence suggests that complex hunter-gatherer cultures around the world invented fish traps independently at different places and times. Unlike wooden stakes, rock assemblages used in other fish weirs are difficult to date, but radiocarbon dating of adjacent middens (piles of fish bones and shells) offers a kind of proxy. Some of the oldest confirmed traps in North America are on mainland British Columbia at the mouth of the Fraser River (4,500 to 5,280 years old) and in Maine (5,770 years old). The oldest-known fish traps, between 9,000 and 7,000 years old, were found in northern Europe. But the technology is probably far older. A line of stones found on the shore of an ancient lake in the Kenya Rift is reminiscent of the fish weirs used by the local people in modern times. It dates to the time of Homo erectus or at least 490,000 years ago. If this was indeed a weir, it would mean the technology predates modern humans.

[embedded content]

At high tide, fish would be directed inside the traps; as the tide receded, they were stranded inside. Animation by School District 17 Indigenous Education and Fox & Bee Studio

The scale and complexity of the fish weirs found in Comox Harbour is staggering. Multiple traps were likely in use at the same time and, collectively, would catch immense quantities of fish. Over the course of her research, published in the Canadian Journal of Archaeology in 2015, Greene and her team recorded the position of 13,602 stakes. Radiocarbon dating of 57 stakes revealed ages ranging from 1,300 to just over 100 years old. Greene, now a research archaeologist, conservatively estimates there are approximately 150,000 to 200,000 stakes in the harbor, which represent the remains of more than 300 fish traps. She knows of no other site approaching this scale of stake density.

In Comox Harbour, the patterns of the stake alignments reveal two distinct designs: one heart-shaped and one chevron-shaped. In both designs, removable lattice panels were likely lashed to the stakes to act as fences designed to lead the fish into the traps during high tide. When migrating fish encountered the barrier, they were directed into an opening at the crease between either the lobes of the heart or the wings of the chevron. As the tide receded, the fish inside the trap were stranded. The heart-shaped design mirrors historical fish weirs found in other sites along the Pacific Northwest coast, the east coast of North America, and coasts in other parts of the world. Depending on the height of the tide, the traps could have also served as holding ponds to keep fish alive in shallow water until people were ready to collect and process the catch. After the people had all they wanted, they removed the panels to allow fish to pass.

The stakes from the heart-shaped traps correspond with the earlier dates returned from radiocarbon dating. They ranged in age from 1,240 years old to a little over 840 years old. Because of their proximity to nearby middens, and the preponderance of herring bones in those middens, Greene suggests the people of Comox Harbour used heart-shaped traps to catch herring. They built, operated, and maintained those traps during a prolonged era of warm temperatures and frequent droughts—an era that was coming to an end.

diagram of fish trap shapes

The people changed the shape of the fish traps to adapt to changing ocean conditions. Illustration by David McGee and Mercedes Minck

On the east coast of Vancouver Island, there was a marked increase in precipitation around 850 years ago. As the air got cooler and ocean temperatures dropped, fish ranges shifted. The archaeological record reflects these changes. After using and maintaining the heart-shaped traps for over four centuries, local people abruptly replaced them with the chevron-shaped design. Greene found no evidence of a period of trial and error. Knowledge of this new design probably already resided within the local population, or they quickly obtained it. “There were heart-shaped traps, and then there were chevron-shaped traps,” she says. “There were no traps in between.” It was a rapid technological adaptation to an altered climate.

The new chevron-shaped traps, which worked on the same principle of corralling schooling fish into a holding pen, were designed to catch much larger fish—up to 30 times the mass of herring. Local people built the traps to take advantage of a species multiplying exponentially in the cooler temperatures, a species that would come to support the very foundation, stability, and fluorescence of culture in Comox Harbour and all along the Pacific Northwest coast—a complex and sophisticated society that did not rely on agriculture. For the next five centuries, the people of Comox Harbour expanded, rebuilt, and maintained those traps for catching salmon.


Construction of the fish traps began above the high-tide line in the temperate rainforest. The people of Comox Harbour selected saplings then cut, trimmed, and pointed them. They waited for a favorable low tide, then measured, spaced, and drove the stakes into the intertidal sand and mud using pile drivers before the tide came rolling back in. Examples of pile drivers from the Pacific Northwest coast include some with handles and others with ergonomic thumb and finger grips etched into the stone. They repeated the process dozens of times, likely over numerous tide cycles, in order to create a single chevron-shaped salmon trap. Once the stakes were secure and the lattice panels were lashed in place—but before any salmon were taken—tradition dictates the people would pay respect.

At the waters’ edge, a shaman would stand on a platform with his face painted red and eagle down in his hair—a symbol of peace and welcome. He would shake his ceremonial rattle and sing, then head out in his canoe. He would harpoon several salmon and put aside the first one he caught. The entire community would stand on the beach and watch, anticipating his return. When he came ashore, he would sing to and honor the first salmon by sprinkling it with eagle down. Once it was cooked and the feast complete, fishing could begin.

As salmon arrived in the harbor, in search of the freshwater surge from the Courtenay River and the spawning sites upstream, some encountered wooden panels that formed a barrier forcing them through the narrow opening of a trap. One by one, the salmon followed each other inside, where they found themselves directed back along the wings of the pen, unable to escape.

During the salmon run, numerous fish traps would be in operation around the harbor. Men of high-status or lineage probably controlled access to the traps. Traditionally, in cultures along the Pacific Northwest coast, men were responsible for catching fish. Women and young children most often processed fish; slaves, who were considered genderless, were also likely given this task. The traps worked day and night, in concert with the tide, until either the salmon run subsided, or the people had their fill. They would then remove the panels and store them for the next run or season.

The people of Comox Harbour designed their traps to be semi-permanent. This allowed for the selective catch of salmon while the panels were in place; once the panels were removed, the rest of the fish could easily pass between the bare stakes to spawn in the rivers and streams beyond. An example of just such a panel, nearly six meters long and radiocarbon dated to the late 14th century, was discovered in Comox Harbour. The traps were highly consistent in form and were likely built using standardized units of measurement. One series of three linked traps, which may have been in use at the same time, stretched over a distance of more than three football fields (320 meters). The traps ensured both the fish and the fishery thrived.

remain of a fish trap panel

The remains of a removable fence were found in the harbor a few years ago. Photo courtesy of Genevieve Hill

Greene suspects the fishery in and around Comox Harbour would have supported a high population density. She believes the enormous number of fish caught and processed here would go to feeding not only the local people over the coming winter months; they likely traded fish up and down the coast and across the Salish Sea. Prior to the smallpox epidemic of 1862, there were about 30,000 Indigenous people living along the coast of British Columbia’s Inside Passage. The fishery at Comox Harbour may have been the center of cultural activity in the northern Salish Sea for at least 1,300 years.

Deidre Cullon, an archaeologist and adjunct professor in the geography department at Vancouver Island University, works for the Laich-Kwil-Tach Treaty Society. She has studied Pacific Northwest fish traps and wrote her doctoral dissertation on the relationship between Pacific Northwest peoples and salmon. “What I find,” she says, “is that the more we do and the more we learn, the more questions we have.”

Cullon, like Greene, found it challenging to obtain any information about historical fish traps in the Indigenous communities she surveyed. Why has the cultural memory of these features and this technology all but vanished? She points to a “perfect storm” blowing out the flame of cultural memory.

The smallpox epidemic of 1862 claimed the lives of half the Indigenous people on the coast of British Columbia. In that catastrophe, not only were keepers of knowledge lost; entire communities were abandoned. Lost, too, was the need for a high-production fishery—there were far fewer mouths to feed.

“And then, right on the heels of that, the Canadian government chose to support commercial fishing for canneries,” Cullon explains. The government declared the traps illegal and sent their fisheries officers to destroy them. This was followed by the advent of the notorious residential school system, in which Indigenous children were removed from their families by the government and religious institutions and taken to far-off boarding schools, effectively separating them from their communities, language, and culture. This resulted in a profound disruption in the transfer of traditional knowledge, including the purpose and use of fish traps.

remains of fish trap stakes in Comox Harbour

As the tide recedes in the harbor today, remains of the stakes poke out of the estuary. Photo courtesy of Nancy Greene

Although the ways and means of fishing changed, salmon retained their place at the heart of Indigenous society on the Pacific Northwest coast. Among many First Nations on this coast, it was taboo to toss salmon remains on a rubbish heap, as was done with herring and shellfish. People released the remains of salmon into the sea out of respect for what they considered nonhuman kin.

“The ocean was the water of life,” Cullon explains. “It had resurrection properties that allowed them to be reincarnated so that they can then return to the human world the following year.” In the Indigenous belief system, this respect and these traditions ensured the salmon’s return.

But for over a generation now, the number of salmon returning to the coast of British Columbia has fallen sharply, due to more than a century of commercial fishing and development. In addition, climate change is threatening the ecosystem itself. This strikes at the heart of both Indigenous communities and society as a whole. If not the continued return of the salmon, what will the future bring?


On the Pacific Northwest coast, and around the world, change is underway again. On a bright summer day in 2020, a fisherman hauled in evidence little more than 80 kilometers south of Comox Harbour. He was fishing for salmon but described his catch as “a meter long and all muscle and all teeth.” It was a Pacific barracuda, an aggressive, predatory species common in the subtropical waters off Baja California, over 2,000 kilometers to the south. William Cheung, the Canada Research Chair in Ocean Sustainability and Global Change at the University of British Columbia, says that warmer-water fish, such as barracuda and ocean sunfish are arriving in local waters with increasing frequency. He predicts a future in which sardines, a fish more associated with Southern California, will become common on Canada’s west coast.

Cheung’s research also opens a window into the past. He can corroborate the shift in ocean surface temperatures approximately 850 years ago, temperatures that favored salmon. And now, he sees another shift underway. After centuries of relative stability, ocean surface temperatures will likely continue to rise on the coast of British Columbia over the next 30 years. His projections suggest this warming will bring a 30 percent decline in sockeye salmon, but that’s only part of the story. Episodic marine heatwave events, such as the Blob, will exacerbate this baseline temperature increase—doubling the impact on fish like salmon.

Cheung says the temperature increases he’s seeing now are resulting in changes that are beyond what people have experienced before. He’s concerned that adapting to those changes will be less straightforward in the future. What’s certain is that unprecedented change in the global marine ecosystem is taking place, and human-induced climate change is one of the primary drivers.

The archaeological record shows the people of Comox Harbour used and adapted their fishing technology to help provide a nutritious food source and to ensure the sustainability of natural systems. They organized their society around it. Today, as climate change accelerates, and we continue the exploitation of global fish stocks to or beyond their capacity, modern society is leaving evidence of our commercial fishing philosophy in intertidal zones, on beaches, and adrift on and littering the bottom of the sea—much of it plastic. But on British Columbia’s central coast, just north of Vancouver Island, the Heiltsuk Nation is looking back to a traditional technology to help safeguard the future of their fishery.

Fish trap remains in the intertidal

The fish traps extend over the 9.6-square-kilometer harbor. Photo courtesy of Nancy Greene

William Housty, conservation manager for the Heiltsuk Integrated Resource Management Department, says evidence of ancient stone fish traps and cedar stake fish weirs is found throughout Heiltsuk territory.

“It’s not like throwing a net in the water and catching every salmon that’s swimming by,” he says of the old traps and weirs. They represent what he calls a brilliant technological approach because they were adapted on a creek-by-creek basis, which allowed for intimate knowledge and management focused on sustainability. Now, he says, the technology has proved to be invaluable for research.

Today, biologists commonly use weirs for monitoring fishery health, but the technology is rarely used in the Indigenous territories where it evolved. In 2013, the Heiltsuk Nation built a fish weir, based on a traditional design, on the Koeye River, an important salmon-bearing stream. It has allowed local people to identify, tag, and release salmon; to understand critical relationships between rates of salmon survival and spawning; and to monitor stream temperature fluctuations—in short, to assess the health of the ecological system.

“I think it’s genius,” Housty says of the technology that has a history of being adaptable to climate change. “One, to be able to feed yourself; two, to be able to maintain ecological diversity in the watersheds and stream systems; and three, just being mindful and respectful of the salmon themselves and making sure that we’re giving them the opportunity to spawn and come back—knowing full well that, in previous times, salmon were the main staple of our ancestors.”

The salmon caught in the new Heiltsuk weir are not yet used for food or ceremonial purposes. That will only happen once local managers are confident sustainability objectives have been met. Housty looks forward to that day. When it arrives, he says the first fish taken will be welcomed with honor and respect.

Push to curb plastics use on cruise ships

By Stavros Nikolaou

The deputy ministry of shipping and Cypriot scientists are joining forces to develop greater environmental awareness about plastic pollution from cruise ships.

According to an announcement, the Cypriot-inspired project received the important BeMed 2020 award from the BeyondPlasticMediterranean foundation, supported by the Prince Albert Foundation of Monaco, which each year awards the best proposals for action, aimed at reducing pollution of the Mediterranean.

The shipping ministry has supported this project from the beginning, with the aim of minimising marine plastic pollution and its effects on public health, the marine environment, and coastal tourism, with targeted actions in cruise tourism.

The aim is to involve the entire cruise industry, both workers and passengers. Agreed actions include field measurements with specific cruise ship waste characterisation methods, information campaigns as well as participatory solutions that will minimise the use of disposable plastics and improve their management.

“The Covid-19 pandemic that plunged the planet into a health crisis first and then a social and economic vortex has highlighted the importance of such a troubled environment to the ability of our societies to respond to threats of this magnitude to public health,” the announcement said. “An environmentally degraded planet has a reduced immune system”.

Oceans and seas are said to play a key role in the maintenance and proper functioning of the planet’s immune system, and they are drowning in rubbish, especially plastics, as people expect them to continue to support the planet and supply oxygen, raw materials and food.

It also pointed out that the resumption of the cruise industry, after almost two years offers a unique opportunity for a more ‘green’ development of the sector within the framework of the European Green Deal.

Before the pandemic, the Mediterranean cruise sector was on the rise and about 28 million cruise passengers visited ports in the area in 2018. It is expected that with the end of the pandemic, the cruise industry will return to these levels and continue to grow.

“As the number of cruises increases so does the waste generated by cruise ships, adversely affecting the environment,” the announcement said. The most common type of waste collected annually by ships is plastics, thus ranking them at the top of marine litter.

In addition, disposable plastics account for more than 70 per cent of total marine litter, posing a serious threat to marine ecosystems and human health, and at the same time causing serious economic damage to tourism and shipping.

Evolutionary ‘trap’ leading young sea turtles to ingest plastic, study says

Evolutionary ‘trap’ leading young sea turtles to ingest plastic, study says

Researchers find fragments in innards of species that have adapted to develop in open ocean, which has highly polluted areas

Sea turtle

Science correspondent
Mon 2 Aug 2021 00.15 EDT

Young marine turtles are swallowing large quantities of plastic, with ocean pollution changing habitats that were once ideal for their development into a risk, researchers have found.

The impact of plastic on wildlife is a growing area of research, and studies have revealed harrowing cases of marine animals sustaining injuries or dying after ingesting such material or becoming entangled in it.

One study estimated that between 4.8m and 12.7m metric tonnes of plastic entered the world’s oceans in 2010 alone, while a recent review by the Australian government’s science agency, CSIRO, found that animals across 80 different species, including turtles, were being killed by ingesting plastic.

Now researchers studying young sea turtles, ranging from hatchlings to those with shells under 50cm in size, say the presence of plastic in the world’s oceans means evolutionary adaptations that once helped the creatures thrive are putting them at risk.

Writing in the journal Frontiers in Marine Science, researchers in the UK and Australia report how they looked for the presence of plastic in the innards of 121 sea turtles of five species – green, loggerhead, olive ridley, hawksbill and flatback. The turtles were from the Indian Ocean off the west coast of Australia, and the Pacific Ocean off the east coast of Australia, and were either stranded or caught unintentionally.

The results reveal that specimens of all the species – except hawksbill turtles, of which only seven specimens were examined – were found to have plastic fragments in their gastrointestinal tract. The proportion affected was higher among turtles from the Pacific Ocean.

Of the green turtles from those waters, 83% were found to contain plastic – compared with 9% from the Indian Ocean – with the material accounting for up to 0.9% of their total body mass. One green turtle specimen from the Pacific Ocean was found to contain 144 pieces of ingested plastic more than 1mm in size.

The team note that most of the plastic found inside the turtles was polyethylene or polypropylene, but it was not possible to determine the specific sources of these widely used polymers.

Dr Emily Duncan, of the Centre for Ecology and Conservation on Exeter’s Penryn Campus in Cornwall and a co-author of the study, said young turtles had evolved to develop in the open ocean, where predators are relatively scarce.

“However, our results suggest that this evolved behaviour now leads them into a ‘trap’ – bringing them into highly polluted areas such as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch,” she said in a statement.

Duncan added that it was not yet clear what effects swallowing plastic has on the young creatures, but warned that it could be detrimental to population levels. “Juvenile sea turtles generally have no specialised diet – they eat anything, and our study suggests this includes plastic,” Duncan said.

Mark Wright, director of science at the World Wide Fund for Nature, who was not part of the study, said six out of seven species of marine turtle were threatened with extinction, and plastic pollution is yet another of the perils they face.

“Relatively few young marine turtles survive their first year, so it is imperative that we reduce threats to ensure the long-term survival of these extraordinary species,” he said.

Environmental groups urge Senate to pass bill banning single-use plastics in the Philippines

Disposable plastic bags

MANILA, Philippines — Environment groups have challenged the Senate to urgently pass a measure that would regulate the production and use of single-use plastics, after the House of Representatives approved a counterpart bill last week.

House Bill No. 9147, or the Single-Use Plastic Products Regulation Act, sailed through the third and final reading on July 28, with 190 affirmative votes and no objections.

ADVERTISEMENT

Environment groups called the approval of the House bill a critical “first step” in the right direction, particularly in curbing the country’s plastic pollution problem.

“This also sends a strong message to plastic manufacturers that they have a responsibility to significantly reduce their contribution to the plastics problem and transition to alternative delivery systems,” said Marian Ledesma, Greenpeace Philippines campaigner.

FEATURED STORIES

Following the bill’s approval, the Senate should respond with a version that promotes genuine solutions to plastic pollution, said environment and health watchdog Ecowaste Coalition.

Their counterpart measure, the group said, should not promote “dirty” solutions, such as incineration or the burning of wastes to be turned into energy.

Several bills on the regulation of single-use plastics have been filed in the Senate since 2019, Ecowaste said. None have moved beyond the committee level.

Data from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, however, showed that at least 488 local governments have passed ordinances banning single-use plastics, the group added.

“We only have a few weeks left in the legislative calendar, and with the 2022 national elections fast approaching, we believe that now is the right time to pass the national regulation on single-use plastics,” said Coleen Salamat, Ecowaste’s campaigner.

“Our environment and communities cannot afford to go back to start with this bill in the new Congress,” she added.

During the Department of Science and Technology-hosted joint conference on Friday, upcycling surfaced as an accessible and implementable solution “while we are working on the other alternatives … especially for the sachet problem,” according to Jonathan Co of Sentinel Upcycling Technologies.

ADVERTISEMENT

Co’s business is focused on manufacturing products made of single-use packaging waste transformed into durable materials, such as school and monobloc chairs.

Through the Pateros residents’ purchase of four upcycled sorting bins, a total of 1,200 pieces, or 2.4 kilograms, of single-use plastic sachets were kept away from polluting oceans and landfills.

Read Next

EDITORS’ PICK

Don’t miss out on the latest news and information.

Subscribe to INQUIRER PLUS to get access to The Philippine Daily Inquirer & other 70+ titles, share up to 5 gadgets, listen to the news, download as early as 4am & share articles on social media. Call 896 6000.

For feedback, complaints, or inquiries, contact us.

Plastic Free July press conference highlights important legislation

U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, State Rep. David Gomberg, State Rep. Janeen Sollman, the Surfrider Foundation, the Oregon Coast Aquarium, Environment Oregon, and Oceana united at a press conference Friday, July 23, at the Oregon Zoo to draw attention to the plastic pollution crisis and the recent legislative measures offering solutions.

In response to the approximately 22 billion plastic bottles that Americans throw away each year, Merkley announced that a National Bottle Bill would soon be introduced in Congress. As part of an effort to focus collective action around the crisis, Merkley has also introduced a federal resolution to make July “Plastic Pollution Action Month.” This furthers the momentum of an existing international movement called “Plastic Free July,” which challenges individuals to reduce their plastic use.

“Many of us were taught the three R’s—reduce, reuse, and recycle—and figured that as long as we got our plastic items into those blue bins, we could keep our plastic use in check and protect our planet,” said Merkley, who serves as the chair of the Environment and Public Works subcommittee overseeing environmental justice and chemical safety, which has jurisdiction over the Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act. “But the reality has become much more like the three B’s—plastic is buried, burned, or borne out to sea. The impacts on Americans’ health, particularly in communities of color and low-income communities, are serious. Plastic pollution is a full-blown environmental and health crisis, and it’s long past time that we do everything we can to get it under control.”

Merkley discussed the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act (S. 984/H. R.2238), which he led on introducing in the U.S. Senate, with Rep. Alan Lowenthal (CA) introducing in the House. The bill is a comprehensive piece of federal legislation that would fundamentally shift the plastic pollution problem by offering source reduction measures and extended producer responsibility, addressing chemical recycling, and calling for reusable and compostable alternatives.

The press conference featured a bottle installation by Re:Solve NW and a California Condor made out of plastic marine debris by Washed Ashore, beautifully illustrating the need for solutions to the plastic crisis.

While many of the plastic pollution bills failed in Oregon’s 2021 Legislative Session, state leaders are still committed to taking action.

“Public beaches and returnable bottles are a critical part of Oregon’s remarkable legacy,” said Rep. Gomberg. As a coastal legislator, I know we still have a long way to go to address the scourge of plastic and foam debris. But sadly, too many other parts of the country are further behind. Americans throw away over 20 billion plastic bottles a year. An estimated 33 billion pounds of plastic enter the marine environment each year, devastating the world’s oceans. Much of this plastic waste comes from single-use plastics—packaging, food containers, or disposable foodware and other items that are typically used and thrown away, putting an immense burden on local governments to handle the waste. We can do better! I’m proud to stand here today with Sen. Merkley and to support his efforts to promote responsible recycling.”

“A big reason why plastic pollution is on the rise is because producers are absolved of all responsibility for where their products end up, leaving you and me with limited choices when buying consumer goods and then footing the bill for managing the waste. That fundamentally has to change,” said Oregon State Rep. Janeen Sollman (HD 30). “Producer responsibility programs work because they change the incentives that make wastefulness so cheap.”

“In 2020, 88% of the items removed during Surfrider beach cleanups were made of plastic,” said Bri Goodwin, Oregon field manager with Surfrider Foundation. “Surfrider volunteers dream about the day they no longer need to host beach cleanups to protect the environment. Stopping plastic pollution at its source is the only way this dream will ever become reality. We commend Sen. Merkley for leading the way at the federal level to end the plastic pollution crisis.”

“Plastic pollution has created a global health crisis for wildlife, ecosystems and humans,” said Amy Cutting, Oregon Zoo interim director of animal care and conservation. “Plastic entanglement and ingestion pose a grave threat to many species, including the critically endangered California condor. Reducing the sources of plastic pollution will help protect all life and the ecosystems we depend on, and we applaud Sen. Merkley’s leadership in this effort.”

“Mitigating plastic pollution at its source is vital for the protection of our marine ecosystems,” said Grace Doleshel, youth programs coordinator for the Oregon Coast Aquarium. “Together, we can facilitate change and foster environmental stewardship. Together, we can assure that Oregon’s beauty and wildlife are here to cherish for generations to come.”

“Nothing we use for a few minutes should be allowed to pollute our oceans and rivers and threaten wildlife for centuries,” said Celeste Meiffren-Swango, state director with Environment Oregon. “Momentum is growing across the country to reduce plastic pollution and it’s heartening to see Oregon’s own Sen. Merkley leading the effort in Congress.”

“Single-use plastics are harming sea turtles, whales, dolphins, and other marine animals at an alarming rate,” said Sara Holzknecht, field representative at Oceana. “With the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act, Sen. Merkley is leading the national charge to protect our oceans and communities from the growing plastic pollution crisis.”

Record levels of harmful particles found in Great Lakes fish

A record-setting fish was pulled from Hamilton Harbor at the western tip of Lake Ontario in 2015 and the world is learning about it just now.


The fish, a brown bullhead, contained 915 particles—a mix of microplastics, synthetic materials containing flame retardants or plasticizers, dyed cellulose fibers, and more—in its body. It was the most particles ever recorded in a fish.

“In 2015 we knew a lot less about microplastics and contamination in fish. I was expecting to see no particles in most fish,” Keenan Munno, then a graduate student at the University of Toronto, told EHN. Every sampled fish had ingested some particles. Munno’s 2015 master’s work has spun out into six years’ worth of research, including the new Conservation Biology paper that reports these findings.

Related: Plastic pollution, explained

The findings point to the ubiquity of microplastics and other harmful human-made particles in the Great Lakes and the extreme exposure some fish experience—especially those living in urban-adjacent waters. While direct links between microplastics and fish and human health are still an issue of emerging science, finding plastics within fish at such high amounts is concerning.

Great Lakes plastics problem

Microplastics in fish

A nylon fiber removed from a brown bullhead in Lake Ontario. The red line represents one millimeter. (Credit: Keenan Munno)

Plastics in fish

A fragment of blue high density polyethylene removed from a brown bullhead in LakeOntario. The red line represents one millimeter. (Credit: Keenan Munno)

Researchers collected fish from three locations in both Lake Superior, Lake Ontario and the Humber River (a tributary of Lake Ontario). In all they gathered 212 fish and 12,442 particles.

In Lake Ontario, besides the record-setting bullhead, white suckers from Humber Bay and Toronto Harbor had 519 and 510 particles, respectively. A longnose sucker from Mountain Bay in Lake Superior had 790 particles. In the Humber River even common shiners, minnows which rarely get to eight inches long, had up to 68 particles.

“It was obviously concerning,” said Munno, now a research assistant at University of Toronto. She extracted and counted all the microplastics and other particles from the fish’s digestive tracts by hand. That includes all 915 record-setting particles.

“You feel bad for the fish that’s eaten that much plastic,” Munno said.

Of the human-made particles found in the group of fish, 59% were plastics in Lake Ontario, 54% in Humber River, and 35% in Lake Superior.

This new study is part of a growing and concerning body of research on plastics in the Great Lakes.

In a 2013 study, researchers sampled Great Lakes surface water and found an average of 43,000 microplastic particles per square kilometer. Near major cities they measured concentrations of 466,000 microplastics per square kilometer.

Recent research estimated that Great Lakes algae could be tangling with one trillion microplastics.

“Globally, 19-21 million tonnes of plastic waste were estimated to enter aquatic ecosystems in 2016,” the study’s authors wrote. That number is expected to double by 2030.

Microplastics’ impacts on humans

Beach plastic oceans

Beach plastic litter in Norway. (Credit: Bo Eide/flickr)

“I’ve been studying microplastics for a long time and this is the study that blew me away,” Chelsea Rochman, a coauthor on the study and University of Toronto professor of ecology and evolutionary biology, told EHN.

Rochman began her microplastics research in the trash gyres in the ocean. There she’d find microplastics in one out of 11 fish and usually only a couple of pieces in a single fish. While the findings were concerning, some people said the threat to animals was well into the future.

“We’re finding that there are concentrations of microplastic in certain areas in the environment where the concentrations are so high that the animals might be at risk today,” Rochman said.

Still unpublished research from Rochman’s lab by a colleague of Munno’s will show that microplastics can travel from the digestive tract to the fillets of the fish.

Microplastics in fish fillets could be one way they get to humans.

While research hasn’t drawn robust links between microplastics and specific health problems in humans, they’ve been connected to neurotoxicity, metabolism and immunity disruption, and cancer in other laboratory tests, Atanu Sarkar, a professor of environmental and occupational health at Memorial University of Newfoundland, told EHN. Microplastics accumulate in the organs of mice exposed to them.

Even if they’re not eaten by people, fish used as fertilizer or pet food can spread microplastics throughout the environment far from aquatic ecosystems, he said.

Rochman has worked to mitigate plastic pollution in Lake Ontario with the U of T Trash Team. The Trash Team and its partners have installed filters on washing machines to capture plastic microfibers and sea bins, which capture microplastics in the lake.

“In one sea bin sample—a 24-hour sample, one bin—we find hundreds of microplastics,” Rochman said. The laundry filters likely capture one million in a month.

While microplastics continue to flood the Great Lakes, each one caught and removed is a small step in the right direction.

Banner photo: Anglers on Lake Ontario. (Credit: Ian Muttoo/flickr)

From Your Site Articles

Microplastics: The ‘big little problem’ plaguing oceans

Microplastics pose a growing concern in oceans and other aquatic habitat. Photo:
Sören Funk

Microplastics are everywhere.

“It’s in our water, it’s in the ocean, it’s in the animals, in the air, even in space,” Ana Zivanovic-Nenadovic, North Carolina Coastal Federation assistant director of policy, said recently during a virtual forum on microplastics.

Since the mass production of plastics began in the mid-20th century, plastic has permeated our lives, she explained July 15 to the 202 from 29 different counties logged on for the North Carolina Coastal Microplastics Forum, organized by the federation.

The online forum included presentations from researchers, educators and environmental group representatives who explained the different types of microplastic pollution, the risks microplastics pose to the natural environment and human health, and current policies.

“This forum is the first step in our effort to inform the public and galvanize support for the change that will hopefully lead to solutions to microplastics,” Zivanovic-Nenadovic said.

Bonnie Monteleone, ​executive director of the nonprofit Plastic Ocean Project Inc. and a plastic marine researcher, said she found in her research that around 3.86 metric tons of microplastics, or pieces measuring less than 5 millimeters, are in the North Atlantic.

The ocean is turning into “plastic soup,” Monteleone said.

Plastic is the newest member of the food web “because plastics break up, not down. They’re breaking up into smaller and smaller particles, making them more bioavailable for all the organisms in the ocean. So I like to call it the ‘big small problem’,” she said. “As the particles get smaller, we start to see less and less of them and scientists are really concerned to where these smaller particles are going.”

Plastic debris breaks apart, not down, into microplastics, which are pieces 5 millimeters or smaller. Photo: NOAA

One place these microplastics are being found is in our seafood.

Dr. Susanne Brander, a member of the faculty at Oregon State University since 2017 and previously faculty at University of North Carolina Wilmington, explained that microplastics are transferred through food webs and then are ingested directly by organisms, “but they are also trophically transferred, meaning that they are ingested by smaller organisms that are then fed upon as prey items by forage fish or larger predators. The ultimate result is that these items can end up in seafood on our dinner plates.”

According to an analysis, globally, about 26% of a fish species are found to ingest microplastics, which is roughly the same in the U.S. Microplastics affect the fish’s ability to survive and to reproduce, and that can have population level impacts.

“So we should think about this from a human health perspective but also from a fish health perspective. And in the end, that’s going to influence how many fish there are out there to catch.”

Dr. Marielis Zambrano with North Carolina State University department of forest biomaterials said that these microplastics being found in the ocean — and in our seafood — are from synthetic textiles, tires, city dust, road markings, marine coatings, personal care products and plastic pellets, or nurdles.

Microplastics are synthetic solid particles that don’t dissolve in water and are less than 5 mm in size. It’s estimated that a minimum of 5.25 trillion plastic particles weighing 270,000 tons are floating in the world’s oceans, she explained.

The average person ingests more than 5,800 particles a year of synthetic debris, found in everything including seafood, beer, tap water and sea salt. Microplastics are even found in human stool samples, meaning we are eating microplastics, Zambrano said.

Found in 99.7% of all samples taken from the ocean surface, microfibers are a primary source of microplastics. These microfibers get into the environment through the home laundry process. The effluent is processed in wastewater treatment plants but some of the particles are too small to filter out before being discharged. Microfibers are also in the air from carpet, clothing and other materials.

Dr. Marielis Zambrano with N.C. State University explains how microfibers get to the environment during her presentation.

Dr. Richard Venditti, the Elis-Signe Olsson professor in Paper Science and Engineering in the Forest Biomaterials Department at N.C. State University, said a study at the university found that cotton and rayon, both based on natural materials, degrade in about 35 days in lake water in a simulation.

“In stark contracts, polyester and many other plastics are completely inert to biological activity and persist in the lake water for a very long time,” which is a challenge, he said.

The microfiber problem has no unique solution but there are some possible ways to help, such as filters on washing machines, a sustainable coating on fabrics, using natural or plant-based fibers, or new methods to spin fibers that are durable, though all of these are not without problems.

Haw Riverkeeper Emily Sutton reiterated that microplastics are a huge public health concern and noted the high percentage of microfibers they find while testing because wastewater treatment plants aren’t able to remove all those before being discharged. Haw River, a tributary of Cape Fear River, is in the central part of the state.

Plastic, which is getting into our bodies through drinking water, has even been found in breast milk, she added. There’s also concern about the chemical compounds these plastics are made of, as well as about PFAS and other chemicals. “Those compounds are also being soaked up by these plastic particles” that are making it into our bodies.

Dr. Scott Coffin, a research scientist at the California State Water Resources Control Board, said that while wastewater treatment plants are effective at removing microplastics — between 88 and 99% of plastics — what is removed is then turned into sludge.

The sludge, which contains a high level of nutrients, is often transformed into biosolids and used as fertilizer in agricultural fields across the country. For North Carolina, 25-50% of sludge is applied as biosolid to agriculture, according to a map Coffin included in his presentation. With the increase in plastic production, there’s an increase in microplastic concentrations in biosolids, he said.

While it’s known that plants can uptake and accumulate microplastics through their roots and be distributed through their shoots, it’s unknown that plastic particles can make their way into the actual fruits and vegetables that we eat, Coffin explained. “However, we do know that with increasing plastic concentrations in soils, we see decreasing plant production of fruits and vegetables, with above a certain threshold, a complete inability of the plant to create tomatoes in this one study.”

Biosolids are the sludge generated by the treatment of sewage at wastewater treatment plants, which produces biosolids for agricultural, landscape, and home use. Upper left, an activated sludge tank at a wastewater treatment plant, and a holding area for biosolids, lower right. The two photos are not from the same facility. Graphic: USGS

Coffin added that plastic does often contain hazardous chemicals, some of which are intentionally added.

There’s at least 3,300 known chemical additives, 98 are hazardous, and 15 are endocrine disrupting. Bodies create estrogen naturally but when exposed to higher levels, it can cause things like diabetes, intellectual disabilities and cancer.

“Why do we care so much about endocrine disruptors? Exposure to just one class of endocrine disruptors of flame retardants results in more intellectual disabilities than pesticides, mercury and lead combined with an estimated 750,000 to 1.75 million total intellectual disabilities in the United States between 2001 and 2016,” Coffin said. While the human health effects of microplastics are largely uncertain, he said, evidence is rapidly evolving.

Coffin said humans are exposed to microplastics through tap water. Researchers found in 2017 that 94% of samples in the United States had detectable levels of microplastics, prompting California to pass a bill for its Water Board to define microplastics and develop standardized testing. 

When it comes to bottled and tap water, in general, higher concentrations are found in bottled water than tap water. “This is not surprising, as the bottle itself seems to be the source of these particles. Just unscrewing a lid from a plastic water bottle releases on the order of 14 to 2,400, plastic particles.”

A recent study also found that polypropylene feeding bottles for infants releases about 16 million particles per liter. This results in the estimated daily exposure of 14,000 to 4.5 million particles per day to infants.

“This is just an exposure, and we don’t know how much risk this could cause,” he said, adding that looking across all exposure routes, air is likely the greatest exposure pathway, with a much higher concentration indoors than outdoors.

Microplastics don’t go away once we’re exposed to them. “It’s estimated that we’re walking around with between 525 and 9.3 million plastic particles. We know that these particles can be transferred to the next generation with four out of six placentas containing microplastics in a 2021 study.”

Associate professor at Wake Forest University School of Law, Sarah Morath said in terms of plastic pollution, there are regulatory instruments like bans, such as the 2015 ban on microbeads in beauty products like body wash and toothpaste, economic instruments such as a tax or fee designed to encourage individuals and businesses to alter their behavior, and persuasive instruments, like an education campaign or Plastic Free July which where individuals voluntarily commit to eliminating their use of single-use plastics for a month.

Microbeads are a type of microplastic that were in personal care products like toothpaste before being banned in 2015. Photo: NOAA

Legislation that has been enacted or is currently being considered at the federal level includes the Save our Seas Act, which tend to get a lot of bipartisan report because they invoke nonregulatory methods, and Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act, reintroduced in March, with mechanisms to address plastic pollution, including putting the onus on the producer to collect and dispose of the product, Morath said. Other acts include the RECYCLE Act that focuses on improving residential recycling programs and RECOVER Act, focused on building recycling infrastructure, both introduced this year.

Zivanovic–Nenadovic told Coastal Review after the forum that this is the federation’s first step in directly addressing the microplastics pollution.

“I hope that the audience was able to gain knowledge about the impacts, magnitude and ubiquity of microplastics. It took decades to get to the point we are in and it will take a determined effort to start to turn the clock back on this problem. We hope to have excited the audience and motivated it to help us as we go forward,” she said. “The audience was able to learn about how pervasive the microplastics are in our environment. The presenters share information about microplastics in our food, in drinking water, elaborated on sampling methods and offered possible policy and regulatory solutions, and examples that exist in other states.”

How is Plastic Affecting Climate Change?

Believe it or not, plastic is a huge driving force behind climate change.

Making plastic products requires enormous energy inputs, only for most of the products to be immediately tossed out, or end up as pollutants.

In this article, we’re going to break down just how plastic fuels climate change, covering subjects like:

Fossil Fuels & Plastic

Plastics are inevitably tied to fossil fuels. Plastic polymers are derived from oil and natural gas. The extraction process for fossil fuels is especially harmful to the environment. Large amounts of energy are needed, so fossil fuels are burned in the process. Not only are greenhouse gasses released, but oil spills and fracking accidents cause long-term damage to ecosystems. 

As time goes on, the increasing demand for plastic means that an increasing portion of our fossil fuels will be dedicated to making plastic. Today, up to 8% of the global oil supply is associated with plastics. Experts say that number could rise up to 20% by 2050.

The plastic manufacturing process releases enormous amounts of greenhouse gasses. It’s the most carbon-heavy part of the plastic lifecycle. In 2015, researchers found that just 24 ethylene plants release as much carbon as 4 million passenger vehicles. 

Plastic in the Ocean

Ocean plastic pollution has become a huge focus as marine wildlife end up choking or becoming entangled in ocean-based plastic. But ocean plastic isn’t just a physical pollutant; it’s also contributing to climate change

New research shows that ocean plastic actually emits greenhouse gasses when exposed to the sun. The study only focused on the pollution at the surface, but there’s a huge percentage of plastic sitting in the depths of the ocean. The same study also found that plastic pollution on the coastline and on riverbeds released greenhouse gasses at an even higher rate. 

Plastic pollution also interferes with the ocean’s ability to sequester carbon. Microplankton absorb CO2 via photosynthesis. This CO2 then fuels the food chain in the sea in a process called the carbon cycle. Scientists call this the “biological pump.” Plankton that are exposed to microplastics are unable to photosynthesize properly, which slows down the biological pump. This leaves more CO2 in the atmosphere and drives climate change. 

Learn More: Does plastic in the ocean affect climate change?

Single-Use Plastics

Single-use plastics are especially harmful, as the energy put into manufacturing these products is wasted after just a few uses. While they’re convenient for the masses, their widespread use and high turnover rate mean they’re in constant demand. 

This is bad news for our world’s oceans, where many single-use plastics end up. But it’s even worse for climate change, as more fossil fuels are dedicated to producing single-use plastics. Manufacturing single-use plastics releases tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, only to be tossed aside after one use. As ubiquitous as they are, it’s easy to forget how often we use them. Here’s a list of common single-use plastics we use in our everyday lives: 

  • Grocery bags
  • Water bottles
  • Disposable cutlery
  • Straws
  • Packaging

The effects of single-use plastics on the environment can be mitigated. Many of these products have multiple secondary uses. Giving single-use plastics another life reduces the demand to manufacture more products, which reduces greenhouse gasses. 

Unfortunately, many single-use plastics have very specific uses and cannot be repurposed. That’s why the best way to reduce their effect on climate change is by avoiding them altogether. Reusable grocery bags and water bottles are two popular ways to reduce the dominance of single-use plastics. Many municipalities have even gone as far as to ban single-use plastics altogether. 

Learn More: How do single use plastics affect climate change?

Plastic Recycling

The limited uses of plastic are the biggest factor in its effect on climate change. Enormous quantities of energy and resources used are wasted when the product is thrown away, and the demand for more fuels the cycle. Recycling plastic is one of the best ways to reduce its effect on the climate. 

Using recycled plastic means emitting between 50% to 70% fewer greenhouse gasses compared to virgin plastic. Recycling removes the need to extract more fossil fuels. Even more, there’s no need to refine petrochemicals into plastic polymers, which is the stage where the most carbon is emitted. 

Unfortunately, recycling plastic is difficult. Many forms of plastic simply aren’t recyclable, which leads to confusion. This may be the reason why the plastic recycling rate is so low compared to paper and glass. Americans recycle just over 8% of their plastic products, versus over 30% for glass. Many people also practice “wish-cycling,” where they enthusiastically toss items into the recycling bin, not knowing that they can’t be recycled. 

In the past few years, bad publicity around recycling plastic has deterred some from recycling. Municipalities in the US, UK, and other Western countries once sold their low-quality plastic recyclables to countries like China and Malaysia, until it was found that much of the waste wasn’t even being recycled. Investigators discovered that the materials were actually being put into landfills, incinerated, or outright dumped into the environment. China then stopped taking plastic from the West, leading to a “recycling crisis” as municipalities had nowhere to send their plastic recyclables. This discouraged many from recycling altogether. 

While the recycling system isn’t perfect, it’s still much better than using virgin plastics. More education and funding are needed to perfect the recycling infrastructure. A fully functioning recycling system can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by six gigatons over the next 30 years.

Learn More: How does plastic recycling impact climate change?

Key Takeaways

The growing proliferation of plastic is not just contributing to pollution; it’s also a significant driver of climate change.

The immense energy inputs from fossil fuel extraction and refining make plastic a dirty industry. As demand for plastic increases, more of the global fossil fuel supply is allocated towards making plastics.

Single-use plastics are especially carbon-heavy, as the energy used to make them is wasted after just a few uses. These products will likely end up in the ocean, where they prevent microplankton from photosynthesizing and stopping the ocean from doing its job as a carbon sink.

While recycling is one way to mitigate the effects of plastic on the climate, the best thing you can do is avoid plastic whenever possible.

Single-use Plastics & Climate Change

Single-use plastics prioritize convenience. The energy put into making single-use plastics is wasted after just one use. This creates a constant demand and fuels a vicious cycle that drives climate change. In this article, we’re going to answer some of your questions around single-use plastics and climate change, including:

  • How do single-use plastics relate to climate change?
  • What are the most common single-use plastics?
  • Do single-use plastics emit greenhouse gasses? 
  • How can we mitigate the effects single-use plastics have on the environment?

What are single-use plastics?

Single-use plastics are plastic products that are meant to be discarded after just one use. They became common in the 1970s as companies ditched glass and paper for plastic. Not only did it make once heavy products lighter, but it also became cheaper to package products as well. 

Milk jars became plastic milk bottles. Paper grocery bags were traded out for plastic. The bottled water industry exploded as people found it easy to grab a plastic water bottle from a nearby store. The convenience of use, along with the ease of disposal, have helped create a culture of mass consumerism which is one of the driving forces behind climate change

How do single-use plastics relate to climate change?

In order to make plastic, we need fossil fuels. Plastic polymers are made from refined chemicals found in petroleum and natural gas. Extracting fossil fuels is a dirty process. Large rigs are used to drill deep into the Earth to pump out the oil. Oil rigs themselves require fossil fuels to operate, as does the transportation of fossil fuels to refining plants. These processes release massive amounts of carbon. 

The refining of petrochemicals into plastic is the most energy-intensive step in the plastic lifecycle. Ethylene plants, which refine plastic polymers, are known to emit huge amounts of carbon. In 2015, researchers discovered that just 24 ethylene plants produced as much greenhouse gasses as nearly 4 million passenger vehicles. 

Single-use plastics are designed to be immediately discarded, which creates a constant demand. This perpetuates the cycle of fossil fuel extraction, transportation, and refining. With the world population growing, more of the world’s fossil fuel supply will be allocated toward single-use plastic. Today, it’s estimated that between 4% and 8% of the global oil supply is associated with plastic. By 2050, that number could be as high as 20%.

What are the most common single-use plastics?

We use single-use plastics in our everyday lives. Oftentimes, we don’t even notice them. It’s good to remember the most common plastics that you’ll likely come across on a day-to-day basis. The most common single-use plastics found strewn on beaches are listed below:

  • Cigarette butts
  • Grocery bags
  • Water & soft drink bottles
  • Straws
  • Disposable cutlery
  • Food wrappers 
  • Packaging
  • Bottle caps
  • To-go boxes

Do single-use plastics emit greenhouse gasses?

We usually think of plastic as a form of visible pollution. It seems inert, creating only a physical hazard for wildlife. While the manufacturing of plastics emits carbon, we don’t usually think of the plastic itself as a source of greenhouse gasses. 

Recently, researchers discovered that many types of plastics emit greenhouse gasses like methane and ethylene when exposed to the sun. The emissions have yet to be quantified, but the volume of plastic left floating in oceans, rivers, and sitting on coastlines means that it’s a significant amount in the greater realm of climate change. 

As demand for single-use plastics continues to increase, we can expect the volume of plastic that ends up in the environment to increase proportionally. This can eventually create a new large-scale source of greenhouse gasses.

How can we mitigate the effects single-use plastics have on the environment?

Reducing the impact of single-use plastic is a high priority in the minds of environmentalists across the globe. While weaning ourselves off single-use plastics may not be easy, there are several ways we can reduce the effects of these materials on our planet. 

Recycling is the simplest way to reduce the carbon footprint of single-use plastics. While the recycling process still emits greenhouse gasses, recycled plastics have been shown to emit up to 70% fewer greenhouse gasses than virgin plastic during manufacturing. That’s a big difference. 

Repurposing certain plastic items is also a great way to reduce their impact. Using plastic containers for other purposes takes them out of the waste stream and prevents them from ending up in landfills or waterways. Many plastic items have several uses that go far beyond their intended purpose. 

The best way to reduce the impact of single-use plastics is to avoid them altogether. While you might have to work a bit harder, there are plenty of alternatives to single-use plastics. Reusable tote bags have become a hit with those who want to green up their trip to the grocery store. Reusable bottles are also a great option if you want to avoid buying plastic water bottles. Many municipalities have even resorted to banning plastic straws and grocery bags in an effort to cut demand

Key Takeaways

When most of us think of the causes behind climate change, we might think of large factories and heavy traffic. We tend not to think about the proliferation of single-use plastic, but these materials require large energy inputs from fossil fuels, and so release tons of carbon. Moreso, single-use plastics even emit greenhouse gasses when they decompose.

Fighting against the effects of these materials is an uphill battle, but it can be done. Recycling is effective, but abstaining from buying products that contain single-use plastics is the best answer. As the demand for these products increases, plastic as a single point source of carbon emissions will become a larger part of the conversation on climate change.