Skip to main content

The Great Garbage Patch- the nastiest of all plastic dumps

I only just heard about what is called "The Great Garbage Patch" this week. It's a massive floating dump in the Pacific made up of plastic that collects and malingers, growing daily and destroying sea life in its path.

It's the size of 2 Texases (some say 2 continental North Americas) as of now (2008).  A heaving mass of junk stuck in the Pacific gyre, a system of currents that provide the right conditions to magnetise all of the plastic debris chucked into the Pacific from land and ships.


So how is it I have only heard about it now? I keep up on environmental news, I always read the NYTimes science sections, National Geographic, eco blogs - the types of publications that should be covering this type of thing.

After all, the great garbage patch is massive: physically, environmentally and symbolically.

And scientists have been studying it for years, so why the lack of coverage, and action to get rid of it?

Maybe because it's hidden - the parameters of the great garbage patch start about 750 miles off of US shores and inhabit chunks of the Pacific rarely traveled by non-cargo ships.

Maybe because it's insidious - much of the plastic that makes up the patch has been broken down into tiny fragments that look like plankton, thus coining a phrase used by many oceanographers that it is like a massive sea of plastic soup. The marine life actually thinks the plastic fragments are plankton and ingest them regularly - thus killing off many animals. And for those that survive, ensuring plastic works its way into our food chain.

It's a massive, awful reminder of just how problematic the proliferation of plastic is. And with an estimated 80% of the garbage patch waste coming from land (i.e. the US) and 20% coming from passing ships, it seems criminal that such dumping practices have not been caught and punished.

It's also another reminder that the only way plastic can ever have a safe and useful place is when it's recycled and reused. The minute it is disposed of, even in sensible ways, it becomes an environmental hazard either leaking chemicals into the ground or polluting our oceans on a scale that seems unfathomable.

Plastic bottles, plastic bags, plastic food containers - they are a convenience, not a necessity, and have a huge environmental cost and health costs that are just now being understood.

More importantly, why is there no international body regulating massive, global problems like this? Can't we find a collective way to start to clean the mess up? Can't we prosecute and heavily fine ships that dump and land side dumpers? What's the point of governments if they don't deal with issues like this?

Learn more:

+ Alphabet Soup: A Look at Pollution in the Ocean (video part 1)
+ Alphabet Soup: A Look at Pollution in the Ocean (video part 2)
+ World's biggest garbage dump: plastic in the ocean (video)
+ Great garbage patch info site
+ The world's rubbish tip (in The Independent)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Recycling centre visit request

I have made an official request to visit any of London's recycling centres for an in-depth look at how they really work. Questions like a) who sorts out the 'mixed bags' full of various types of recyclables and b) how are they actually recycled?   Most people I speak to are cynical that anything happens to the mixed recycling bags and I myself don't understand how our typical mixed recycling bag, which will usually contain up to 6 types of plastic, aluminum, glass and various types of paper (including little bitty pieces) can be efficiently sorted unless there is a huge team rifling through it all on conveyor belts.  I want to know - is it all a London borough con? Where is the evidence of how it is all actually recycled? I can never find any reports on it, apart from % of waste that is sent to recycling sites, not how much is actually recycled or how it is recycled.  One of our friends accidentally put his recycling bag out a day early on his street in Notting Hill (

The problem with flying

Everyone who knows me knows that I hate flying. It's loud, uncomfortable, confining and if things go wrong there's no way out. (I'm an advocate of parachutes under seat, not inflatable vests.) But the real reason I hate flying these days is the environmental impact. a) Apparently you're better off driving to your destination, alone , even if it's thousands of miles away, than being on a full plane. That's how bad the fuel consumption is. b) Planes dump their emissions in the most delicate part of the stratosphere and there's nothing to help mitigate the damage. For all of the pollution cars create, we have our plant life down here to help soften the blow. c) They are noisy, booming things and no matter where we go, we seem to be able to hear one or see one, even the far hills of Scotland. d) The amount of packaging they use per passenger is amazing. When my husband recently flew on a short haul flight to Amsterdam, he asked the air steward if they recy

TGV - how energy efficient is it really?

We took another holiday, using the TGV instead of flying as our mode of transport, in August, as our attempts to keep air miles down continues. But as we zoomed through the French countryside at 180 MPH, we wondered how efficient is the TGV, really? Or have we just bought into the hype that it is more efficient than flying? I've never seen any statistics other than soft evidence provided by The Guardian and various news sources. We've been told by journalists that train travel is significantly greener, but with the electricity required to hurl a TGV through the countryside, and electricity plants being a major contributor to green house gases, what was a real, non-hype comparison? Or was my sudden skepticism just an excuse to trade the 5 1/2 hours on the stuffy train in for 1 hour on a plane? (Always fun going down and an absolute pain coming back.) With a little investigating, I found some statistical information comparing the efficiency of various modes of transport, based