Art vs Pollution

Just a brief post, and I'll start us off with a photo and captain part of a display I saw in the UCL North Cloisters.

Witches Knickers

Miss Ulijona Odisarija
Slade School of Fine Art

"Disposable plastic bags trapped in the trees phenomenon is sometimes called "witches knickers" or "urban tumbleweed" and is a big issue with the waste, as it takes from 10 to 20 years for a bag to decompose. Trees with trapped bags can often be found around big supermarkets, and when it's more than one, it starts to look intentional as if the tree was decorated or the bags are strange toxin blossoms. I collected a few disposable bags and adorned a tree in the country side with them, mimicking the ones seen in urban environments. Photographed against the sun the bags became illuminated and kewel life, making a beautiful image out of something that's considered ugly, dull, misplaced and unwanted.



I'm finding it really interesting (and innovative) how different people are using littered plastic items in art. This is first and foremost to draw attention to their presence - and the detrimental effects of that presence.

http://grist.org/living/these-artists-turn-ocean-trash-into-really-classy-art/
The link above shows some famous artwork comprised of plastics recovered from the sea. Some of the exhibits are actually really aethetically pleasing.

Source: Mandy Barker

However I'm finding it a little bit unnerving that I like the look of these photos - that I find them beautiful. I think that's the point. It's drawn my attention, but it's also uncomfortable because these items do not belong in the ocean. Some others have called it 'haunting'. I agree.

http://www.boredpanda.com/beach-waste-sculptures-plastic-overuse-washed-ashore/
This is a final link - this time it isn't paintings but actual sculptures comprised of plastic soup material. Again, pretty cool, pretty attractive, and definitely got some media attention toward the problems of plastic soup.

What to do yanni?

Addressing plastic pollution

Ongoing research over the last couple of decades has shown plastics to be ubiquitous within global marine environments, even those most remote at the poles. Over 75% of debris littering global shorelines have been reported as plastic. The numerous impacts of these – ingestion by marine life, attracting harmful chemicals onto their surfaces, novel transport pathways for pathogens, compounding within the food chain, and the potential transfer to humans has been discussed widely.

However, there are still massive research gaps concerning their presence in both marine and freshwater environments. Not only are they extremely difficult to quantify – especially microplastics – but the range of processes surrounding their degradation, transport, and effects globally is still under-researched.

As with all globally environmental problems, this lack of knowledge and data is what is preventing action and policy to reduce plastic pollution. The European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) was adopted in 2008 (after several years of negotiation) with the design for EU Member States (MS) to reach Good Environmental Status (GES) by 2020. Addressing marine litter (of which plastics contribute a massive part) is just one of 11 Directives.

Marine litter, described as ‘any persistent, manufactures, or processed solid material discarded, disposed of, or abandoned in the marine or coastal environment’ (UNEP)  includes plastics. Proposed action by the MSFD in regard to this demand a harmonised mode of monitoring the presence of litter in the environment. Not only does this provide more information and research into the problem, but it also allows for continuous assessment of litter trends and as a result, insight into the effectiveness of the targets that MS are striving toward.

Academics are in wide agreement that litter already present in the ocean is too difficult to clean up, and that efforts toward that motion are almost a waste of time. I agree. Even the removal of a portion of microplastics would prove ineffective when considering the continued fragmentation of larger plastics over time. This problem truly needs to be tackled at the source. Different sources of plastic pollution have been discussed in my previous posts; loads of it comes from South East Asian countries (particularly China), but also through transfer from freshwater environments, particularly the overflow or ineffective filtering of waste water treatment plants. If legislation and policy targets these prime offending sources, then there is a good chance of an effective reduction of litter physically entering the environment.

However, this is where more research is needed. Oceanographic processes such as winds and currents can transport litter great distances between the source and eventual deposition site. Increasingly globalised markets make the sourcing of litter problematic. A solution is to understand what kinds of litter are in the ocean, and addressing ways to improve that. A study in Taiwan found that the most littered plastic debris was bottle caps at 33.58%, while bottles themselves comprised only around 2%. It was later suggested that the government could do more to educate its citizens that the caps were recyclable too in an effort to reduce their prevalence in the area.

The efforts of using citizen-scientists as a man-power resource to monitor and quantify litter has been suggested by a number of academics, who also tested the reliability of their results when compared with professional surveyors. Even schoolchildren proved effective at collecting data on litter prevalence in a Chilean study, and the use of citizens has been regarded by UNEP as an ‘essential component of sustainability’. Not only can they provide reliable data globally, but their participation increased public awareness and responsibility toward the environment, with the possibility of campaigning for local solutions. The education of citizens, and attempts to understand the social behaviours that lead to individuals littering is also a large issue that needs to be addressed.

The MSFD outlines that each MS is required to set their own national circumstances depending on their circumstance. However, given the prevalence of litter already dispersed in terrestrial, marine, and freshwater environments, within the water column, as well as within marine sediments, it has been agreed that 0% litter is not a reasonable goal. So while we can hope for increased efforts to monitor and understand the processes acting on marine litter and plastics, and pray for actions that effectively combat the release of litter into the environment from the source, there will forever more be traces of litter in our oceans. 

Ain't no mountain high, ain't no ocean deep (or something like that) - the curse of Microplastics

What are they?

They are quite literally micro-plastics; tiny bits of plastic. Their size is usually defined at <5mm, but sometimes at <1mm. The problem is that they end up in oceans.

Where do they come from?

Predominantly, microplastics come from onland sources. Their provenance is usually from either

1)      Manufactured microplastics used in personal care products (PCP’s) or abrasive cleaners

2)      Via the degradation and fragmentation of larger plastic particles. This can be through natural means (wave/weathering action), or through anthropogrenic means (such as washing machines)

By and large, they enter waterways and oceans due to lack of effective waste management. In previous posts, you’ll see case examples from Bangladesh and California outlining the struggles different nations face when it comes to waste management. While Bangladesh may be a big offender on a general plastic waste basis, more developed countries such as the UK and USA are also responsible. Many waste water treatment plants (WWTP) cannot effectively filter out microplastics and microbeads that end up in sewage. As a result, and particularly after heavy rain, these particles are released intothe environment. 

So what’s the big deal- why are they so harmful to the environment?

With up to more than 240 million tonnes of plastic used annually, debris entering the sea are ever increasing. While macroplastics are a significant problem, recent focus has shifted to the prevalence of microplastic throughout the ocean, both in surface waters, but also deeper within the water column. The subsequent effects on the ecology of the ocean are wide-ranging. Not only does evidence suggest  these particles are being ingested by biota and accumulating in the food chain, but plastics can also sorb harmful pollutants onto their surfaces. 

 This contamination can be transported around the ocean via currents, but when digested can also release toxins into animal species and throughout the food chain, potentially endangering human health too.

Where can they be found?

The presence and effect of microplastic particles in the ocean has dominated research. The bulk of research has focused their investigations on shorelines and near-coastal regions in attempts to quantify plastics and address the problem. However, there is an increasing realisation that many microplastics end up in oceans via rivers, and later research has shifted toward exploring the prevalence and impact of microplastics within these alternative waterways. The sections below explore in more detail:

The Seas:

Probably the most abundant form of plastics in the seas, microplastic quantities are increasing. While 80% of plastics in the ocean are sourced on-land and would therefore be assumed to be most commonplace in coastal regions, microplastics have actually been found in remote areas that were previously regarded as pristine. 

A study found evidence of microplastics in deep-sea sediments in the Southern Ocean, off the polar front at depths of up to 4800m. The complex ocean currents at work that transport these particulates make detection of long-term trends extremely difficult. 

Possible oceanographic processes aiding their transfer include downwelling, severe storms, and saline subduction . As these processes spread microplastics further and further afield, it means increasing amounts of deep-sea water columns become a sink for plastics. This plastic ubiquity in ocean environments makes them a great threat to marine habitats and ecosystems worldwide.  

But it is the detrimental effects on ecosystems that makes their spread throughout the oceans so worrying. They accumulate harmful chemicals onto their surfaces, and release them into animals when accidentally digested, compounding toxins within the  foodchain. An independent study into 101 peer-reviewed papers shows the extent of the threat. We have the obvious problems of ingestion by animals, with the case in the Canadian Arctic, where over 80% of fulmars (bird species) had signs of plastic ingestion. But more than that, plastics have become a mode of transport for both pollutants and invasive species. In the western Atlantic, 24% had eggs attached by insects. As these previously buoyant plastics get heavier, they sink and transport these attachments to deeper mobilities within the ocean. 

Not only are the impacts of plastic pollution transferred to deeper and deeper ocean levels, but they also recycled back on to land. The very fish we eat is contaminated, and a recent study also estimated the microplastic content of sea salt at 550-681 particles per kilogram. This is the salt we use on our food. In this way, the risk of ingestion is transferred to our dinner tables. 

 The Rivers

The pervasiveness of plastic pollution in rivers has been significantly overlooked in recent years, leading to a deficiency of data on riverine environments, particularly in regard to microplastics  . However, rivers and terrestrial waterways provide the main pathway of plastics into the ocean. A number of separate studies have found microplastics in a range of freshwater environments, from urban rivers (where we would expect to see micro and macro plastic particles), but also found them in remote and isolated lakes.

Measurements from an urban river in Chicago, USA, found that microplastic concentrations met or exceeded those within marine environments. However, their quantity is not the main problem – it is the consequences of this. The table below shows increased microplastic concentrations downstream of the waste water treatment plant (WWTP), proving the inefficiency of sewage systems in filtering out these particles. Upon the microplastics were a ‘biofilm’ consisting of a bacterial assemblage unique to microplastics. These colonising bacteria were associated with wastewater organisms. Not only is this gross, but it also ‘indicates that microplastic may be a novel pathway for transporting disease-causing bacteria into waterways’ and marine environments.

Source: McCormick et al, 2014

Their presence in remote Lake Hovsgol, Mongolia, was discovered in a 2014 study by Free et al. As this mountainous lake is not connected to any sewage systems, possible sources of these particles stem from degradation of larger littered plastic particles, but also transport via prevailing winds. This correlated with increased microplastic concentrations of the southwestern shore, which bore the brunt of the wind.  The average microplastic density was 20,264 particles per km². The long residence time of this lake possibly suggests the higher quantities of plastic pollution, as neighbouring Lake Huron had lower microplastic densities and a relatively quick residence time of approximately 20 years, acting to displace pollutant particles.

Source: Free et al, 2014

But despite the high concentrations of microplastics in freshwater environments, the lack of attention on them is astounding. In fact, the discharge of microplastics into rivers is actually legally permitted in some places. A case study of the Austrian Danube revealed that industrial microplastic (IMP) consisting of pellets and flakes were classified as a filterable substance, and therefore up to 30 mg l⁻¹ would be upper limit for legal plastic discharge into the Danube. Austria is not alone – other nations continue to class plastics as harmless solid waste.

This lack of investigation into microplastics both within freshwater and marine environments isn’t good. There needs to be more so we can solidly appreciate the impacts they are having, and effectively engage with solutions to this problem. 

Urban tumbleweed - the blight of plastic bags

I was in Sainsbury's just now and, when confronted with the 5 pence charge, obviously chose to pack my items in my backpack. It’s so refreshing! I was observing people on the train and on the streets, especially at lunch time - there is barely a plastic bag in sight! There is the slight issue of my home running out of our stack of plastic bags under the kitchen sink, but for the sake of the planet I won’t complain too much about that aspect.

I think it’s really great. I was wondering what kind of discourse it follows – I mean it’s economic rationalisation as it is putting a charge on plastic items. But at the same time it’s democratic pragmatism, because as a rational actor, I’m making the decision to save money, but since 5p isn’t a lot really, I’m also deciding to be a citizen over being a consumer.

Plastic bags, a.k.a urban tumbleweed, a.k.a witches knickers (yeah, apparently…?), a.k.a the national flower of South Africa are truly a blight upon both urban and rural landscapes worldwide. But it isn't just that they look bad. There is evidence of their detrimental effect upon landscapes. Within nine weeks, plastic bags in coastal marsh regions cause a breakdown of the foodchain: they smother the surface, blocking light, disrupting oxygen and nutrient flow, and reducing microalgae underneath them. Other examples from across the globe are numerous; the cause of flooding in Bangladesh, the heightened increase of Malaria outbreaks in Kenya (as water collects and stagnates in the bags), the death of livestock from ingesting bags... the list goes on. And it shows that on-land effects are equally as damaging as the effects upon the marine habitat. ANOTHER whale dies from a plastic bag in it's digestive tract.

The increasing frequency of these impacts have kickstarted action against plastic bags, mainly in the last decade, with nations from Bangladesh, China, Rwanda, and Italy banning them outright, and nations such as Denmark, Ireland, Germany, across the U.K, and states within both America and Australia independently banning or taxing bags. 

These initatives to curb the use of plastic bags have been successful. Wales reported a 96% drop in bag use since the introduction of a charge, and Ireland has previously reported similar results. Likewise, the proceeds from the charge can be forwarded to good causes. 

Source; Wikipedia 

Considering we use so many plastic bags, what actually are they? Considering they are such a ubiquitous item, there isn't much immediately obvious information outlining their production. From what I can gather, it's low-cost crude oil (predominantly sourced from the Middle East) which is steam cracked (?) and turned into polyethylene, or PE pellets. They account for $10 billion of a $370 billion plastics industry (Guardian, 2015). 

However, with an estimated 5-13 million tonnes of plastic entering the ocean each year, plastic bags only account for 0.03% of marine litter (INCPEN). So why is there a disproportionate targeting of plastic carrier bags over other littered plastics? It is the most potent symbol of our throw-away, consumerist culture. This sentiment is echoed in many articles and by many stakeholders, but is using plastic bags as an icon in the fight against plastic litter effective? Yes: I for one am not using anywhere near as many plastic bags, but unfortunately myself and thousands (millions) of others like me are still using other environmentally damaging plastic products, simply because 1) we aren't aware or 2) there is nothing nudging us to not use them. 

The more research I do into plastic bags, the more information I'm finding that banning plastic bags is not enough! It's another one of those iconic actions governments are taking to tackle pollution but really, there is so much more to do. Some critics even argue that banning plastic bags could even be detrimental. The use of paper bags as substitutes has a larger carbon footprint; paper bags take more energy to manufacture, they are heavier and therefore require more space and energy to be transported. The special provisions and lenience for other substitutes such as biodegradable bags or extremely thin, light-weight bags has been debated within the European Parliament, but even this has been criticised, as the presence of these biodegradable elements in recycled goods can impair the quality of those products. A variety of stakeholders all have something to add, from NGO's to the Environmental Bureau, Plastics Europe, and Municipal Waste Europe - again evidence of the numerous linkages between the range discourses and interests at play. European Member States (MS) are part of a directive to curb the use of plastic bags, with the Directive 94/63/EC being amended to allow national reductions in plastic bag use, with recommended consumption decreases of 80% by 2019.

These European initiatives to combat plastic proliferation within the environment also extends to plastic packaging, especially those surrounding food products. Sainsbury's estimated a 14% reduction in packaging for milk after adopting new shapes for the bottle. This redesigning of packaging is a great idea, but it must be remembered that some food packaging is essential for preservation of food, especially in countries such as India where half of all produce spoils before it reaches the market due to lack of cold storage. In these instances, plastic is the only real alternative in order to keep food fresh and edible. 

For the case against plastic bags in the USA, check out these graphs and tables to get a brief idea of attitudes toward bags. 

Source: Reuse This Bag

Source: Earth Policy Institute

Again, the plastic industry has massive lobbying power, and has prevented the state-wide ban on plastic bags in California. This is a state which is dedicated to diverting over 80% of its waste to be recycled or composted, but still can not effectively tackle plastic because of the powerful discourses of a few. However, thankfully the lower graph shows increasing education and movements toward banning or charging for plastic bags. 

But in each of these examples, other plastic sources of pollution remain untouched. Microplastics are a MAJOR problem. I'll go into that in more detail in my next blog post, but it's safe to say there is barely any effective legislation or action being taken against their release into the environment, despite their more detrimental effects to marine life. While there are some instances of products containing microplastics being banned, again it is not to the extent needed to make progressive advances against the problem of plastic pollution. 

I do think it is important that we have made moves to reduce plastic bags. It is an iconic item, and drawing attention to them has increased awareness about plastic pollution, which is great. But more needs to be done. The focus on plastic bags is too easily unpicked and undermined, especially in this factsheet by INCPEN. It does seem a bit biased, but they are all relevant arguments. What I want to stress is that we cannot start and finish with plastic bags. We must start with them and continue further to combat other sources of litter pollution. 

I finish pretty much each post in the same way, but I can't stress enough that there are a multitude of solutions that can be used in conjunction with each other, some of which are laid out clearly by the Natural Resources Defense Council. On an individual basis, we need to be more environmentally conscious in our consumer habits. On an producer basis, there needs to be more accountability - fully recyclable packaging, efficient designs, using profits for more innovative uses of material and technology. And on a national basis, there definitely needs to be greater cooperation between governments and infrastructures, especially in the waste management sector. Likewise, greater legislative pushes to address pollution, and the formation of international guidelines to curb pollution globally. 

Come on world! We can do this!