Signing off

I'd like to sign off on this blog by saying how much I've enjoyed it. While I found the weekly update surprisingly challenging (and failed at times), this coursework has really opened my eyes to a problem that I didn't actually know anything about previously. Of course, I see litter in the environment and I hate it, but I'd never really asked myself why it was there, what the impacts could be, how far-reaching the consequences were, and how it could be changed.

I kayaked on the River Lea for many of my teen years, and some of the things we saw on the river were so gross. I helped out a couple of clean-up projects too, boating around the canal and picking up the litter, bagging it up and then putting it in a designated tip. We collected so many black bin bags worth of rubbish. But because I had constantly been surrounded by this litte, I had gotten used to it and never really questioned it before.

Having this blog and researching into plastic pollution in a global context has been great. I'm happy that I chose to focus on the kind of starting point of the pollution and finished off with the direction it seems to be headed. Looking at the waste management industry was probably my favourite bit, simply because it's quite different to what people are usually interested in. The variation of waste collection between countries and even within countries is astounding, and has made me personally so much more perceptive to what kind of products I'm buying and using, how much I am choosing to recycle, and how much more I am tending to criticise things as wasteful.

We have a long long way to go. And while the apparant lack of action and solutions has depressed me at times, I'm actually feeling quite positive now that I've done my research. If I can make minor changes for the benefit of the environment, so can more people. It shows that education is key. If people know, people will care. If people care, people will campaign. And if people campaign, then they get noticed and can really make some changes to policy. The evidence is in the recent ban on microbeads within the U.S by the man himself - Obama. It took a good couple of years, but campaigners finally made some difference.

Throughout this whole process, when I was researching I actually came across numerous other blog posts from random people outlining some information and their own opinion on the issue of plastic pollution. I'm hoping that in the future, maybe some people will stumble across my blog, find some handy information and use it so form their own posts.

I've been through quite a lot - from solid case studies of various waste management measures and policies, and how they are failing in places you wouldn't expect them to. I've focused a bit on the inspiration of my blog title - the 5 pence charge on plastic bags and how bags almost symbolic of the fight against plastic pollution. I've included quite a lot on how riverways have been neglected in research into plastic pollution - despite their being a central pathway to marine environments. I've even talked about the pros and cons surrounding decision making of how to deal with issues such as these, and the different discourses possessed by different people and nations guiding policy. I've stated the obvious: there are numerous solutions which can be used to supplement each other toward achieving the same end goal. And I've also explored the newer scientific research into plastic pollution, particularly microplastics - and how they are a novel transport mechanism for various pathogens moving downstream. To top it off, I've talked (typed?) a bit more on the cultural aspects to pollution - the artwork which strives to draw attention to the issue, and the idea of a Plasticocene, where plastics have been proposed as a marker of the Anthropocene. Finally, I dispelled some myths about bioplastics (at least I dispelled the myths I personally believed that bioplastics magically disappeared).

I hope it's been interesting, I hope it's been educative. I've really enjoyed it, and may even continue! Until next time...

Bioplastics - biodegradable or nah?

What does the future hold for the plastic problem? The idea of bioplastics, or biodegradable plastics is becoming more and more popular, but what do these terms actually mean?

My own understanding of it before I researched was that these plastics will degrade in the environment into a harmless solution – almost like a compost. However, it seems it isn’t that simple. By definition, biodegradable means ‘(of a substance or object) capable of being decomposed by bacteria or other living organisms and thereby avoiding pollution’ (Google definition as of 2016). Can bioplastics achieve this?

Manufactured bioplastics come under two main categories; 1) those which are created from renewable resources (bio-based), and 2) those which are compostable (but based on either renewable OR fossil resources). This lack of attention to detail when it comes to the increased use of bioplastics is quite important, especially when they are being marketed as the solution. With many governments taking new measures to divert waste from landfill, the market share of bioplastics is increasing from less than 1% to an expected 10% of plastic consumption. As a result, more research needs to be focused on the legitimacy of bioplastics as a solution.

The basis behind bioplastics would be the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) – a new mode of production which is designed with the products end of life in mind. This approach has the potential to limit pollution, limit our carbon footprints, but also to increase the responsibility of both producers and consumers toward the environment.

Nonetheless, a new mode of waste is not easily implemented. Even with relatively new materials such as microbeads, infrastructure (particular that of waste water treatment plants) are inept at filtering the particles. The same goes for bioplastics – a whole set of supporting policy and infrastructure will have to be designed to accommodate the wider spread use. And that takes time. Not only do waste management infrastructures need to be equipped, but to encourage the growth of the industry would require support from the public and the state, including subsidies for manufacture. While bio-fuels already receive this type of support, bio-based plastics remain under-represented, making competition with their oil-derived counterparts difficult.

Is it such a bad thing that they haven't made it big yet? The LCA of bioplastics is still largely uncertain. The EU Directive categorises landfill as the least desired option for waste, and puts forward four other options instead: 1) Reduce, 2) Reuse, 3) Recycle or compost, and 4) Recovery (such as waste-to-energy incineration). Concerning the third option however, the EN13432 standards to which compostability is tested is done so mimicking conditions within an industrial composter. But will bioplastics that end up in the natural environments (terrestrial, riverine, or marine) be composted to the same standard and extent?  

Further issues taken up with bioplastics is their compatibility within recycling industries. Biodegradable plastics can reduce the quality and longevity of recycled goods, undermining the functioning performance of the finished product. This is because the natural fibres degrade over time. The other problem with recycling is the complex array of materials entering the stream, and the lack of easy distinction between these materials, complicating the quality control.

A study of the LCA for biodegradable plastic packaging found that both landfill and industrial composting generated higher environmental impacts than other options. This is in contrast to the reinforced notion that bioplastics are suitable for composting – it ignores the range of issues such as the low NPK (nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium) of bioplastics, which therefore renders them almost useless to compost quality and energy recovery as fertilisers. Likewise, in conditions outside of a controlled industrial composter, such as landfill or even domestic composters, poorly regulated systems can reduce effective degradation, and generate methane instead.

I would say the factor contributing most to my caution regarding bioplastics is the lack of public awareness of the distinctions between the different types. When bioplastics are advertised as a unified alternative to regular plastics or even other materials, it is misleading. The whole term ‘biodegradable’ makes people think of the process an apple undergoes when you throw it into a bush – it breaks down into nothing, and effectively disappears. But without the correct infrastructures in place, bioplastics will not just disappear in the environment. Bioplastics currently do not seem like a viable solution. For me, the ultimate ‘win’ would be reducing at the source. Let’s go minimalistic – less consumption, less packaging, less unnecessary waste. To roll out bioplastics without first ensuring an environmentally friendly LCA, and without adequate supporting infrastructures would only be a very temporary fix to a continuous problem. 

Plasticocene

Have we entered a new geological epoch? The Anthropocene, coined by Crutzen, suggests that human influence has become a significant and dominant force impacting the earths systems, and that these changes will be evident for thousands and possibly millions of years into the future. These changes must ‘be recognised in the layer of mud that will eventually form rocks’. There have been a couple of proposed start dates of the Anthropocene, including 1945. For those who advocate 1945 as the clearest measurable signal of human influence, the reasons behind doing so include the widespread presence of radionuclides and plastic within the environment. For the sake of following the topic my blog follows – plastic – I will only really be discussing the merits of their inclusion as a characteristic of the Anthropocene.

The things that make plastic great – its durability, its strength, and it being relatively inexpensive – have all contributed to its exponential production and consumption. But these qualities are the very same reason why it has become such an environmental nightmare. When littered or leaked into the environment, it doesn’t degrade. It doesn’t disappear. It accumulates within oceans, lakes, rivers, terrestrial soil, and deep sea sediments. Already, 33% of debris inMonterey Bay, USA are comprised of plastic litter, and this is evident across a range of depths, from 25 metres to almost 400m. The synthetic chemicals it leaks often prove toxic to the surrounding ecology.  These ubiquitous traces of plastics, even within the most remote of locations such as the Antarctic, can potentially provide a clear ‘marker’ for this new epoch.

The lack of any realistic or even feasible clean-up project to remove the millions of macro and micro plastics within the oceans is further evidence that plastics are here to stay. Plastiglomerate is the proposed name of a new type of stone being increasingly drawn attention to. First found on Kamilo Beach, Hawaii, this stone is composed of melting fragments of plastic (some of which are still recognisable) fused onto rocks and other sediments. This melting is the result of beach campfires, but could also form the by-product of forest fires or lava flows. As it becomes heavier, it is more likely to sink and/or be buried. This means it will not be subject to erosion, and could possibly be preserved and identifiable within the bedrock – this is exactly what a new epoch must possess to be officially classified.

Source: PATRICIA CORCORAN

Nonetheless, as with any controversial issue, debate surrounds the idea of a Plasticocene. Jerolmack doubts that plastic could withstand the temperatures and depths that rocks undergo during tectonic places. This implies that in the future, they won’t have stuck around to provide a significant marker of human influence within geology.

There is so much more to the Anthropocene - different proposed start dates, people arguing that it shouldn't even be a 'thing', many rigorous demands for a new epoch to suggested. I'm not doing it justice in this post, but I'm just exploring a small element that could possibly form evidence for the Anthropocene. Likewise, while there are an abundance of scientific articles outlining the distribution and abundance of plastics in the environment, only a few place this into the larger context of it being a possible marker of a new epoch. I persoanlly wouldn't say that plastic should be the prime marker of the Anthropocene, but I believe it could be one of many materials present that signal the massive human impact. Likewise, we still don't know enough about the lasting impacts of plastics in the environment, and all relating effects upon ecology and earth systems. 

Furthermore, I have already briefly mentioned the geological markers signalling new epochs, and how they must be distinctive to be classified. The Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP), or 'golden spike' is one such reference point used as a physical identifier in geology. BUT any land-use or anthropogenic influencers that could be identified are diachronous. Land constantly being formed and reformed under anthropogenic influences, and as more materials are made and popularised, displacing the uses of others, these all potentially reflect 'the diachronous onset and development of the Anthropocene'. 

On a side note: Plastiglomerate as an anthropogenically influenced material blurs the boundaries between nature and culture – it’s scary to think that the continued prevalence of plastic within the environment almost means it is becoming an increasingly anticipated part of nature. We expect to see it, and are becoming desensitized to polluted environments. During my time in Ireland recently, I actually exclaimed 'Wow, this beach is really clean! There's no litter to be seen'. The artworks discussed in the previous blog almost signal this acceptance of plastic as part of our natural world and landscape.  Without effective action against pollution, future generations will not be able to discriminate plastic as an unnatural aspect to the natural environment.