Environmental Systems and Societies: Paper v Plastic
Nick Belk
Ms. Zornow
Extended Essay
11/7/17
Introduction
This will soon be a summary of everything that is to come in this essay.
What is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch
The Great Pacific Garbage patch is collection of circulating plastic, chemical waste, and other marine debris located in Pacific ocean. The patch is held together by the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre, which is a giant circulation of water traveling between North America and Asia. The North Pacific Subtropical Gyre is created by clockwise movement of the California, North Equatorial, Kuroshio and North Pacific currents (National Geographic Society 1).Within the patch itself there are two concentrations of trash, one of the coast of California and the other of of the coast of Japan. Connecting the western and eastern sides of the patch is a superhighway of pollutants called the Subtropical Convergence Zone. As depicted in figure 1, the convergence zone is the point of collision between the arctic waters of the north and the tropical waters of the southern part of the Pacific.
Figure 1
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/
Along with the large pieces of plastic that are found in the patch, there is also what are called microplastics, which are pieces of plastic with a size of 5mm or smaller (Kooi, Merel, et al. 4). These microplastics are the pieces of plastic that have broken off from their original source due to the fact that plastic does not biodegrade. Instead of biodegrading like an organic material, the plastic only breaks into smaller pieces through a process called photodegradation, making satellite imagery virtually useless in estimating the size of the patch. The exact size of the patch is not exactly known but, it has been calculated to be about twice the size of the state of Texas, or roughly 1,391,324 square kilometers (Li, C., Xu, Y., Xu, Y. S., & Kang 1). Similarly, the mass of the total amount of plastic in the patch is difficult to estimate. Despite the buoyant nature of plastic, causing the significant majority of the microplastics to stay in the first five meters of the ocean from the surface, it is not known what is on the ocean floor. Surface plastic levels have been estimated to be 337,271 pieces per square kilometer which come out to 5114 g per square kilometer, if the said pieces are microplastics. This means that the mass of the microplastics is approximately six times that of the mass of the plankton in the same area (Moore, Leecaster, Weisberg 1).
The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is not an anomaly in the world’s oceans. Wind, the rotation of the Earth, and ocean currents all have lead to the creation of at least four other gyres in the world’s oceans. The types of trash found in the ocean can range anywhere from monofilament fishing line, to milk cartons, to massive fishing nets weighing 11.5 metric tons, or roughly the size of a school bus (Cressey 2). Since 1950, the amount of plastics produced in the world is estimated to be 8.3 billion metric tons, leaving about 5.5 billion metric tons to be discarded (Geyer, Kambeck, Law 3). In Figure 2, the dashed part of the lines represent the projected amount of plastic waste generation and disposal based on the current rate of growth. According to this figure, by the year 2050 the amount of discarded plastic will reach approximately 12.5 billion metric tons to be littered across the land and in our oceans, endlessly floating and breaking apart into smaller pieces and harmful pollutants.
Figure 2
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/3/7/e1700782/F3.large.jpg
What is the effect of The Patch on the environment
Microplastics and plastics alike are dramatically altering the marine environment of the Pacific ocean. At every stage of the food web in the Great pacific Garbage patch, the plastic has adverse affects on both the aerial and aquatic life. The bottom of the food web in oceanic environments consist of the autotrophs, or producers, which are the animals that make their own food from the sun’s energy, carbon dioxide and other chemicals. Types of autotrophs found in the ocean are algae, seaweed and phytoplankton (National Geographic Society 1). In areas of large plastic concentration within the garbage patch, the sunlight can be blocked to the point of starvation for these organisms. Similarly, these organisms can be sensitive to the chemicals found in plastics and other marine pollutants, causing sickness, malnourishment, and possibly death. From this point at the bottom of the food chain, the effect of these pollutants on the environment only ripples upward, becoming exponentially bigger at higher levels of the food web.
The next level of the food chain is the primary consumers, which are the organisms that ingest the producers of the environment. These organisms can range anywhere from zooplankton, which consist of smaller animals and immature larger animals, to small fish and crustaceans (Encyclopedia Britannica 1). At this level, the organisms can confuse their food for the microplastics within the water and inadvertently ingest those microplastics. A study conducted by Desforges et al. in 2015 found that “Ingested microplastics fibers were found in copepods and euphausiid zooplankton collected from the Northeast Pacific Ocean”, suggesting that even the smallest of primary consumers are ingesting plastic and introducing it into the foodchain (Shim, Thomas 3 in reference to Desforges et al 1). At the next stages of the food web, which consist of the secondary level, tertiary level, and so on, the prevalence of plastic concentration only increases within the organisms. Biomagnification, as demonstrated in the theoretical setup of figure 3, causes the rising concentration of the plastic within Zooplanktivorous organisms on up. In addition to biomagnification, organisms higher up in the foodweb can confuse their prey with plastic in the water, causing them to ingest it despite not being able to digest the plastic.
Figure 3
http://www.bofep.org/wpbofep/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/H-Fundy-Issues-8.pdf
The increasing concentrations of microplastics and plastics that organisms ingest lead to all sorts of health and fertility problems at all levels of the food web. Animals can potentially completely fill their stomachs with nondigestible plastics, causing the sensation of being full without the nutritional value, and leading to starvation on a cellular level because of the lack of space for nutritious foods. The problem is very prevalent among seafaring birds such as the Albatross, “In 1995, a study completed by Auman et al. (1997) found that of the 251 Laysan Albatross (Phoebastria immutabilis) autopsied from Midway Atoll in the North Pacific, only 6 did not contain any ingested plastic” (Sigler 4). In the way of fertility problems, a study conducted by Sussarellu et al. demonstrated that oysters, which are normally filter feeders, were affected by microplastics in the water. When they were exposed to microplastics, they had poorer-quality egg and sperm leading to 41% fewer larvae than the control group (Sussarellu 1).
Aside from ingestion of microplastics and plastics, a phenomenon called ghost fishing is killing many fish and other aquatic life in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and all around the world (Cressey 3). Sea turtles and many other species native to the ocean are being trapped in discarded fishing gear, pack yokes, and other plastic items and suffocating, drowning, or dying due to injury as a result. Another negative effect that plastics have on the environment is their ability to spread invasive species. Because of their resilient nature, invasives species such as mollusks, barnacles, and algae can attach to the plastic and travel hundreds, even thousands of miles around the world (Sigler 2). In addition to the natural materials that these species already travel on, this relatively new mode of transportation may increase the speed at which these invasive species spread and take over a new environment.
Microplastic and plastic pollution of the ocean, specifically within the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, is a real and expanding problem for the marine life of that area. Anthropogenic impact on the oceans has lead to the extinction and endangerment of many species, including the endangerment of the leatherback sea turtle, and human beings are not invulnerable to that impact (Sigler 3). Every single day humans are eating seafood that has been exposed to the plastic and microplastic in their environment. As a result, the chemicals from the plastics that contaminated the fish are getting into our digestive systems and, they are causing sickness and other adverse effects (Sharma, Chatterjee 1). The physical impact of the pollutants on the natural environment is continuously getting worse as more plastic is being dumped into the oceans. More and more research is being done to figure out what these impacts are but, unless the rate of plastic pollution goes down, the adverse effects will continue to get worse.
Who is responsible for the mess
The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is located in international waters, far enough from any coastline that no nation will take responsibility for the mess (National Geographic Society 1). Despite no country wanting to take responsibility for the mess, it can be inferred that, based on the location of the patch, Indonesia, China, and the United States are some of the largest contributors to its size. A study conducted by Jambeck et al. in 2010 calculated the top 20 countries ranked by mass of mismanaged plastic waste and found China to be the biggest contributor at a rate of 8.82 million metric tons of mismanaged plastic waste per year. China was by far the biggest contributor by volume but, in spot number 20, the United States had the largest waste generation rate at 2.58 kilograms per person per day (Jambeck et al. 2). Based off the data collected in figure 4, it can be concluded that not one specific country is to blame for the massive mess in the Pacific Ocean. It has been a group effort between the indicated countries to create the Great Pacific Garbage patch.
Figure 4
In the way of the individual, figure 5 indicates the amount of plastic waste generated in kilograms per person per day from each of the indicated countries in figure 4. This number was calculated by multiplying the waste generation rate in kg/ppd by the % plastic waste to get the amount of plastic waste in kg/ppd. Despite being lowest on the list for gross amount of mismanaged plastic waste, the individual rate of plastic waste generation was significantly higher for the United States compared to every other county on the top 20 list.
Figure 5
The plastic waste that individuals are consuming comes from a number of different products and industries that we use every day. Annually, humans are wasting billions of one time use plastic bottles and plastic bags when the alternative of a reusable bag or a reusable water bottle is more environmentally and economically friendly in the long run. As Lytle puts it in the article When the Mermaids Cry: The great plastic tide, “The ultimate symbol of our throwaway lifestyle is the plastic bag: 500 billion to 1 trillion plastic bags is the number consumed annually, which is about a million a minute” (Lytle 1). Similarly, within cosmetic products, there are small plastic pieces called microbeads that are added to items like face rubs and after one use they get washed down the drain towards the eventual destination of the ocean. (Cressey 2).
Aside from the individual and the nation, there are multiple industries that are specifically making an impact on the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. The most formidable of the these is the fishing industry. An estimated 10% of all fishing gear is lost at sea during fishing operations (Macfadyen, Huntington, Cappell 1). Other industries making a large impact are the cosmetic industry, as mentioned earlier, and the drink industry. Specifically, the annual rate of consumption of single use plastic bottles in the United states alone was 100.7 billion in 2014 (The Plastic Oceans Foundation 1). No individual person, nation, or industry can be blamed for the Great Pacific Garbage Patch but, it is a combination of the plastic waste of all of those things that have resulted in all the microplastics and plastics that make up the Patch.
The Correlation Between economy and The Great Pacific Garbage Patch
Nations are classified into three categories based on the level of their economic development; developed, developing, and least developed countries (United Nations 3). The correlation between economic development and waste management systems directly related to the amount of waste and plastic in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. As demonstrated between a comparison of the economy of United States and China, level of economic development has a direct correlation to waste. China is classified as a nation with a developing economy, based on per capita measurements of gross national income. The United States is classified as having a developed economy by that same measure (Unites Nations 2). As a nation with a developing economy, China has a higher Gross Domestic Product growth, on average, than the United States as pictured in figure 6.
Figure 6
As demonstrated by figure 6, China had a 10.6% annual GDP growth in 2010 while the United States had only a 2.5% growth. In figure 7 it can be seen that, in 2010, China dumped almost 2.5 million metric tons of waste into the ocean, whereas the United States dumped about .075 million metric tons of waste into the ocean that same year (Jambeck 2).
Figure 7
The correlation between waste production and economic development is inherently evident between the United States and China. When that same principle is applied to the rest of the countries contributing to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch problem the relationship between economic development and waste production is still very clear. The correlation can be seen between figure 8, a map of indicating plastic waste available to enter the ocean in 2010 and, figure 9, a map indicating percentage of GDP growth in 2010. The countries marked with a black dot are those that are relevant to the Great Pacific Garbage patch because they are in the northern hemisphere and they share a border with the pacific ocean.
Figure 8
Figure 9
Economically developing nations do not necessarily produce more waste than economically developed nations but, because they are still developing, the waste management systems cannot keep up with their growth. The inability to keep up is what leads developing nations to have more plastic waste available to enter the ocean. This only leads to the continuous growth of the Great Pacific Garbage, drastically altering the environment of the Pacific Ocean.
In order for a nation to take federal action towards cleaning up the Great Pacific Garbage patch millions, if not billions, of dollars would have to be set aside for the effort. To raise those types of funds, the government would have to raise taxes, thereby reducing enterprises’ profit, and ultimately increasing unemployment (Li, C., Xu, Y., Xu, Y. S., & Kang 6). As Li et al. puts it, “All in all, it can be drawn that a conclusion that in order to clear the ocean billions of dollars will be cost. But, the benefit from clearing the water can not be calculated” (Li, C., Xu, Y., Xu, Y. S., & Kang 6).
In a sense they are right, but from an economic standpoint the value of the ocean can be calculated to some degree. The fishing industry alone is responsible for maintaining the livelihoods of 10–12% of people in the world with more than 90% of those people working in developing nations (World Bank 1). The current rate of pollution, specifically in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, is a death sentence for the fishing industry because fish cannot live in a plastic and microplastic riddled environment. Not to mention the fact that the fishing industry feeds billions of people every year, accounting for 16% of total global animal protein consumed annually (World Bank 1). In addition to the fishing industry, the tourism industry is endangered by the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. According to the World Bank, the global international tourism revenue for 2015 was 1.252 billion dollars (World Bank 1). With coastal tourism being one of the largest components of the tourism industry, billions would be lost in tourism to the beaches and waters around the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (Ocean Wealth 1). The Great Pacific Garbage Patch ticking time bomb for international economy. Action needs to be taken, and money needs to be spent, in order to clean up the Garbage Patch so that economic and ecological disaster is prevented.
Solutions
This section will soon have information related to government regulation, inventors, and corporations that could help lead the way a cleaner Pacific Ocean. Economic viability of said solutions will also be referenced.
Conclusion
A summary of all from above
Works Cited
Li, Cao, et al. “Simulation & Prediction of Pacific Plastic Pollution.” Applied Mechanics and
Materials, vol. 50–51, 2011, pp. 890, ProQuest Central, http://nclive.org/cgi-bin/nclsm?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1443608540?accountid=13217, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.50-51.890.
Society, National Geographic. “Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” National Geographic Society, 9
Oct. 2012, www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/.
Kooi, Merel, et al. “The Effect of Particle Properties on the Depth Profile of Buoyant Plastics in
the Ocean.” Scientific Reports (Nature Publisher Group), vol. 6, 2016, pp. 33882, ProQuest Central, http://nclive.org/cgi-bin/nclsm?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1899087875?accountid=13217, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep33882.
“A Comparison of Plastic and Plankton in the North Pacific Central Gyre.” Marine Pollution
Bulletin, Pergamon, 4 Dec. 2001, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X0100114X?via%3Dihub.
Boxall, Simon. “From Rubber Ducks to Ocean Gyres.” Nature, vol. 459, no. 7250, 2009, pp.
1058–1059, ProQuest Central, http://nclive.org/cgi-bin/nclsm?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/204502262?accountid=13217.
“Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 6 Nov. 2017,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch#Photodegradation_of_plastics.
Geyer, Roland, et al. “Production, Use, and Fate of All Plastics Ever Made.” Science Advances,
American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1 July 2017, advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/7/e1700782.
“DataBank.” DataBank | The World Bank, databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx
Cressey, Daniel. “THE PLASTIC OCEAN.” Nature, vol. 536, no. 7616, 2016, pp. 263–265,
ProQuest Central, http://nclive.org/cgi-bin/nclsm?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1812905033?accountid=13217.
Society, National Geographic. “Autotroph.” National Geographic Society, 9 Oct. 2012,
www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/autotroph/.
The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. “Zooplankton.” Encyclopædia Britannica,
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 19 Oct. 2012, www.britannica.com/science/zooplankton.
Desforges, Jean-Pierre W., et al. “Ingestion of Microplastics by Zooplankton in the Northeast
Pacific Ocean.” SpringerLink, Springer US, 12 June 2015, link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00244–015–0172–5.
Shim, Won J., and Richard C. Thomposon. “Microplastics in the Ocean.” Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, vol. 69, no. 3, 2015, pp. 265–268, ProQuest Central, http://nclive.org/cgi-bin/nclsm?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1712457252?accountid=13217, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00244-015-0216-x.
The Gulf of Marine Council. “Fundy’s Watery Waste.” Fundy Issues, 12 Oct. 1996,
www.bofep.org/wpbofep/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/H-Fundy-Issues-8.pdf.
Sigler, Michelle. “The Effects of Plastic Pollution on Aquatic Wildlife: Current Situations and
Future Solutions.” Water, Air and Soil Pollution, vol. 225, no. 11, 2014, pp. 1–9, ProQuest Central, http://nclive.org/cgi-bin/nclsm?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1628460563?accountid=13217, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11270-014-2184-6.
Sussarellua1, Rossana, et al. “Rossana Sussarellu.” Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, National Acad Sciences, www.pnas.org/content/113/9/2430.abstract.
Sharma, Shivika, and Subhankar Chatterjee. “Microplastic Pollution, a Threat to Marine
Ecosystem and Human Health: A Short Review.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, vol. 24, no. 27, 2017, pp. 21530–21547, ProQuest Central, http://nclive.org/cgi-bin/nclsm?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1956536590?accountid=13217, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9910-8.
Cressey, Daniel. “THE PLASTIC OCEAN.” Nature, vol. 536, no. 7616, 2016, pp. 263–265,
ProQuest Central, http://nclive.org/cgi-bin/nclsm?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1812905033?accountid=13217.
Jambeck, Jenna R., et al. “Plastic Waste Inputs from Land into the Ocean.” Science, American
Association for the Advancement of Science, 13 Feb. 2015, science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/768.
Jambeck, Jenna r. “Plastic Waste Inputs from Land into the Ocean.” Sciencemag.org, 12 Feb.
2015, www.iswa.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Calendar_2011_03_AMERICANA/Science-2015-Jambeck-768-71__2_.pdf.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling,
and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2012.” Www.epa.gov, 2 Mar. 2012, www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/2012_msw_fs.pdf.
Adelir-Alves, Johnatas, et al. “Abandoned, Lost or Otherwise Discarded Fishing Gears in Rocky
Reefs of Southern Brazil.” Brazilian Journal of Oceanography, Instituto Oceanográfico Da Universidade De São Paulo, www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1679-87592016000400427&script=sci_arttext.
“Plastic Pollution.” Plastic Pollution | Coastal Care, coastalcare.org/2009/11/plastic-pollution/.
“Facts . About Plastic . Help.” Plastic Oceans Foundation, www.plasticoceans.org/the-facts/.
United Nations. “Country Classification.” Www.un.org, 2 Mar. 2014,
www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wesp/wesp_current/2014wesp_country_classification.pdf.
“Oceans, Fisheries and Coastal Economies.” World Bank,
www.worldbank.org/en/topic/environment/brief/oceans.
Statista. “International Tourism Revenue 2016 | Statistic.” Statista,
www.statista.com/statistics/273123/total-international-tourism-receipts/.
“Recreation & Tourism.” Mapping Ocean Wealth,
oceanwealth.org/ecosystem-services/recreation-tourism/.
“The Surprising Economics of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” The Week — All You Need to
Know about Everything That Matters, 27 Feb. 2015, theweek.com/articles/541440/surprising-economics-great-pacific-garbage-patch.
“International Tourism, Receipts (% of Total Exports).” International Tourism, Receipts (% of
Total Exports) | Data, data.worldbank.org/indicator/ST.INT.RCPT.XP.ZS?view=chart.
