Plastic particles falling out of sky with snow in Arctic
bbc.com
bbc.com
Private industry as well like Coke is going to put water into cans under the Dasani brand. It's not everything but it's a major step in reducing the waste caused my plastic.
But plastic is in other products as well like toys, electronics, etc... Individuals must be aware of this and need to make better choices or else this problem will just continue.
I am hopeful we can take collective action to clean up the environment and live sustainably.
EDIT for the down voters: aluminum cans have been identified as the main source of BPA in the human population.
No they don't. At least not if they live in the developed world. Virtually all disposed of plastic in the US and Europe is sequestered in solid-waste landfills. Modern landfills leak virtually nothing to the outside environment.
Virtually all environmental plastic contamination comes from third world countries in Asia or Africa. In particular China, Vietnam, the Philippines and Indonesia. Due to rampant corruption and lack of oversight these countries have gross mismanagement of their solid waste disposal.
Plastic is completely fine to use. As long as it's properly disposed of, there's essentially zero environmental impact. If you live in a first world country, I can assure you that your plastic straw will absolutely not end up in a turtle's nose. The issue is that the international community needs to hold Asia and Africa accountable for not upholding global standards on ocean pollution.
[1] https://www.dumpsters.com/blog/how-do-modern-landfills-work [2] https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution#mismanaged-plas...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-11/australias-recycling-...
And just recently we started sending recycling to landfill in many places:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-06/councils-sending-thou...
Historically we've "outsourced" our recycling problem to Asian nations rather than develop or implement solutions at home, and unfortunately now our chickens are coming home to roost.
I find this absolutely infuriating... it's the perfect job to give to the CSIRO (our public scientific research organisation) and provide government grants to get local recycling off the ground. There's so much talk around "supporting local industry", but when decisions are actually made, they use overseas suppliers 9 times out of 10.
https://www.csiro.au/en/About/History-achievements/Top-10-in...
and considering the defunding that has been going on, particularly with respect to climate change:
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/csiro-australia-...
It really is a sad picture indeed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/world/asia/philippines-ca...
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/southeast-asia-threaten-to-r...
Whilst high-income countries tend to have effective waste management infrastructure and therefore very small quantities of inadequately disposed waste, they can contribute to plastics pollution by littering. Jambeck et al. (2015) assume a rate of littering of 2 percent of total plastic waste generation across all countries.
Less code is more. Less stuff is more.
I got a cloth shopping bag as a gift when I was in college; I still use it today 10 years later. Perfect example of a case where there is really no need for plastic in the first place.
I’m not against plastic, but its cheap price had lead to grotesque levels of overuse. Every time I order take out, I always make a big point that I don’t want any utensils, because if I don’t, they cram the bag full of things I don’t need. It’s no more convenient for me to receive or not receive plastic utensils, it’s just wasteful.
If you need a plastic thing, by all means, go for it. But that I can tell most use of plastic in our society is just out of habit. We could change our habits, use far less plastic and at no cost to ourselves.
Seems like a no brained to optimize this function.
> Virtually all environmental plastic contamination comes from third world countries in Asia or Africa
This is so wrong there's no point trying to rebut it. But it is very wrong, and the fact you say it shows you do not understand the problem at all.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/17/recycled-pla...
The answer has to be national, ideally global, and that means political.
I agree it’s not effective to expect people to do this, but it’s really easy for an individual to do.
I've tried telling my foreign in-laws that the water here is some of the cleanest in the world, but they still buy their 24-pack from supermarket when they visit. Maybe one day we will convince them.
Or do it in the bathroom since potable water is fairly universal in the Western world. I don't expect others to do this because it seems there are huge numbers of irrationally squeamish individuals.
People need to stop buying packaged water. Municipal water in developed countries is always cleaner than bottled water. There are very low standards for bottled water where as city water in the US, EU, Japan et. al. are tested constantly (in some cities; up to 400 times per month at various sites and sections).
Bottled water is at 1000% markup compared city/water fountains. It is also almost always tap water. It's a plight on the world in plastic/oil waste and people need to stop buying it. Putting it in cans will not make it better, and countries without clean water need heavily to invest in better domestic clean water infrastructure. It should be the highest priority of ever low income country to provide this most basic need to its people.
The documentaries Blue Gold and Tapped go into the issues with the private and bottled water industries.
I don't think it was even 15 years ago that bottled water was like, a non-thing. It might sort of be in shops but people would laugh at it.
It's one of those collective action problems whereby I'd happily pay ten quid a year or whatever stupidly low cost would be required to have some free fountains. Gah.
It's less mysterious when you consider the sales trends for bottled soft drinks vs bottled water. People are buying bottled water in situations where they used to buy bottled soda.
It's not even the pollution stuff, it's more like, you've just paid for a free resource. Wat?
Bottled soda is completely different because it's a resource that isn't anywhere close to free.
[1]https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/bottled-water...
It just says that bottled water can be tap water that may be purified. And obviously, that bottled water has to be drinkable, just like tap water.
The only indication that tap water may be inferior is that the tolerance for lead is higher in tap water, to account for possibly of lead piping. But I suppose that you can check your water if you think it is a problem.
If you believe that bottled water is less clean than tap, then only one of the following must be true:
1. The sourced municipal tap water is already purified such that any additional treatment does nothing.
2. The bottled water in question is not labeled as purified (and is not from a spring, well, or other non-municipal source).
A quick internet search reveals that all the major bottled water brands are either explicitly labeled as purified municipal tap (Smart Water, Dasani), or excluded from the discussion because they are from a spring or well (Evian, Arrowhead). I have yet find a single brand of unpurified non-spring water. However, I did learn that all bottled water regardless of source must meet the U.S. Pharmacopeia 23rd Rev. standards (which are unfortunately paywalled).
It seems unlikely you'll encounter unpurified, straight-from-the-tap bottled water, striking conjecture #2 from the list. Therefore, if conjecture #1 is true, then the only thing that can be said is bottled water is at least as good as municipal tap, but never worse.
It's funny, last time I went to LAX I couldn't find a single place to refill our water bottle, meanwhile IAH in Houston has them everywhere.
Also, in a lot of countries bottled water is tested and is much better than the local drinking water. It's necessary when you go to Thailand or Mexico for example. It's also necessary for some places in the US.
There was absolutely no reason to switch to chloramine other than some chemical company greased a politician. And no I don't care about your goofy stats telling me it's "safe" (or dangerous for that matter, though I assume it probably ain't good for you) -it tastes like a goddamned swimming pool.
Expecting individuals to do the right thing vs laziness is not a good bet. A better option would be to remove plastic supply, including slightly more durable goods, by any number of mechanisms.
Micro plastics from washing clothes:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026974911...
"The number of microfibres released from a typical 5 kg wash load of polyester fabrics was estimated to be over 6,000,000 depending on the type of detergent used"
A lot of study still needs to be done to determine the sources of micro plastics.
We can all stop using single use carrier bags, but can we stop washing our $3 Target t-shirts made from poly-cotton?
The whole habitable planet thing was nice while it lasted.
But seriously, does anyone have any suggestions on how a software engineer can make any sort of meaningful impact on this? Or even groups of software engineers, as many of the people here feel similarly. This is a problem that must be solved.
However, you're not powerless. Personally, cook your food in metal and try to drink out of glass and metal. For the world, work hard and save up. As a SW engineer, you should be able to save up. Put some of your money into organizations that are trying to save the environment. Donate some money to politicians that recognize these threats.
What I've been lead to believe is the elephant in the room vis micro-plastics is clothing. A lot ends up in rivers and oceans via waste water. Check your dry lint trap lately? That's the big stuff. All the micro stuff ends up down the drain or in the air.
Other than going full naked hippy how are you supposed to deal with that on a personal level?
Stop wearing shitty clothes.
I don't know why this is remotely controversial or unknown; somehow people imagine the plastic bottle they drank from, or the plastic bag they stored their lunchtime sammich in, will instantly atomize into micron sized particles which snow on the arctic. No. Micron sized particles of plastic come from micron sized fibers in your goddamned cheap "high tech" polyester hoodie (and dipshits burning rubber).
If programmers really want to do their bit on this issue; start wearing a wool suit, cotton shirt and silk necktie.
By their estimate, roadside tire grind results in more microplastics in waterways than clothing, lost plastic pellets and building paint combined.
Short answer though is no, this is a hardware problem. Best thing we can hope to do is force societal change via votes from the upcoming generations. No one who didn't live with this issue as a constant din in their life (i.e. boomers) is going to be able to make the hard lifestyle sacrifices/reimaginings that it will take. I'm just getting myself settled into adulthood now (early thirties) and I worry that we're too far gone and divided already.
I have other ideas, but those involve a somewhat atypical set of morals, so maybe not good to talk out on a public forum.
Another action people can take is to refuse working for an employer who doesn't take sustainability seriously or is an obvious polluter. I recently switched jobs from a place that put API's in front of warehousing, logistics, and fulfillment. They did not take sustainably seriously. Tons of plastic packaging and inefficient warehouses.
I'm now at a retailer that is extremely conscious of sustainability. Their warehouses and stores are all 100% carbon neutral and are starting to divert 90%+ of all waste from ending up in landfills. Data centers are also carbon neutral. Sustainability decisions ARE business decisions. In my experience, I've seen most businesses separate sustainability and business. It's refreshing to be somewhere that molds the two together. I wish more businesses took this approach.
If you are interested in making an impact then do some research on the company before your next interview. At the end of interviews they give you the opportunity to ask questions. Ask about sustainability and see what their reaction is.
I hear this a lot, and I have to wonder, what's the end-game here? To boycott the business on the employment side, so that they can't do effective work and eventually have to shutdown the company? Or maybe induce enough hiring pain they'll be forced to change their unsustainable practices to be able to attract talent?
The aggregate effect, assuming that you're a competent developer, is that these businesses are less efficient.
Ignoring that, it's good for your own soul to not do things you think are bad.
My suggestion is always to elect better politicians and write better laws.
Personal behavioral changes will not impact on the scale required.
The truth is that the planet has been much better for the median human than it was 200 years ago, and is still likely to be better for the median human 200 years in the future compared to the past.
Yes, we have more problems, but we have much better tools of dealing with problems including electricity, communication, transportation, heating, cooling, medicines, modern agriculture, GMO, CRISPER.
Sure, recycle, be a thoughtful consumer, write your representatives, but direct action gets the goods. Look into alternative approaches to governance and autonomous political structures too. There are lots of ideas and projects floating around that could benefit from a technical assist, and (sort of like Linux) you can just show up and start doing it, just be open to advice and suggestions along the way.
And therein lies the rub: individuals by the numbers don't have competency at the policy level because that's an artifact of collaboration and organization.
Most of us don't and can't work at the scope of policy. Modern society puts interested individuals at a huge disadvantage here. E.g. it's far, far easier for even a relatively small business to support someone in part- or full- time policy related efforts. Lobbying, marketing, supporting candidates, etc. Large companies may have entire divisions dedicated to such. The "rest" of us largely have to work for those entities for a living, don't have the required expertise, don't have the luxury of spending hours a week on policy change, and/or don't even have the spare income to donate to a suitable policy organization to act in our proxy, if one even exists.
Note: I don't think the above spells gloom and doom. Instead, I think this line of thinking is part of an growing awareness, a wake-up-call: that society will need to change if humanity is to adapt and survive.
Our house is on fire — let’s act like it. We demand climate justice for everyone."
The result of that can be that one decade, everything looks sort of fine, and then the next, oops - it's all fucked.
Anything we do that results in visibiity at a global environmental level requires caution, because whilst we can change it inadvertently over a period of mere decades, restoration may require millenia.
Why are we worried about trivial things which we can barely detect when there are places like Haiti where people, right now, live in squalor? Again, you're worried about something you don't understand and can't actually predict when there are real things that we know about but won't do anything about.
These misleading sorts of statistics also appear when people discuss detection of radiation, e.g., detecting minute radioactive fallout in the US after the Fukushima meltdown.
Individual atoms of light elements will very often travel around the world on decade-long timescales, regardless of whether they are dangerous or benign.
In fact, microplastic counts often do not even separate out cellulose based fibers such as Rayon. Then you are talking about a "plastic" which is safe enough to be used for sausage casings, it's just wood pulp which has been broken down and spun into fibers.
The research into microplastics is very much in its infancy, like early research into disease transmission talking about the deadly "miasma".
For that, you'll have to actually read the paper (please share!) or wait for non-terrible science journalism -- don't hold your breath!
"some of the contamination may have come from ships grinding against the ice. [...] some may have come off wind turbines."
to
"do we need so much plastic packaging?"
I can see having a fee for 'luxury' versions of the bags (EG handles) or for an oversized bag (compared to small single items)...
However I'm pretty sure the stores loose more on the bulk of credit card transactions than they do on the item bagging fees.
Supposedly it's even in the water. Measured in Germany by german labs. They're introduced by cosmetics like the abrasive perls some cosmetics use.
We're just animals. Powerful animals.
Just plastic is never "just" plastic. There will always be contamination of trash with potential for emission of pollutants.
[0] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/03/shoul...
There is also a difference between the bulk of some material becoming something else and traces of some side product being emitted, not to mention potentially better technologies like molten salt oxidation or plasma gasification.