Credit to this organization from pivoting (AFAIK) from their original plan to scrape the plastic out of the water on the open ocean ("System 001"). Intercepting plastic at river mouths seems much more practical and cost effective.
They have been focused on the end goal, even if it meant having to kill the original idea that drove the initial fame and success. The automated, solar powered platform [1]
I try to remember them when I'm getting too emotionally attached to an idea. They remain pragmatic, focused on reducing the plastic in the optimal way. Even when that means doing it manually, by driving around in "dirty" ships, instead of the nice clean automated solar powered platforms they initially pitched.
Same with expanding to the rivers. Where their initial (and still working) platform is a automated and solar powered one, but recently they are just putting up fences/barriers and then manually scoping up the trash with (again, "dirty") excavators.
I wish them all the luck.
Messing with the top meter of ocean water does its own kind of damage.
So much of the life in the ocean surface layer is going to be involved with the floating trash, like it or not.
Ocean surface sterilization seems incautious and worrisome. Never mind we don't like to see trash. Stripping the ocean surface water will have unforeseen consequences.
According to the video on the site, the boats travel at less than 3km/h and they have live video feeds monitoring the nets. Am I missing anything here?
It's only the top surface, right? The ocean can be miles deep!
But the density of life in the ocean decreases geometrically with depth. By mass, the top inches contain more life than the entire balance of it. Because, sunlight.
Not trying to be standoffish. Just being aware that the law of unintended consequences will bite you in the ass every time.
If only Boyan Slat had thought to ask you first
Just as it's so easy to think of the ocean as fish and whales, it's easy to think of garbage on a human scale - yogurt cups, straws, shopping bags. That assumption leads us astray from the actual nature of the problem.
Keep it out, with this device, sieving rivers. A brilliant solution. Not so applicable to the open ocean. That's all I said, am saying, and am finished repeating.
To the degree this enterprise can remove pepper-sided particles of plastic floating near the surface, it will impact microscopic organisms almost exclusively. To the degree it does not clean at that level, it is not an ocean-cleanup device.
River garbage is, I think (and I began by saying) a brilliant solution. Keep it clean, rather than clean-up-after. Almost all the garbage comes from humans on land after all.
See the "managing environmental impact" section here: https://theoceancleanup.com/oceans/
I imagine there must be _some_ non zero risk, but I imagine the benefits of removing the plastic outweigh the risk. Ie removing the plastic is better for the wildlife overall, despite the small potential risk.
You do have a point that the impact on the ecosystem is a concern worth exploring, but your statement goes off the rails from there and assumes that they are sterilizing the ocean surface? You've got to expect pushback on such a leap unless you justify it.
Messing with fragile systems like this is dangerous. Many studies show that blocking river flow causes the extinction of species. Until we can be sure that this is safe, we shouldn't do it.
We should first study it over a reasonable period of time (say 20 years) before doing anything like this. Humans think they can just modify the environment without consequences. That is the root of the issue. We need real change.
2) they didn't block the river flow! 100% that would be very dangerous. The have a capture device on the surface of the water. Wildlife and water travel freely under the surface.
3) the mission statement of this organisation is about helping wildlife, so I reckon they think a lot about the impacts that anything they do can have on wildlife.
The open ocean approach had always been far out in terms of good intentions but unrealistic expectations in my eyes, but with this pivot it's actually awesome: the fancy idea as an accidental Trojan horse to get the reasonable but not quite as exciting idea off the ground.
In hindsight this could have been the one best possible path, I doubt that they would be where they are if they had started out with the effective but boring (compared to their exiting off-shore fantasies!). And neither would they be where they are if they deliberately started with the Trojan horse, knowing of its nature. The best salespersons are always those who honestly fail to understand why the buyer might prefer something different than what they are selling.