Enyeart 1

Kyler Enyeart

Monique Babin

WR-122-14/-17

15 March 2017

A Resolution to The Question, Is There a Solution to The Ocean Plastic Pollution

Situation?

In a world being forged in the crucible of change, join me, as we follow the story of a sea

turtle whom we will call Jack. Jack is a peaceful creature, who wants nothing more than to be left

alone by other creatures; and to see the world. Jack travels every day, seeing new places and

things. Yet Jack notices a change for the worse in the world around him, he sees other animals

dying from something strange and mysterious. But it was not all bad news; there was a new food

source showing up everywhere, and best of all it is brightly colored, so its easy to spot in the

ocean void. It didnt taste like much and was tough to chew, but food is food, thought Jack.

The next day, however, we discover him to be in a very dangerous situation. Jack had

tried to get through a large patch of plastic, but became stuck in a net tangled around his flippers.

He cannot go up to the surface for air, nor can he go out in search of food, let alone travel and

see the world! Stress levels are very high for Jack. Frantically he tries to extricate himself, but

the plastic cord only wounds him as it digs into his flesh; more, and more, each time he struggles

to fight his fate. With no idea why this is happening to him and no way out of this trap, Jack

grows exhausted. Suffering and unable to resist further, the confused sea turtle, Jack, resigns

himself to a painful, and premature death.

Though Jacks story is no longer uncommon, it is not the only story told. When the same

thing happens to the Tuna fish Tina, a different fate befalls her. Unlike Jack, Tina manages to
 Enyeart 2

free herself from the net, and catch up with her friends. The school of Tuna are very hungry and

chow down on strange food they find all over the place. It fills them up, but they are still tired

and want more to eat. Tina and friends end up in a fishermans net, the very next day. Before

long, truncated and iced; Tina is brought home for dinner from the market. All unknown to the

family, chunks of toxic micro plastics are lurking inside their cooking fish. Not only that, but the

fish itself has absorbed toxic chemicals throughout its life, which were released by decaying

plastic into its habitat and which have been broken down by its hungry body in the attempt to

extract nutrients from the plastic items the fish has eaten in place of actual food.

There is no simple solution to the problem of ocean plastic pollution to invest in, and be

done. The only solution is for people to admit to their onus and to move forward with that

knowledge to create a versatile, multiform plan based on prevention. The effect of humans and

so much waste entering the environment has so devastated the entire natural world, an

Anthropocene extinction event is what scientists now accept as reality, humans have entered the

sixth mass extinction (Wagler 78). It is not right for people to stand by and do nothing, turning

away while all of this occurs. Good role-models will teach people to have compassion for living
 Enyeart 3

creatures, to protect those whom cannot protect themselves. When people admit to their fault,

and step up to make a difference in any way they can, whether that is helping at a beach cleanup

initiative, or voting for the right laws and politicians, they contribute towards ending a holocaust.

In his article, Worlds Largest Cleanup Operation One Step Closer to Launch, Arthur

Neslen, an award-winning journalist, and the Europe environment correspondent at The

Guardian, tells us a little about the plastic pollution problem in our ocean. Neslen writes, the

Great Pacific garbage patch, made up largely of tiny bits of plastic trapped by ocean currents, is

bigger than Texas reaching up to 5.8 million sq. miles. Neslens point is that the Great

Pacific garbage patch is so vast, it is many times larger than the biggest landfills ever. Neslen

elaborates, at least 100,000 sea mammals and millions of seabirds and fish are thought to die

each year from entanglement in the plastic muck or ingestion of its micro-plastics. Here, Neslen

explains that the indiscriminate use and disposal of plastic waste by human beings, has indirectly

been the cause of the ongoing mass killing of sea life. Neslen says, one recent study estimated

that around 90% of the worlds sea birds had eaten colorful plastic items that they mistook for

food. Here, what Neslen argues is that mankind is responsible for this tragedy, and people

should have compunction for their actions.

Neslen claims that soon 42% of The Great Pacific Garbage Patch will be cleaned up,

due to public funding for a huge boom which would collect the waste. Neslen argues that the

boom will not harm ocean creatures because the current flows beneath the barrier, everything

with neutral flotation, such as plankton and other fish go with it, and that which floats to the top

like plastic, will remain in front. Small scale tests have been successful in the waters around

Europe. Neslen writes, conditions in the mid-Pacific Ocean are actually less challenging than in

shallower coastal waters, a lower wave steepness may be more likely to spill water over
 Enyeart 4

the barrier. What Neslen means to say is that the boom will float on the top of larger waves,

while smaller waves will simply break over the barrier, potentially letting plastics through. While

the boom will not collect micro plastics that are very tiny, Neslen says that these micro plastics

will only double in number if larger plastics at the surface are not collected before they can break

down into smaller particles.

Neslens claim that 42% of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch will be cleaned by the

boom, rests upon the questionable assumption that such a structure could survive the stresses of

extreme ocean storm systems. Ever thought getting a car repaired was expensive? The price to

fix such a barrier alone would be so enormous, that the project becomes cost prohibitive. While

many ocean animals would be safe from harm by the boom, there are more than one which do

have positive buoyancy, and would be negatively impacted by the device. Yes, the structure

could clean up some of the garbage if successful, but it is not even a simple fix for the problem

of ocean plastic pollution. A profusely bleeding wound needs to be cauterized, not cleaned.

Millions of dollars were raised online for the ocean cleanup device that would collect the

waste, but many qualified experts, and veteran ocean activists have doubts about the project

succeeding. In her article, ponderously named Too good to be true? The ocean cleanup project

faces feasibility questions; while the 21-year-old founder of The Ocean Cleanup Project has

succeeded in raising over $2m for a device that would extract plastic from the ocean, critics say

the high cost initiative is misdirected, Lindsey Kratochwill provides an informative collection

of details regarding the subject of Boyan Slats Ocean Cleanup Project. Kratochwill explains that

experts in the fields of biology and oceanography are not sure how it will affect ocean creatures,

nor are they convinced that the project will succeed, or that it is the best way to deal with this

issue. What Kratochwill means to say here, is that if this ocean cleanup device was all it claims
 Enyeart 5

to be, there would have been a statement from an environmental impact study before a funding

push, and more effort done to explain how the device is supposed to withstand a winter storm on

the open ocean. Kratochwill says that physical oceanographer Kim Martini, and biological

oceanographer Miriam Goldstein who performed a feasibility study for the project, still believe

that the technical difficulties will be too much for the device to handle, We continue to have

serious reservations due to [Slats] substantive misinterpretation of oceanography,

ecology, engineering, and marine debris distribution , Martini wrote in an email. Here

Kratochwill says that Slat ignored many warnings about the devices feasibility, given by experts

hired to do just that, experts that still think this project is likely to fail.

Investing large sums of money into an ocean cleanup device might seem like a good idea

on paper; but that is not where people should be focusing their energy. Chris Clarke, an

environmental editor at KCET, and a natural history writer, shares some views with readers, in

his article, 6 Reasons That Floating Ocean Plastic Cleanup Gizmo is a Horrible Idea. Clarke

summarizes, Slats idea wont make enough of a dent to be worth the effort, it will

injure wildlife already struggling from an ocean with too much of our stuff in it, and the rigs may

end up becoming more shredded pieces of plastic in [the] ocean. In other words, Clarke

believes that this project may not only fail to help the situation; but may in fact aggravate the

problem further. In only one day, Clarke says in 2014, that 564 tons of trash was cleaned up from

beaches by 66,292 volunteers. Clark sagely advises us with his closing claim, when he writes,

its far more efficient, cheaper, and safer to keep the plastic out of the ocean in the first place.

This prevailing principle of prevention people should understand.

Sad, but true, the plastic has begun to toxify not only the oceans, but the food supply. In

his article, Floating Fortress of Microbes, Christopher Samoray, a science writer at the
 Enyeart 6

National Academy of Sciences, writes to inform about ocean plastics and what they mean to

consumers. According to Samoray, plastic pieces attract creatures that eat the plastic for a meal.

Covered in microbial life, the plastic has the scent, and the taste of food. In other words,

Samoray believes that for most creatures, microbe covered plastics are virtually indistinguishable

from something edible. Thus, these plastics enter the food chain, coming full circle; from

peoples waste basket; onto their dinner plates, hiding inside food. Samoray confirms, a marine

ecologist at the University of California Davis, Chelsea Rochman and her team, looked for

detritus affiliated with humans, like plastic, in fish and oysters being sold in United States and

Indonesian markets. In the United States, 15 out of 64 fish, and 4 out of 12 oysters concealed

hominid affiliated rubbish.

The good news is that there are real solutions to the problem of ocean plastic pollution.

Matt Prindiville, Executive Director at Upstream, an environmental organization, talks about

what legitimate options people do have in his article, The Solution to Plastic Pollution?

Prindiville writes, the fundamental problem is the lack of responsibility from consumer goods

companies for the plastic pollution (and other downstream impacts) caused by their decisions,

their products, and their packaging worldwide. In other words, Prindiville believes that most

of the responsibility lies with the corporations that sell these plastic products and packaging.

Everyone should take responsibility for the fallout of their decisions, certain corporate decision

makers probably share most of the blame, even still practically everyone should accept some

degree of responsibility for their choices. Prindiville explains that the only viable solutions to

plastic pollution are ones that focus on prevention. To use the bathtub analogy, Prindiville says,

when the bathtub is overflowing, turn off the flow at the source, do not bale water out while

leaving the faucet running. Here, Prindiville insists that turning off the constant flow of plastic,
 Enyeart 7

or at least preventing it from entering our natural environment, are the only applicable solution

methods, and that trying to cleanup plastic currently present would be akin to mopping the

bathroom floor of water while the bath tub is still over flowing all over it. Which comes right

back to the initial proposal, that there is no easy way out, people need to be honest with

themselves about their involvement, and work towards a diversified solution that should focus on

prevention.

In conclusion, lets go over what has been learned. The problem of ocean plastic

pollution has continued to be the cause of mass extermination and suffering of ocean creatures

on a holocaustic scale. There is no simple way to solve the ocean plastic pollution problem, such

as an ocean cleaning array. Rather the only solution to be found is in admitting responsibility,

and creating a diversiform plan with a foundation based on prevention. These concepts are

backed by qualified experts, and people should carefully consider just how, and where to spend

their money and energy. Beyond the damage to the planets oceans, and its inhabitants, people

should care about this problem because it has entered the global food chain, poisoning

consumers, and their children world-wide. Individuals can make a difference by signing up for a

local beach cleanup initiative; or by voting for environmentally considerate laws and political

representatives.
 Enyeart 8

Works Cited

Clarke, Chris. 6 Reasons That Floating Ocean Plastic Cleanup Gizmo is a Horrible Idea KCET,

4 June 2015, www.kcet.org/redefine/6-reasons-that

-floating-ocean-plastic-cleanup-gizmo-is-a-horrible-idea

Lindsey, Kratochwill. Too good to be true? The ocean cleanup project faces feasibility

questions; while the 21-year-old founder of The Ocean Cleanup Project has succeeded in

raising over $2m for a device that would extract plastic from the ocean, critics say the

high-cost initiative is misdirected. The Guardian, 26th Mar. 2016, LexisNexis Academic,

www.lexisnexis.com

Neslen, Arthur. Worlds Largest Cleanup Operation One Step Closer to Launch. The

Guardian,13 Nov. 2015, www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/13/

worlds-largest-ocean-cleanup-operation-one-step-closer-to-launch

Samoray, Chris, Floating Fortress of MICROBES. (Cover Story), Science News, Vol. 189, No.

4, Feb. 2016, pp. 20-23, Academic Search Premier, www.ebscohost.com

Wagler, Ron. The Anthropocene Mass Extinction: An Emerging Curriculum Theme for Science

Educators American Biology Teacher, Vol. 73, No. 2, Feb. 2011, pp. 78-83, Academic

Search Premier, www.ebscohost.com

MDC staff. Photo of Peanut. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City,

nature.mdc.mo.gov/discover-nature/photos-live-

cams/gallery?type=All&field_file_image_title_text_value_1=peanut.

MDC staff. Peanut the Turtle. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City,

mdc.mo.gov/files/060314-peanut-turtle-63jpg.
Enyeart 9