Fear of a Plastic Planet
We're Losing the War On Plastics
Despite all the fears about our oceans, the industry expects more demand.
T.V. naturalist Sir David Attenborough made his viewers weep last month with an exposé on how plastics are polluting the oceans, harming marine animals and fish. The World Economic Forum estimates that there will be more pieces of plastic in the world's ocean than there are fish by 2050. And last week, British prime minister Theresa May announced a slew of new measures to discourage plastics use, including plastic-free supermarket aisles and an expanded levy on plastic bags. A ban on microbeads in cosmetics came into force this year. Not to be outdone, the EU is mulling plastics taxes to cut pollution and packaging waste. Is this industry the new tobacco?
It's no wonder politicians feel compelled to act. About 60 percent of all the plastics produced either went to landfill or have been dumped in the natural environment (According to this studyin Science Advances "Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made."). At current rates there will be more plastic than fish in the ocean by 2050 by weight (Seethis report on The New Plastics Economy.), much of it in the form of small particles, ingestible by wildlife and very difficult to remove.
Public awareness has increased in recent years, yet that hasn't led to falling consumption. More than half of the total plastics production has occurred since the turn of the millennium. Producers such as DowDuPont Inc, Exxon Mobil Corp, LyondellBasell Industries NV and Ineos Group Ltd, as well as packaging manufacturers like Amcor Ltd, Berry Global Group Inc and RPC Group Plc have been happy to meet that demand. They don't plan on it ending suddenly.
![]()
Plastic packaging is an almost $290 billion-a-year business and sales are forecast to expand by almost 4 percent a year until 2022, according to research firm Smithers Pira. Demand for polyethylene, the most used plastic, is set to rise at a similar rate, meaning total consumption will rise to 118 million metric tons in 2022, according to IHS Markit. In the U.S., the shale gas boom has encouraged the construction of new ethylene plants. Oil companies are counting too on rising plastics consumption to offset the spread of electric vehicles, as my colleague Julian Lee has explained.
The reasons for the bullishness are obvious. Growing populations, rising living standards and the march of e-commerce mean more demand. In developed countries, per capita polyethylene use is as much as 40 kg per person, whereas in poorer countries like India the figure is just one tenth of that, according to IHS Markit. Plastics are displacing materials like glass and paper because they tend to be cheap, lightweight and sturdy. That plastics don't easily decompose is an asset -- it prevents food going bad -- as well as a liability for the natural environment.
Cutting consumption will be difficult. While bioplastics are an alternative, they make up only about 1 percent of global plastics demand. Quality and cost issues have prevented wider adoption. "A lot of these materials aren't really competitive in a world of low to mid oil prices," says Sebastian Bray, analyst at Berenberg.
Plastic bag levies have proven effective. Britain claims its 5 pence charge means 9 billion fewer plastic bags have been used -- but bags account for just a couple of percentage points of global polyethylene consumption, according to Bernstein analyst Jonas Oxgaard. A tax on plastic packaging probably wouldn't achieve much, he says, because plastic is such a tiny part of the total cost of most products. Recycling technology is improving, but isn't always economic because of the low-value of plastic waste that's collected or the complexity of mixed-material packing (See "Stemming the Tide: Land-based strategies for a plastic- free ocean", page 23.).
That's not to say big changes aren't possible -- or necessary. Last year China said it would halt imports of plastic waste after its recycling industry caused too much local pollution. Unfortunately, one result will be more demand for new plastic resins(to replace what can't be re-purposed) -- a win for plastic producers. Still, China's blockade might prompt developed countries to deal better with their own waste. Europe has exported half the plastics waste it collects, much to China, arguably with insufficient guarantees it would be handled properly.
China is thought to be chief source of plastic pollution entering the world's oceans. About two-thirds of the total probably originates from just 10 emerging market nations (According to this study: "Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean" (Science, 2015). Pressing these countries to improve waste collection would doubtless be more effective in helping the oceans than the U.K.'s plastic-free supermarket aisles. That doesn't get the plastics industry off the hook though. Despite all the heady forecasts, the political tide is moving against it.
A version of this post original appeared as an article on Bloomberg.com, January 15, 2018. It has been paraphrased and revised with additional images here. To contact the original author of this story: Chris Bryant in Berlin at cbryant32@bloomberg.net
Ocean Plastic Pollution
Past, Present, and Future
The amount of plastic in our ocean can seem hard to fathom—it grows by millions of tons every year. But what exactly is the impact of so much plastic? And what can be done about it? The first crucial step will be understanding the effects in detail.
This issue is not unprecedented. We've dealt with persistent environmental pollutants before.
Plastic in the ocean can break down into tiny fragments that often become food for tiny sea creatures, like small fish. They become food for bigger fishes, which in turn ingest and accumulate the same plastic, carrying it on up the food web—and perhaps back to our dinner plates.
Mapping out future ways to deal with this present problem hinges on understanding the past.
What's often lacking in environmental management is a baseline of ecosystem health. To solve a problem you want to know where you've come from, where you are today and how fast you got there.
One way to set baselines is to gather clues from historical wildlife specimens. One current field of research examines the heavy metals built up in seabirds, using specimens dating back over 120 years. We can do the very same thing with plastics, using animals as ocean sensors.
Another key will be refining our knowledge of where ocean plastic pollution ends up, because places where it concentrates—like a subtropical gyre between Hawaii and California (known as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch)—may not be the most vital to ocean health.
Rather, it's essential to monitor the ocean's biological hotspots, like a Pacific migratory corridor where cool and warm waters mingle, which is critical for many fish, whales, turtles and birds. We need to understand if there's any transfer of plastic contaminants between the gyres and animals in the hotspots.
Plastic pollution infiltrates the ocean's food web in various ways and can inflict harm both chemically and physically. Untangling these impacts is a complex challenge.
The ocean is full of life, from the surface all the way to the deepest seafloor. Animals are ingesting plastic at all levels.
Not all plastic is buoyant. Some sinks down into the water column. Knowing precisely what that means in terms of impacts and survival for marine animals will require a tremendous amount of scientific legwork.
That may mean ocean monitoring on a vast scale that hasn't seemed possible before. Robots may be part of the solution.
The challenge is finding a way to continuously measure plastic debris in a given part of the ocean, as well as any animals there that might ingest it. Having humans attempt this over a long period of time would be costly as well as exhausting. It may be unrealistic—but perhaps not for autonomous robots someday in the future.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
We're Following
Doctor says Trump is 6-3, 239 pounds and the Internet goes wild. Check out these comparisons and figure out whose the liar.
The results of President Trump’s first formal medical exam since taking office were announced Tuesday, and the big news was that the physician involved, Navy Rear Adm. Ronny L. Jackson, said the 71-year-old president received a perfect score on a cognitive test. However, other announced results were also of interest, particularly to those who couldn’t help but notice that Trump was listed at 6-3 and 239 pounds.
Of course, sports fans are often very well-versed in athletes’ heights and weights, and they are aware that those listed numbers don’t always precisely correlate with reality. For example, Kevin Durant is famously taller than his listed height of 6-9, and toward the end of his playing days, Shaquille O’Neal was widely thought to be far heavier than his listed weight of 324 pounds.
Adding to some online observers’ skepticism that Trump’s measurements were accurate was the fact that 239 pounds, at 6-3, conveniently put his body mass index at 29.9 — just below the 30.0 threshold for him to be officially described as obese, rather than merely overweight. In any event, plenty of Internet users were happy to juxtapose photos of the president with those of athletes with similar listed heights and weights.
Obviously the WH doctor is just as deluded as the President. Nevertheless, some took issue not just with the president’s listed weight, but his height, as well. Photos were posted comparing Trump, at a purported 6-3, to his predecessor, Barack Obama, who was listed at 6-1. Hummm, you decide.
