He Said, She Said… It’s all politics in Copenhagen

Words of wisdom given to me growing up: "Never give up your dreams", "Be wary of letting others know your dreams because they'll just try and step on them" and "never go into politics". Three days into the United Nations Climate Change Conference here in Copenhagen, we have a grand spectacle at the Bella Center of the reasons to follow all three pieces of that advice.

The United States delegation, which showed up today and attended the plenary session promised to be a full partner to the world in the negotiations. Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, was warmly greeted after the EPA's recent announcement that the Clean Air Act will now regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Although Jackson was warmly received, US representative Todd Stern and the Chinese delegation exchanged some sharp words over, who needs to be taking the bigger steps. Stern stated that "If you care about the science, and we do, there is no way to solve this problem by giving the major developing countries a pass." China's climate change ambassador, Yu Quingtai, then retorted that the United States should do "some deep soul searching" and revisit its position.

Stanislaus Di-Aping Lumumba, G-77 chairman, called out the Danes who prepared the treaty saying that poor nations are being excluded from the treaty process and that the current text "aims at preserving and advancing developed countries economic dominance".

Testing to see if that was true, the main plenary session today, in which the island nation of Tuvalu, threatened by rising sea levels, attempted to get delegates to move on a legally binding protocol that would make both industrialized and developing nations make higher admissions cuts. The proposal was blocked by China, India, and Saudi Arabia. In response to the debate, about 100 activists in the hall outside the official session started chanting "Tuvalu! Survival! Listen to the Islands!" UN police, having their say, were forced to shut down the plenary area. Dreams quickly dashed, Tuvalu's delegate Ian Fry reiterated that "this is a moral issue" and emissions reductions are not to be taken lightly. The deep rift between developed and developing nations growing at the conference, many representatives of developing nations and activist are taking the position that the developed nations are more worried about their economies than the survival of island nations.

Sarah Palin, who was published today in the Washington Post, gave the best piece of advice to the US delegation: "Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits -- not pursuing a political agenda." Precisely! That's after all what everyone was talking about today, right? Coming together and compromising for a sound climate treaty that benefits all? Which is precisely why President Obama… "should boycott Copenhagen". Thanks for the advice Mrs. Palin, but I think I'll follow my head and my heart.

E-Waste

Electronic waste (E-Waste) includes discarded computers and other consumer electronics including items like laptops, personal computers, televisions, and cell phones. Within the last two decades, e-waste has also become the fastest growing portion of our solid waste stream because massive piles of electronics present other problems for all life on earth because there are toxics in all computers and the piles keep growing. These electronics contain some toxics such as lead, mercury, cadmium, nickel, zinc, and brominated flame retardants. So how is the United States coping with the problem?

According to the India’s Department of Scientific and Industrial Research the amount of electronics imported to their country is increasing by 10% per year. Other firms export to other places such as unregulated toxic waste dumps in China. These toxic wastes ultimately pollute the land water and air causing cancers and miscarriages. One then turns into the federal level and wonder if there any proper U.S. policy in place that addresses e-waste?

The answer is no, with the country’s inadequate “recycling policies, short useful life-span, and high costs of recycling these products” only leaves firms with no concern for their adverse impacts on the environment and public health and disregard of them and their byproducts throughout the product’s life as cheaply possible.

The only solution we have until the federal government figures a policy for e-waste, “the best bets for responsible recycling come from industry groups like the e-Stewards certification of electronics recyclers, which requires recyclers to abide by five rules: No incinerating or land filling waste; no exporting; no prison or forced labor; protecting private data on discarded machines; and managing environmental data at dismantling facilities and across the supply chain.”

Eliana Sejas

EcoArt in VT: Plastic bottles and awareness

EcoArt in VT: Plastic bottles and awareness

Americans have increased their plastic bottle consumption over the years. According to the Container Recycling Institute (CRI), beverage sales have increased over five-fold in the last 30 years. On average, American consumers purchase over 500 million beverage bottles and cans every day. This amount of purchased bottles means that Americans spend more money on bottled water than on iPods or movie tickets, totaling about $15 billion a year. More specifically, Americans use 60 million PET plastic bottles everyday, which is about 2.5 million plastic bottles an hour. However, a growing concern is the disposal of those millions of plastic bottles. Two out of every three bottles sold end up in landfills, are incinerated or littered. Therefore, only one out of three plastic bottles is actually recycled. Once a plastic bottle reaches a landfill, it takes 450 years to decompose. That means that if Queen Elizabeth I threw away a plastic bottle, it would still be here today. The CRI claims that the United States’ container recycling rates have declined from 53.5% in 1992 to 33.5% in 2004. Many Americans are unaware of the impacts that the plastic bottles they throw away have on the environment.

Carnegie Mellon’s Ecoart project emphasized an environmental issue through the use trash as public art. The Carnegie Mellon students constructed a wall out of campus waste to help show the students how much trash their community was creating. After seeing Carnegie Mellon’s Ecoart project, an Earth Sustainability class group was inspired to build a similar installation to emphasize plastic bottle consumption. For the project, they wanted to raise campus awareness about consumption of plastic bottles through a public art display.

The results: a five-panel display built by plastic bottles. They used 1,328 soda and water bottles to build a color spectrum wall. They collected 537 trashed bottles (not recycled), which made up 40% of our structure. By doing some calculations, they found that for a whole academic year, here at Virginia Tech, the campus population would throw away approximately 17,184 bottles in front of just one building, Dietrich. In addition, if we lived on the Virginia Tech campus all year round and throw around the same number of bottles per week, we would throw away a total of about 28,000 bottles in front of Dietrich alone.

Ecologica Art (EcoArt) is a growing contemporary movement of green art today that is created by those who are concerned about local and global environmental situations, and who take art making to a functional format. It seems as though we need more projects like these to provide a better sense of what problems we as consumers are creating.

-Eliana Sejas

Fighting Congestion

Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) reported that traffic congestion is costing Americans $63.1 billion dollars a year. If you add in today's raising fuel prices that's another 1.7 billion per year. The wasted fuel from result of this congestion is 2.3 billion and the time wasted from these delays totals to 3.7 billion hours in 2003.

In order to solve this growing concern I hope that major urban areas in the US implement congestion pricing or variable toll pricing. Congestion Pricing is the most powerful tool to reduce driving, promote environmentally sound transportation, and finance improvements to mass transit. This program was recently debated in New York City and came close to being implementing in spring of 2008. It was rejected by the State Legislature even though there was huge support from New Yorkers and had the City Council approval.

This program works by an electronically-collected toll system that charges drivers more to use the most congested roads at the most congested times. These prices may be cheaper at off-peak times. This program brings in returns as well from benefiting the travelers, helping pay for innovative transit choices, and faster travel.

Singapore was the world's first major city to employ this which started out only in their central business district in 1975. It was so successful that the decided to expand it citywide with toll rates that change over the course of a day. The funds generated have gone towards expanding and improving public transits and keeping traffic at an optimal flow. Environmental Defense report that there was a 45 percent traffic reduction, 10mph increase in average driving speed, 25 percent fewer accidents, 176,000 fewer pounds of carbon dioxide emitted, and a 20 percent increase in public transit use.

All is not lost as this program hasn't been abandoned in the US. San Francisco has received a federal grant to study the possibility of this system in their downtown. Their program will be similar to programs in London and Stockholm. A key concept with this program is not to allow traffic to overflow into neighboring roads. I believe that if this program is successful in San Francisco then the US will have taken a giant leap towards future sustainability since it almost forces people to consider other alternative means of transportation.

By: Shawn Page

Train Travel

Train travel is the lowest impact form of travel besides walking, jogging, or bicycling. In response to the declining use of America's rail networks, the U.S. government created Amtrak in 1971. With traffic congestion becoming worse and gas prices raising more people are looking to mass transit. In 2007 there was a 15 percent increase in mass transit use.

In the spring of 09 Obama has allocated 8 billion of his stimulus package to developing more high-speed rail lines. Obama's reasoning was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reliance on foreign oil. Currently there is only one high speed rail line in the U.S., which is Amtrak's Acela Express. American transportation analysts suggest that U.S. should fallow this trend of high speed railroads that have been success in Asia and Europe. These high-speed rails can be as fast as flying, but without long waits and security hassles.

The first federal funds to be put into the rail system will be for upgrading and increasing speeds on existing lines. The majority will go towards construction of new high peed train travel lines in ten areas across the country.

Studies by Center for Clean Air Policy and Center for Neighborhood Technology have found results that this new system could save six billion pounds of CO2 yearly. This could result in 29 million fewer car trips and 500,000 fewer plane flights each year as well. This will be the equivalent of removing a million cars from the road a year.

I am all for this new high-speed rail line. My family may actually use Amtrak this year when we go on vacation this winter break. Maybe in the future we will be able to use this new railway and reach our destinations faster than ever. This is relevant to class because it helps reduce sprawl by increasing urban populations' densities which in turn reduce energy consumption by reducing travel distances, fuel consumption, and traffic congestion. These new rail lines will help us move to more sustainable growth and reducing our carbon footprint.

By Shawn Page

Invasive Species in the Chesapeake Bay

Similarly to my previous posts, I am going to talk about an issue with the Chesapeake Bay. Since I am from Maryland living on the Severn River- a direct connection to the Chesapeake Bay, I find this issue very important and pertinent. The issue is invasive species in the Chesapeake Bay.
As stated on the Chesapeake Bay Program’s website, invasive species are defined as “animals and plants that are not native to their current habitat and have a negative effect on the ecosystem they invade. Invasive species negatively affect an ecosystem by encroaching on native species’ food and or habitat.” Forty two percent of endangered or threatened plants/animals are in great danger because of these invasive species. In the Chesapeake Bay region, there are over 200 invasive species that are a threat to the native plants and animals. There are six that pose the greatest threat to the bay’s ecosystem that I will discuss.
The first is the mute swan. They were introduced in the 1930s, and they are a threat today because they threaten the protection and restoration of the bay grasses, which are an important part of the bay’s ecosystem. The second is the nutria, a aquatic rodent native to South America. They are considered invasive because they feed on the roots of marsh grasses, and therefore create circles of mud called “eat outs.” With the roots eaten, the grasses cannot stabilize in the soil and the marshes erode. It has said that they have destroyed over 7,000 acres of marsh. The third is phragmites, a reed. It is a marsh plant that overwhelms the marshes and reduces wildlife habitat and species diversity in the marshes. The fourth is the purple loosestrife, a perennial wetland plant native to Eurasia. It threatens rare and endangered species like the dwarf spike rush, bog turtles, and American bitterns. Fifth, is the water chestnut. It threatens the underwater bay grasses by forming a canopy of leaves, blocking sunlight from the reaching the bottom of the bay where the grasses grow. Finally, is the zebra mussel. Since it is not a native species, its tendencies to filter the water significantly reduces the amount of plankton in the water, which many native filter feeders need.
The impacts of these species are both costly and degrades the ecosystem. They are costly because a lot of money is spent on terminating the invasive species so the native species can flourish and support a healthy ecosystem. I personally believe more needs to be done. For instance, I believe the public should know about the invasive species, so they can try to prevent their spread. Things you can do include cleaning all your supplies you bring out to the bay with you (includes fisherman and hunters) to ensure no invasive species can be spread with your equipment. Also, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s website includes ways you can help like replanting bay grasses, because of the loss to the invasive species. All and all, I believe action needs to be taken on this issue, and little by little the bay will get healthier.

-Alex Athans

(**Sorry this wasn't posted yesterday, I forgot my user name, but sent an attachment to Professor Pitt so it WAS on time originally... Sorry.)

Mountain Top Removal...is it all bad?

Being surrounded by Mountain Justice, the Sierra Club, VT Beyond Coal, and all my friends in the Environmental Coalition, I have always believed that Mountain Top Removal (MTR) practices were horrendous.

Turns out.... there are more sides to this issue than I thought.

This is a hugely controversial issue, so first the basics: Why MTR? It is cheaper, safer, and more efficient.

Most of us know this. What is interesting is what is not talked about which could have some potential: When the tops of mountains are blown off and flattened to travel across and strip then transport the coal, the resulting topography is much different. After reclamation to try to restore the vegetation and habitat, the land is flatter and development is then possible. In these very rural areas of WV, Kentucky, and SW VA land development could very positively affect the area. If commercial and residential progress were possible then people could have better access to grocery stores and new things that were not possible in such a mountainous area in the past. My geography teacher mentioned that in his hometown they built a Wal-Mart (mixed feelings here) which cut the trip to the store significantly (from about two hours to 20 minutes..think of the emissions saved!)

Also, unfortunately, coal is a huge part of the economy in some of the aforementioned areas. There have been huge protests from residents to not kick out the coal companies (“Coal turns on the lights.”) There is even a festival, museum, and Miss WV Coal Festival Pageant in WV celebrating coal and how the livelihood of the town depends on it. However, it is also been argued that with an increase in coal production, there has been a decrease in available jobs in these areas for many reasons, such as better machines and less human labor demand.

So while MTR practices are generally condemned, I am just arguing that it is a MUCH deeper issue that needs to be very intensely evaluated. Of course, alternatives (wind farms, hydroelectric, etc) should be considered and reclamation efforts need to be more intensive and thorough. But we need to be aware of the entire issue when protesting MTR, so we can more effectively argue for a more environmentally-conscious practice. As we should because overall MTR is irreversibly destructive to the beautiful mountains and the effects have been proven to be dirty and detrimental.

California Water Package

In November, California lawmakers approved—including Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger—a series of bills that would vastly overhaul the state’s troubled waterways that is a major source of the state’s drinking water. The likes of these bills have not been seen in the state of California since the 1960s, nor has any new water infrastructure in years—even as the state’s population has increased. This water package was prompted by heavy demand on a rapidly growing population causing drought, harming fish industries, and fueling crop loss. In 2008, more than 100,000 acres were left unplanted in the Central Valley. Additionally, environmental problems in the Sacramento River have resulted in a collapse of the Chinook salmon population, closing salmon season off the coast of California and much of Oregon for two years in a row. Essentially, this plan calls for a comprehensive ecosystem restoration in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, a collection of channels, natural habitats and islands at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers that is a major source of the state’s drinking water. In addition the series of bills call for new dams, aggressive water conservation goals and monitoring of ground water levels, and paves the way for the creation of a canal that will move water from the north to the southern regions of the state. These bills include an $11.1 billion bond issue and the rest of the roughly $40 billion project will be paid by localities, largely through new user fees.

Many environmentalists believe that the bill’s penalties for misusing the water supply do not go far enough. In light, there have been some changes to the bill in terms of oversight of the ailing estuaries, checks and balances on future dams, and some mild penalties for failure to conserve water.

But how effective are these bills? Are these bills just a treatment, rather than a solution for the issues at hand?

These bills, while intentions are valiant, to me seem to not create a solution. I feel that creating a canal to collect water stretching from the north to the south as next to or even implausible as California is one of the most densely populated states. Not only will this mitigate water, which is already scarce, away from the water table, I feel that it could have negative effects on the already fragile Californian ecosystem. Already California has seen negative impacts on the environment from the reduced numbers of smelt and salmon to the loss and destruction of the delta and surrounding waterways. I think that one of the only proper ways to protect water is through water conscious land use planning. Water is essential to our survival therefore it should limit us in where we develop… If a water table cannot sustain a densely populated area should we be allowed to develop there? And if we do are we just going to divert water from other regions to meet our needs?

Are we ingesting toxins along with our water?

Do you know what you are drinking when you ingest a refreshing gulp of H2O? Chances are you are unaware of all the possible pollutants that refresh your thirst on a daily basis. Water that is claimed to be tested by your water provider may have hidden toxic materials dissolved within, which are ingested into your body and could make you sick. Even bottled water could harm our bodies more than water straight from the tap.
Research shown from The New York Times claims "that an estimated one in ten Americans have been exposed to drinking water that contains dangerous chemicals or fails to meet a federal health benchmark in other ways." This is from interviews of more than 250 state and federal regulators, water-system managers, environmental advocates, and scientists. Toxins that have seeped into wells after being dispersed onto farmland is one way for water to become unhealthy. It can also be from runoff in areas where sewer systems that cannot accommodate heavy rains creating overflow. There is also direct dumping that some companies have plead guilty to.
Records analyzed by The New York Times indicate that the Clean Water Act has been violated more than 506,000 times since 2004, by more than 23,000 companies and other facilities, according to reports submitted by polluters themselves. Companies sometimes test what they are dumping only once a quarter, so the actual numbers of days when they broke the law is often far higher. And some companies illegally avoid reporting their emissions, say officials, so infractions go unrecorded. These toxins can accumulate for years before they even cause problems, making it very difficult to pinpoint the cause for the poisoning.
Water bottles as well are the cause of toxins in our drinking water. Most people have heard of (and have seen their fair share of students and professors toting) water bottles made by Nalgene, but the almost unbreakable plastic that makes these bottles so popular could be making us sick. Bisphenol A, or BPA, has been found to disrupt the processes of the endocrine system in animals, but its is still unclear what, if any, the effects on humans are. The European Food Safety Authority has concluded that even in high exposure instances, the detrimental effects are presumed to be very low because the half life of the compounds are very short; however, taking no chances, the Canadian government seems very likely to place a ban or partial ban on food-related uses of BPA plastics in the near future. Other companies that produce water bottles, such as Klean Kanteen, claim that their use of stainless steel will prevent the seeping of BPA into any liquid inserted into their container. Even water that comes prepackaged could contain the same toxins that come out of our faucets. In this case, why bother paying the money for the convenience when you can bring your own reusable container (one that doesn't contain BPA plastic) and save yourself money and save the environment by preventing waste.

Global water crisis

Every day thousands of people die from lack of access to clean water. This threat has been considered the greatest threat that we have ever come up against. There are three different types of water crises. Dwindling freshwater supplies, inequitable access to water, and the corporate control of water are these concerns.

Around the world 215 major rivers and 300 groundwater basins and aquifers are shared by two or more people. This creates tension over ownership and use of use of precious freshwater. If we do not change over behavior with water in the near future we could be seeing deepening conflicts and potential wars. This will become more likely when more watersheds turn to deserts, glaciers melt, and water supplies are poisoned. The former defense secretary of Britain warned of coming "water wars".

For example, there was a tragic conflict in Darfur where there was lack of water and agriculture land. Israel, Jordon, and Palestine all rely on the Jordon River which is controlled by Israel and is starting to cause conflict. In China and India the Brahmaputra River has caused tension over disputes of water rights. Currently China has a proposal to divert the river and re-igniting this tension.

This can be seen in the U.S. along the U.S.-Canadian border over shared boundary water as well. This is in direct result of growing concerns over the Great Lakes. Increasing pollution and water tables drained have only worsened the situation by the buildup of population and industry.

The problem starts with the global covenant from people and their governments. The U.N. report argued that corruption, restricted political rights, and limited civil liberties are reasons of the plant's growing water crisis. The only ways to improve this situation are to clean water, protect and conserve water supplies, and water justice. The success from these new changes can be seen in the restoration of the Lake Constance from the countries sharing this water source. These countries are Germany, Austria, Lichtenstein, and Switzerland.

This is relevant to our class because some of the policy ideas to correct this concern. Some of these policies to solve this issue include trading virtual water, conserve irrigation, exploit advanced desalination, expand waste water recycling, and develop creative pricing policies for urban water and waste water. Also we can start watching water footprints by making this concern the next Energy Star.

Asian Carp Poisoned

In the 1970s two species of Asian carp, bighead and silver, were introduced to farm ponds in Arkansas to help reduce high levels of algae in the water. When large floods plagued the area in the 1990s, the fish invaded the Mississippi River, and haven’t looked back since. The fish have infiltrated northward and are now on the brink of entering Lake Michigan via the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. With an estimated 4,000 fish per mile along the Illinois River, they are now dubbed an invasive species, and for good reason. The fish don’t have stomachs – only elongated digestive tracks, allowing them to eat up to 40% of their body weight. The supply of cadophilia algae in the Great Lakes is ample, and would more then adequately support the fishes’ appetite. Both fish reproduce three times per year, which would overpopulate native species natural to the lake ecosystem.
Originally, the US Corps of Army Engineers placed an electric grid under the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal in attempt to prevent the fish from advancing towards the Great Lakes. Recently the US Fish and Wildlife Service preformed a “fish kill” operation, dumping over 2,000 gallons of toxins into the canal while maintenance on the electric grid was occurring. Afterwards, among over 200,000 pounds of dead fish, a lone Asian carp carcass was found 40 miles from the Lake. The Governor of Michigan as well as numerous environmental groups have threatened to sue the US Corps of Army Engineers if three shipping locks along the canal are not closed to prevent further penetration by the fish.
Obviously the fish poses a threat to the $7 billion dollar fishing industry that is the Great Lakes, but is poisoning them the solution? The reason the shipping locks were not closed instantly is because it would disrupt the shipment of coal and wheat into the area. The closing of the locks would be ideal, but not feasible, as the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal is the only connection between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River. The poison will have a detrimental effect on the environment of the lakes as well, however the negative effects of the invasive Asian Carp far out weigh a drop in the bucket in terms of pollution.

EPA rules on Greenhouse Gases

In a move surely timed to coincide with the beginning of the climate talks at Copenhagen, the EPA has finally taken an official stand on the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
The EPA reported "The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations."

This announcement is likely aimed not only at the negotiators in Denmark, but at Congress as well with a contentious Cap-and-trade bill currently facing the Senate as well as a proposed ruling to set emissions standards for all light duty automobiles to be operated within the US. The announcement today was necessary because until now, the US government had not taken an official position on the impacts of GHGs. This is a major step forward in US climate policy, marking a departure from Bush era policies. In 2007, in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had the authority to regulate Greenhouse gases. However, the Bush-Cheney administration ignored the EPAs findings and refused to officially report them. With this position formalized, hopefully the process for introducing future climate legislation will be streamlined.

The EPA administrator when announcing the report, said that this move was the next logical step for her agency, stating that it was integral to the passing of several new programs including emissions tracking from major contributors, mandatory use of best available technology, and the possibility of working with individual polluters to reduce emissions.
Obviously, not everyone is happy about this report and its coincidence with a major effort to revitalize the American economy. "An endangerment finding from the EPA could result in a top-down command-and-control regime that will chock off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project,” Thomas Donahue, president and CEO of the US Chamber of Commerce said in a statement released earlier today.

Beyond its influence over US specific policy, there is little doubt that the EPA hopes to sway the decisions of those influenced in the Copenhagen talks. With an official admission from the world's largest polluter regarding the effect of CO2 and other GHGs, it is my hope that nations resistant to emission cuts may be more inclined to take action.
Though the Senate's inability to pass any climate legislation this year has certainly served to all but prevent any meaningful treaties being developed, hopefully this long overdue report from the EPA will help move along future rulings in the US and abroad.

Ocean Garbage Patches

The far reaching effects of human waste products keep popping up across the globe, sometimes in the most unexpected places. This time, our oceans are taking the hit. Garbage patches are forming in oceans everywhere as a result of garbage being transported from streets to seas due to urban runoff. During a heavy rainfall, debris is sometimes carried directly into waterways, but more often it is being deposited into storm drains that eventually lead to the water supply. As a result, trash is accumulating in our oceans because they are the final source that waterways lead to. Ocean gyres, the huge circular currents of the oceans, are the reason that such huge patches of garbage are forming because they carry trash with the flow, where it eventually ends up spiraling in a vortex for years.

The most extensively studied ocean garbage accumulation is in the Pacific. This was the first patch that was discovered 12 years ago. It is not so much of a “trash island” as is the common view, but rather it is a collection of smaller clumps that occur over a huge area. There are still no precise measurements of how much trash there really is, but many sources claim that put together, all the debris adds to the size of Texas, if not bigger. Making up the heaps are large objects, as well as a huge under layer of degraded plastic bits. The worst part of all is that the majority of the debris is plastic products that are not biodegradable. The accumulation of plastics in the oceans can have contaminating effect to both the water itself and the organisms that live in it. Not only can the masses of trash trap organisms, but more and more birds and fish are being found dead with great amounts of plastic in their stomachs. What happens is smaller fish feed in the areas where garbage patches occur, causing them to ingest small particles of plastic. As they are eaten by larger fish and oceanic birds, these plastics are accumulated into these animals’ biomass, as well. Plastic is not able to break down in their bodies, which can result in death for these organisms. This phenomenon is also a cause for human concern because these degraded plastic toxins may be building up in the fish we eat, but there is no way to guarantee or certify that they are not there. These and many more are the problems that we face from the huge accumulations of garbage in the oceans.

How to go about cleaning up the trash patches is a huge issue because of the vast size of the problem. These areas are so large that it would take up huge amounts of money and effort to clean them up completely. Moreover, using nets to collect the debris would also trap any aquatic life in the area. Another issue is that many of the garbage heaps are not on any country’s territory. This takes the responsibility off any single government for cleaning them up. Despite these limitations, some private groups are still trying. Project Kaisei is one such group. They have designed nets for the job and hope to collect 40 tons of garbage and plastics to be used in trial recycling. This is not a perfect plan, but it is a start. What really needs to be done is on land. Although they are cheap and versatile, plastics need to be phased out because of their environmental threat. This could even be done on a personal scale by choosing to buy fewer plastic products. Better recycling methods could also help in reducing the amount of plastics that go into our waterways. Another technique would be the use of better storm water management techniques. By processing storm water before releasing it into waterways, a lot of the trash could be taken out of the water before it reaches the oceans. Overall, it is going to take huge amounts of effort, time, and money to solve the problem of ocean garbage heaps.