Sunday, October 12, 2014

Throwaway Society Creates Massive Islands of Floating Plastic in the World's Oceans

Eco Plus

Throwaway Society Creates Massive Islands of Floating Plastic in the World’s Oceans

Throwaway Society Creates Massive Islands of Floating Plastic in the World’s Oceans
Tags: ocean, environment, ecology

Captain Charles Moore of the Algalita Marine Research Foundation, a non-profit marine organisation in Long Beach, California explains the islands of rubbish mounting up in our oceans.

We just don’t worry about what happens to the millions of plastic bags, bottles, toothbrushes, plastic things that we throw away, as if it’s not really our business.  Some of these plastics ends up being thrown into the sea, and that seems to be the end of the story, except that it isn’t. One man, Captain Charles Moore has very successfully highlighted the massive problem of plastic waste at sea, and analysed the so called Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which is one of the five huge expanses of drifting plastic in the world’s oceans.

What are the garbage patches made up of? How big are they?

Charles Moore: Basically, anything that flows is going to find its way there eventually. A very high percentage of everything entering the Pacific Ocean from the Pacific Rim, whether it’d be Russia, Japan, China, Indonesia on the western Pacific, or whether it’d be Alaska, Canada, the US, Central America on the eastern Pacific – those Pacific Rim countries are scoured by the ocean currents.

And it is phenomenal that these detritus items make their way to a central part of the Pacific, known as the Central Pacific Gyre. The North Pacific Subtropical Gyre is the synonym for that. And this particular current phenomenon has a period of rotation of 6 years around the periphery, but there are a lot of little swirling whirlpools on the inside.

And so it happens: it is off Japan and halfway between Hawaii and the US there are these eastern and western garbage patches where this stuff resides for decades. And that’s the one I had the misfortune or fortune, as it may be, to cross in 1997.

And back then, how big was it? I know you’ve been back recently. Has it grown in size? Give us an idea. The size of a football pitch, or what are we talking about?

Charles Moore: First of all, we are talking about oceanic currents. And they are relatively stable. So, the currents that create this vortex, this kind of toilet that doesn’t flush, these are stable currents that don’t really grow or contract that much. So, we have this stable phenomenon which is about twice the size of the continental US that is prone to accumulate debris.

And in 1997 when I crossed there, that was the occasional item. But you might have to wait for five minutes or so, before you saw another one. It wasn’t like an icebreaker plowing through the stuff, it was just an occasional bit here and bit there.

Now, in 2014 it is like an icebreaker plowing through. There is so much crap out there, that you can’t actually get away from it. It’s got tyres and we’ve even found an actual island you could walk on, made of 70 large buoys from an oyster farm that was dislodged during the Japanese tsunami. 
So, it’s grown in the sense of the concentration, the spatial extent however has not grown. However, we did see much closer to the coast of California large spots of the debris, than we’ve seen before. We would see occasional shards of it, but now we are seeing large spots of debris closer to the mainland than we ever had before.

So, the ocean is turning into a big toilet?     

Charles Moore: 7 billion people, half of them attempt to live within 50 miles from the coast, because the ocean does provide moderations in climate. Large bodies of water tend to moderate the climate. Human beings like that moderate climate. They live near the coasts. And the world is going to continue to have storms and tsunamis, and this stuff is going to continue to pile up, and go into the ocean, until we begin manufacturing and remanufacturing with an end of life for this material.

How long do the plastic wastes float around for before they degrade?

Charles Moore: First of all, we have to understand why we use so much plastic. It is because it is a moisture barrier and a vapor barrier, and because it resists biodegradation. If we could wrap everything in paper and keep it stored in a pristine condition, we would. It’d be much easier. But we can’t, because the vapors invade the paper, it absorbs moisture and the products wrapped in it won’t survive.

So, we use most of our plastic for packaging. And packaging does a very good job of keeping things in pristine condition. You can have a factory in Timbuktu and send it to the center of consumption, and it arrives in a pristine condition. So, it is what I call a key lubricant of globalization – this plastic packaging.

Now, because of its virtue of being so difficult to penetrate with water and so difficult to degrade, it lasts a long time. The estimates are that if, say, you put plastic in your compost, about 1-2% of it would go away each year. So, even in terrestrial environment where the bacteria, fungus and insects are active, it is a very slow process.

In the ocean the process is much slower. And it is also dependent on the depth. At the bottom of the ocean even paper doesn’t biodegrade. But in the surface waters biodegradation takes place at much slower rate than in a compost pile. It is cooler, the bacteria are spread out and there is very little fungus, and really only one insect – the Halobates – which is actually increasing now, because they lay their eggs on this trash. But it is kind of a water-strider that lives in the deep oceans.

So, we really don’t have the arsenal of degraders in the ocean that would biodegrade this material. So, it is taking a long time to go away. And it breaks into tiny, little, micro-size bits, which then are disappearing. The recent study by a Spanish group has highlighted the issue that I've been talking about for 15 years, which is that the smaller particles of plastic don’t correspond to the amount we think should be there. In other words, if you crumble up a cookie, you get a lot of cookie crumbs. But we are not seeing the crumbs out there, in the smaller size classes, even though we know all these plastics are crumbling up.

What is the effect on us?  

Charles Moore: The fitness of the fish in the ocean is decreasing, as they consume plastic or fish and invertebrates, like zooplankton, that have consumed plastic. That’s a nonnutritive substance that accumulates toxicants. So, you are basically feeding them a bunch of poisoned pills that give them no nutritional value, and accumulating those toxins, and sending them up the food web to us.

In addition to changing the nature of the ocean itself, you can’t go back into the historical record and find sediment cores in the ocean bottom, where it reveals how the earth has handled synthetic polymers. These synthetic polymers are modern human invention and they are taking over the ocean, and we have no historical record to rely on, to understand what that means.

So, this is a brand new field of study and we don’t even have the scientists. We've only graduated one or two PhDs remotely associated with this kind of a study. So, we've got a long way to go in understanding what happens.

Leave a comment

    Wednesday, July 2, 2014

    Will the threat of big fines force better beach access?

    Editorial 

    Will the threat of big fines force better beach access?

    One of the three public beach access ways on Broad Beach Road in Malibu. Lawmakers have given the California Coastal Commission the authority to impose fines on those who block public access to the beach. (Los Angeles Times)

    By TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD JULY 1, 2014, 5:26 PM



    California's historical guarantee of public access to the shoreline has been under increasing attack in recent years, as oceanfront property owners try to ignore the fact that their glorious private views come with a public responsibility. In 2007, there were about 400 
    open cases of beach access violations before the California Coastal Commission; now there are about 650. New violations pile up faster than old ones can be resolved.
    In large part, that's because the commission's only enforcement tool has been its ability to file lawsuits against the property owners, a slow and expensive process. Music magnate David Geffen battled in court for five years to keep the section of beach in front of his Malibu house off limits to others.

    But a new law, passed as part of the state budget bill, should make a big difference. Beginning this week, for the first time the Coastal Commission has the authority to levy hefty fines on recalcitrant and combative property owners. In the most extreme cases, the fines could reach $15,000 a day for a maximum of five years.

    The possibility of racking up such punitive fines is an important part of the legislation, written by Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins (D-San Diego). A much more modest fine might make no impression on multimillionaires who can afford to pay it as the price of keeping their stretch of beach to themselves.

    But few levies are expected to reach anything close to the highest amount. Various safeguards are written into the law to give violators the time needed to fix a problem — at a minimum, 30 days to do something as simple as unlock a gate to public stairs. In more complicated cases involving actual construction, more time would be allotted, as long as the property owner is cooperating.

    It's important to understand that despite the complaints of property rights advocates, all of these landowners and homeowners knew or should have known when they bought their shoreline property that they were obligated to provide coastal access, often as part of an agreement that allowed them to get a coastal building permit. Geffen finally reached an agreement with the commission in 2007, some 24 years after he first promised to provide a passageway to the beach.

    The new fining authority, which took effect Tuesday, won't quickly resolve all cases. Property owners can contest the fines in court, and many of them might do so. But many will move more quickly to provide the public with the beach access that we all have a right to.

    Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times

    They're L.A.'s beach parks, but the Coastal Commission should have its say



    When it comes to beach curfews, the city shouldn't ignore or dismiss the Coastal Commission
    Beach curfews help prevent dark beaches from becoming gang hangouts or ungovernable public space
    s
    For years the city of Los Angeles has enforced a curfew at the two public beaches it owns. They are considered city parks, and like most city parks in L.A., they close at night: Venice Beach at midnight; Cabrillo Beach around 10. They reopen at 5 a.m.
    But even though Los Angeles considers the beaches parks, to be regulated like any other parks, the California Coastal Commission sees the matter from a different point of view. To the commission, those beaches are not so much city properties as they are part of the coastal zone that stretches more than 1,000 miles along the length of the state and extends inland from a few blocks to a few miles in different places.
    The Coastal Commission was charged by Proposition 20 in 1972 and the California Coastal Act in 1976 with protecting the public's right to access the water and the sand below the mean high tide line, whether it fronts on beaches or boardwalks, private homes or other property. That access is guaranteed by the state Constitution.
    Over the years, the commission has wrangled with municipalities up and down the state, insisting that they go through the proper process to win approval for beach curfews. Any municipality seeking changes that will affect access to the shoreline must apply for a coastal development permit, the commission says, and Los Angeles city officials have never done this. The commission has urged, cajoled and threatened, to no avail. The last time the commission came after the city, telling officials they needed state approval for a beach curfew, was in 2010. Then-City Atty. Carmen Trutanich's office essentially told the commissioners they didn't have the authority to challenge the city's law and should get lost.
    But now, with a new city attorney, a new crop of commissioners and renewed complaints from the public about the closures, the Coastal Commission has approached the city again, sending a letter in April asking officials to seek approval for the curfews. City Atty. Mike Feuer says he is considering how to respond.
    Well, we have some advice for him: Don't do what Trutanich did. Trutanich's office struck exactly the wrong tone. The city must not ignore or dismiss the Coastal Commission as it engages in its important, legally mandated duties. Access to the water is the right of every Californian, and Los Angeles may not unilaterally establish rules to the contrary.
    But at the same time, the commission needs to be practical and sensible. Cities have a legitimate interest in reducing crime, and they have limited police resources. While curfews shouldn't be used as a tactic to roust the homeless, cities are within their rights to keep their vast, dark beaches from becoming campgrounds or gang hangouts or ungovernable public spaces where drugs are sold and brawls or assaults occur. The commission needs to work with the city to reach a reasonable agreement that addresses the concerns of both sides.
    The commission seems open to compromise. The letter it sent to the city was neither defensive nor combative. It urged the city to enter the permit process — "we are more than willing to work with you," it said — and to figure out solutions.
    The Coastal Commission's own guidelines call on it to take public safety into account in reviewing a community's beach restrictions. And it has allowed curfews for some beaches. (Santa Cruz currently has one, for instance.) It's not unreasonable for the commission to ask the city to explain its public safety concerns and to justify its assertion that the beach can't be adequately policed and must be closed to the public. On the other hand, the commission should not think that it can make better decisions about public safety than the city of Los Angeles and its police officials, and must defer, up to a point, to the experts in the field.
    Any restriction on beach access needs to be considered carefully and undertaken cautiously. Los Angeles should explain its position to the Coastal Commission, and the two should work together to forge a levelheaded compromise.
    Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times

    Thursday, June 26, 2014

    California's drought getting even worse, experts say

    California's drought getting even worse, experts say
    By CAITLIN OWENS JUNE 19, 2014, 5:30 PM
    California's drought conditions have worsened over the past week with the percentage of the state suffering from the highest category increasing, the National Weather Service said Thursday.
    "Exceptional" drought conditions have spread in Central California since a week ago, weather officials said. Areas in Northern California have also moved into this category since last week, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.
    Almost 33% of the state faces exceptional conditions. About 25% of the state faced those conditions last week.
    Every part of California remains in what is considered severe drought.
    A year ago, no part of the state was in exceptional drought conditions, the weather service said.
    The drought has prompted water conservation efforts as well as rationing in some parts of the state. L.A. saw record dry conditions this winter, and snowfall in the Sierras has also been significantly down.
    But the political impact of the drought has been a subject of debate.
    A USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll in June found most Californians surveyed say the statewide drought has had little or no impact on their daily lives, and a majority oppose the suspension of environmental protections or large-scale public spending to boost water supplies.
    Although 89% characterize the drought as a major problem or crisis, only 16% say it has personally affected them to a major degree.
    Despite widespread news coverage of the drought the state's major population centers have largely escaped severe mandatory rationing.
    Even agriculture, which as California's thirstiest sector is inevitably hit the hardest by drought, has partially compensated for reduced water delivery by pumping more groundwater.
    For breaking news in Los Angeles and the Southland, follow @Caitlin__Owens, or email her at caitlin.owens@latimes.com.
    Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times 

    Coastal Commission Can Now Issue Fines - Malibu Times: News

    Coastal Commission Can Now Issue Fines - Malibu Times: News



    Coastal Commission Can Now Issue Fines

    By Emily Sawicki / emily@malibutimes.com | Posted: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 7:00 am
    The California Coastal Commission (CCC) has had lots of bark and very little bite for the past 38 years, but as of Friday, Gov. Jerry Brown gave CCC code enforcement a new set of teeth. 
    In a controversial trailer bill to this year’s state budget, the Coastal Commission was granted the ability to levy fines of up to $12,000 a day against property owners who attempt to block public access to beaches through tools such as fake “no parking” signs, an issue that may hit close to home for Malibu landowners. 
    The Coastal Commission is a governing body established in 1976 to help plan and regulate use of land and water in the “coastal zone,” the area right along the California coast. Much of Malibu falls within this zone and is thereby under the jurisdiction of the CCC. 
    “The commission could [now] say, ‘We think there is access, we’re going to order you to allow the public to obtain that access,’ and then the onus would be upon the property owner to bring an action in court to reverse the decision,” said Damien Schiff, a principal attorney for Pacific Legal Foundation, a group known to represent homeowners against the CCC. 
    The Coastal Commission’s new powers will come into effect with the new state budget, beginning July 1. 
    Perhaps the most common of these violations here in Malibu is the act of homeowners putting “no parking” signs up outside of their property, in an attempt to keep tourists and out-of-towners away from their homes and beach area. Other examples could be a fence or gate put up to block access where the CCC has decided a public access point should be. 
    In the past, the Coastal Commission would have to take these disputes to court. With the new bill, fines will start 30 days after a public access request is made and continue every day of a violation until it is resolved or taken to court. 
    According to Schiff, this could prevent justice in some cases, with costs skyrocketing for defendants. 
    “Let’s say the commission issues a penalty for $25,000. The cost of bringing an action — hiring your own counsel and bringing an action and successfully arguing that in a trial court — could reach six figures. Even if they thought they were absolutely right, the cost of making that point would just be absolutely prohibitive,” said Schiff. 
    Others, including Los Angeles Times columnist Robin Abcarian, are less sympathetic and hailed the bill as a way to crack down on NIMBYism. 
    “Owners of beachside homes in California have gotten so out of control — posting fake ‘no parking’ signs, along with fake ‘no trespassing’ signs and fake ‘private property’ signs — that the California Legislature was forced to take action against them last week,” wrote Abcarian in a column published Monday. 
    In the story, Abcarian quotes CCC enforcement chief Lisa Haage, who told her, “There is a certain kind of person who does not respond well to us asking them to do the right thing. This is designed for that population.” 
    However, Abcarian does concede that the fines, which, according to calculations by Damien Schiff could add up to almost $12,000 per day, are steep for the average Malibu resident. 
    “That may not be a heck of a lot for a billionaire, but Malibu and other desirable coastal strips are home to many middle-class folks who bought beachfront properties at relative bargains decades ago,” said Abcarian. 
    This move resembles bill AB 976, an attempt to give broad powers to the CCC, which died in the State Senate last year. But it’s a slimmed down version. 
    “The Commission would have had the ability to penalize an individual for any violation of the coastal act,” said Schiff, but the new legislation is “much more limited in scope in that it only applies to public access violations.” This trailer bill was authored by State Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), whose AB 976 failed last year.