Log in

View Full Version : the biggest dump in the world



bcbm
18th March 2010, 17:40
The Biggest Dump in the World

As large as the USA, the Great Pacific Waste Patch is the biggest dump in the world. Ed Cumming discovers that it keeps getting bigger, and could be poisoning us all

By Ed Cumming
Published: 7:00AM GMT 16 Mar 2010

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01597/plasticbottles_1597411c.jpg

The world’s biggest rubbish dump keeps growing. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch – or the Pacific Trash Vortex – is a floating monument to our culture of waste, the final resting place of every forgotten carrier bag, every discarded bottle and every piece of packaging blown away in the wind. Opinions about the exact size of this great, soupy mix vary, but some claim it has doubled over the past decade, making it now six times the size of the UK.

Dr Simon Boxall, a physical oceanographer at the National Oceanography Centre at the University of Southampton, goes even further: “It’s the size of North America. But although the patch itself is extremely large, it’s only one very clear representation of the much bigger worldwide problem.”

This global problem is the motive behind the Plastiki, a 60ft, 12-ton catamaran built from 12,500 recycled plastic bottles, which embarks on its maiden voyage from San Francisco this week. The brainchild of David de Rothschild, the flamboyant British banking heir and environmentalist, the Plastiki will sail right through the middle of the Garbage Patch as part of a campaign to help make more people aware of the Pacific’s threatened communities and of the damage our waste is doing to our oceans.

Plastic is the main issue. Fifty years ago, most flotsam was biodegradable. Now it is 90 per cent plastic. In 2006, the United Nations Environment Programme estimated that there were 46,000 pieces of floating plastic in every square mile of ocean. With its stubborn refusal to biodegrade, all plastic not buried in landfills – roughly half of it – sweeps into streams and sewers and then out into rivers and, finally, the ocean. Some of it – some say as much as 70 per cent – sinks to the ocean floor. The remainder floats, usually within 20 metres of the surface, and is carried into stable circular currents, or gyres “like ocean ring-roads”, says Dr Boxall. Once inside these gyres, the plastic is drawn by wind and surface currents towards the centre, where it steadily accumulates. The world’s major oceans all have these gyres, and all are gathering rubbish. Although the North Pacific – bordering California, Japan and China – is the biggest, there are also increasingly prominent gyres in the South Pacific, the North and South Atlantic and the Indian Oceans. Our problems with plastics are only just beginning.

The Pacific Garbage Patch had been predicted as early as the late Eighties but it was only formally discovered in 1997 by Charles Moore, an American yacht-racing captain sailing home across the North Pacific from a competition in Hawaii. He noticed a large amount of debris in the centre of the gyre, and together with the oceanographer, Curtis Ebbesmeyer, formulated the idea of the Eastern Garbage Patch. Other research revealed a secondary patch to the West, and these two together constitute the Great Pacific Patch, located roughly between 135-155°W and 35-45°N. In 1999, Moore followed up his initial findings with a report showing that there was eight times as much plastic as plankton in the North Pacific. And there is a lot of plankton.

The image of a great floating mound of trash, though evocative, can be misleading. Dr Boxall says: “People imagine it as a kind of football pitch of rubbish you can go and walk on – it’s not like that.” As most of the plastic has been broken down into tiny particles, floating beneath the surface, it is impossible to photograph from aircraft or satellites, or even really to see until you are right in its centre. As a result, it is difficult to convey the grave danger this 100 million tons or so of rubbish – and counting – presents. This is where the Plastiki – named after Thor Heyerdahl’s Kon-Tiki project in 1947 – comes in. Its crew of six is being skippered by the rising star of British ocean sailing, Jo Royle, 29. Ms Royle is everything you could want at the figurehead of your mission: blonde, vivacious and – behind a Lancastrian burr that survived her upbringing in Devon – a passionate environmentalist. She seems unfazed about sailing slap bang into the middle of the watery skip of the world.

“I can’t wait to get there,” she says. “Being in the middle of the ocean puts you back in your place – if you’re not responsive, you don’t survive. It makes you think hard about how you consume.”

However, she readily concedes that it is easy for the layman to ask: “So what?” Some might be tempted to argue that the rubbish has to end up somewhere, and that the ocean is no worse than landfill. Herein lies the main danger: plastic does not biodegrade, but when exposed to sunlight it photo-degrades, breaking down into smaller and smaller particles, and finally to “nurdles”, the industry name for the tiny grains that are the building blocks of most modern plastics. These tiny particles are not harmful on their own, but they are very absorbent, and soak up waterborne toxins, such as pesticides and cooling agents. These nurdles, now saturated in poisons, are eaten by filter-feeders at the very bottom of the food chain, and then make their way up it.

The scale of the toxin problem is unknown. Although plastics have now been around for a century, their use has only been really widespread for 50 years. Also, the threat is not only from food – marine extracts are used in countless other products too: particularly cosmetics. Since there are so many possible routes for toxins from these plastics to enter our food chain, there has yet to be an in-depth scientific study of their possible effect on humans. But these particles are certainly killing marine life: the UN estimates that more than one million birds and 100,000 mammals die every year from plastics – by poisoning, entanglement and choking. There are also studies under way investigating the possible connection between a rise in fertility problems and cancers, and the proliferation of plastic in the ocean.

The solution is equally confounding – there is just so much junk. Most experts agree that the real change needs to come above ground, from people taking more responsibility for their dumping.

As Ms Royle says: “The four worst-offending plastics – carrier bags, bottle-tops, bottles and styrofoam – are some we could easily do without, with a bit more thought. It’s just about making the effort to change our habits: not getting chips in a styrofoam container, reusing carrier bags – small things.”

There are some – led by the renowned American environmentalist and National Geographic Explorer-at-large Sylvia Earle– who think that we should simply try not to use plastics at all. Ms Royle dismisses this approach: “Plastic is a part of our world, and it’s hugely important.”

Others would like the US government to embark on an operation to clean the ocean manually, using tankers to retrieve the plastic, which could then be used as fuel.

“I don’t think that’s a very good idea,” says Ms Royle. “It would take a tremendous amount of resources to sweep the ocean. If you then burn the plastic, you create a lot of black carbon dioxide, which pollutes the atmosphere. I think the solution has to come from the shore.” She points out that San Francisco, the city closest to the Great Pacific Patch, has successfully implemented policies to stop people using wasteful plastics. “If they can do it, so can we. We just need to stop all this dumb usage.”

Dr Boxall is decidedly less optimistic: “There is nothing we can do,” he says. “It’s too big. It’s here to stay. It’s like nuclear waste. Even an oil spillage, disastrous as it is, eventually breaks down. Plastic doesn’t. We’ve simply got to become better about how we dispose of waste.”

The Plastiki team hopes its voyage can make a difference, however small. But until something drastically changes – particularly in developing countries, such as China and Brazil – the ocean will continue to bear the brunt of our wasteful ways with plastic. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, and its growing imitators around the world, will continue to sprawl.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7450769/The-Biggest-Dump-in-the-World.html

Die Rote Fahne
18th March 2010, 20:14
Thought this was something else....hahahaaaaaa

Dimentio
19th March 2010, 11:30
I think about one percent of the world's oceans today are composed by plastics. It is completely outlandish that the world is producing stuff which is used for six months but take 250 000 years for nature to break down. Most likely, that shit would continue to float around long after humanity has wiped out itself. :(

Lord Testicles
19th March 2010, 11:52
There is a similar floating trash heap in the Atlantic.
(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100302-new-ocean-trash-garbage-patch/)

Revy
19th March 2010, 15:01
Thought this was something else....hahahaaaaaa

well it is like we are taking a big "dump" on the planet. really sad.

piet11111
19th March 2010, 17:53
What are the chances of successfully cleaning this up and reusing it for new plastics ?

bcbm
19th March 2010, 18:54
What are the chances of successfully cleaning this up and reusing it for new plastics ?

they talk about this prospect towards the end of the article, and none of the people they talk to sound very optimistic.

Dimentio
19th March 2010, 19:03
It would probably need to be done through a filter, as most pieces probably are quite small by now. I wonder if it is possible that sand-storms from Asia could end up creating dunes on these floating islands of plastic...

bcbm
19th March 2010, 19:16
It would probably need to be done through a filter, as most pieces probably are quite small by now. I wonder if it is possible that sand-storms from Asia could end up creating dunes on these floating islands of plastic...

they're not really floating islands; most of the plastic is below the surface.

Quail
20th March 2010, 11:10
I've heard about this problem before, but I'm not really sure what kind of thing we could do to stop it from getting any worse. It's difficult to convince people to re-use plastic bags and bottles. Most drinks that people like to drink come in plastic bottles, so it would have to be the company that changed its policy on bottles (which is unlikely since they probaly use plastic in the first place because it's cheap) or people would have to stop drinking their favourite drinks. As for plastic bags, even though I do my best to reuse them, some shops automatically pack my shopping into a bag, even when I'm holding my own bag. And not being perfect, there are times when I forget to bring a bag and have to get a new one.

A few solutions I can think of would be to switch to paper bags or use another material that degrades, although since no companies do that already, I guess it must be too expensive or whatever. Also I don't see why things such as plastic milk bottles and drinks bottles couldn't just be sterilised and used again, although that would require some kind of system of returning them to the company that produced the drink which might be difficult.

Dimentio
20th March 2010, 16:16
they're not really floating islands; most of the plastic is below the surface.

I know, but just right below...

OldMoney
20th March 2010, 16:49
A demand for a product shouldnt be a licence to create mass amounts of waste. Lets expropriate the wealth of coke, pepsi, and other wastefull producers of plastic crap, to clean the mess up. Recycling should be mandatory in countrys with recycling programs, and hold fines for non compliance.

bcbm
20th March 2010, 21:36
I've heard about this problem before, but I'm not really sure what kind of thing we could do to stop it from getting any worse.

significantly reduce the amount of plastic used to package things.

Dean
21st March 2010, 04:11
I was first taught of this in my Comm. College Geology class by Professor Walz, really a great teacher (he was involved in the sds and socialist parties throughout the decades).

Its pretty fucking ridiculous that this kind of wanton, unnecessary dumping is occurring and this is really a testament to the fact that competitive modes of economic organization frequently create incredibly destructive phenomena for the environment of human life, be it city-environment or nature.

Simply put, this kind of dumping serves the interests of capital, and destroys key assets to human life and economic society.


I've heard about this problem before, but I'm not really sure what kind of thing we could do to stop it from getting any worse. It's difficult to convince people to re-use plastic bags and bottles. Most drinks that people like to drink come in plastic bottles, so it would have to be the company that changed its policy on bottles (which is unlikely since they probaly use plastic in the first place because it's cheap) or people would have to stop drinking their favourite drinks. As for plastic bags, even though I do my best to reuse them, some shops automatically pack my shopping into a bag, even when I'm holding my own bag. And not being perfect, there are times when I forget to bring a bag and have to get a new one.

A few solutions I can think of would be to switch to paper bags or use another material that degrades, although since no companies do that already, I guess it must be too expensive or whatever. Also I don't see why things such as plastic milk bottles and drinks bottles couldn't just be sterilised and used again, although that would require some kind of system of returning them to the company that produced the drink which might be difficult.


significantly reduce the amount of plastic used to package things.

How about... switching all (or as many as reasonably viable) fleeting consumer packaging to biodegradable matter?

Really, this tendency to "blame the consumer"* bothers me a lot. Plastic bags are things which easily fly away and end up in natural environments, even in the context of very responsible behavior by consumers. The bottom line is that the highest echelon of economic organization define and edit the system of manufacture and distribution for consumer life. It is further defined toward their interests, of course, and as such we can see this form of economic activity as another failing of the competitive system of economy.

*I know you didn't say anything to this effect, BCBM ;-)

Quail
24th March 2010, 21:49
How about... switching all (or as many as reasonably viable) fleeting consumer packaging to biodegradable matter?


Well, that would be ideal, but how are you going to convince the companies producing the vast amounts of plastic because it's cheap/easy to stop doing that and act in a more environmentally responsible way? As an individual you can only really be responsible for the consumer choices that you make. The wastefulness of the packaging of the products we consume is a product of capitalism. I wasn't blaming the consumers, just trying to point out that there isn't much that we can do.

ÑóẊîöʼn
26th March 2010, 18:41
I think rather than flagellating ourselves over what terrible polluters we are (even if that's true), we should look upon this as a potential resource for recyclable materials - especially since by using up this particular resource entirely we will be doing the oceans a whole lot of good.

revolution inaction
26th March 2010, 20:57
was just thinking, how does all this plastic get in the sea in the first place? Are there places where rubbish is just dumped in the sea or something?

ÑóẊîöʼn
27th March 2010, 18:43
was just thinking, how does all this plastic get in the sea in the first place? Are there places where rubbish is just dumped in the sea or something?

If I remember correctly, it's mostly stuff that's been dumped off ships at sea as well as stuff dumped on beaches that has washed out to sea.

bcbm
28th March 2010, 05:11
I think rather than flagellating ourselves over what terrible polluters we are (even if that's true), we should look upon this as a potential resource for recyclable materials - especially since by using up this particular resource entirely we will be doing the oceans a whole lot of good.

the problem isn't just the plastic floating in the ocean, it is also that more plastic ends up in the ocean. if there is a feasible way to clean up this mess and recycle the materials it should obviously be undertaken, but a real solution to the problem needs to deal with the abundance of plastic still manufactured that eventually ends up in one dump or another.

Robocommie
30th March 2010, 22:39
This is why I try to never throw away plastic if I can help it. I always try and recycle even if it's more inconvenient. (there's a dumpster near my apartment but not a recycling container) That's of course not going to be enough in and of itself.

Dean
31st March 2010, 05:16
I think rather than flagellating ourselves over what terrible polluters we are (even if that's true), we should look upon this as a potential resource for recyclable materials - especially since by using up this particular resource entirely we will be doing the oceans a whole lot of good.

I don't think its an issue of "self-flagellation." It's an issue of corporate policy, which needs to change.

While we should indeed look at creative ways to clean this dump up, it is clear that it will require a lot of energy, and there is no reason to make this job harder.

The first step is clearly to find ways to cease the pollution.

ÑóẊîöʼn
31st March 2010, 12:01
I don't think its an issue of "self-flagellation."

That's because you're sensible.


It's an issue of corporate policy, which needs to change.

Quite so. But even if we as a civilisation were to completely stop dumping plastic in the oceans from this moment forward, something would still need to be done about the mess, don't you think? Why not put it to good use at the same time?

I don't remember where I heard it, but I recall reading of one way of looking at pollution as resources that are out of place. I think that's a much more productive way of looking at the issue.


While we should indeed look at creative ways to clean this dump up, it is clear that it will require a lot of energy, and there is no reason to make this job harder.

It may require a lot of energy, but we don't necessarily have to provide all of that energy ourselves. The ocean currents are very good at moving floating plastic. Why not harness that in our clean-up operations somehow?


The first step is clearly to find ways to cease the pollution.

I suspect that's easier said than done. The oceans are a big place, and are largely lawless. How would they be policed?

Manifesto
5th April 2010, 18:14
I think my dump is pretty impressive. http://www.dtebe.com/stories/ : (http://www.dtebe.com/stories/)

Riverview, Michigan DTE Biomass Energy designed, constructed and operates Michigan's first landfill gas combustion turbine facility.
Project Background
Located in the community of Riverview, about 20 miles south of downtown Detroit, the Riverview Land Preserve has received municipal refuse since 1968.
Today, the land-filled waste materials occupy nearly 180 acres with about 120 acres dedicated to gas recovery. The landfill is expected to operate for another 25 years. Each day 5,000 cubic yards of waste is deposited. At the end of each day, six inches of soil and/or shredded wood are added to the top of the pile. This daily cover deters scavengers, reduces gas odor and prevents litter. This cover starts the process of creating gas. As the waste decomposes, without oxygen, bacteria produces methane gas, a useful form of energy.
The gas recovery project was constructed in 1987 for over $8 million. Constructed in less than five months, power sales to Detroit Edison began in January 1988. The gas collection system includes more than 115 vertical gas collection wells ranging from 50 to 100 feet deep, and four horizontal gas collection wells totaling more than 4,600 feet.
DTE Biomass Energy technicians are stationed onsite to monitor the gas collection system, the landfill gas-fired combustion turbines and provide day-to-day environmental services.
Performance
Today the gas collection system recovers more than 4.2 million cubic feet of gas per day. Two Solar T-4500 gas turbines operate 24 hours a day to use the landfill gas and generate electricity for sale to Detroit Edison customers. The 6.6 megawatt facility produces enough "clean" electricity to continuously power over 5,000 homes.
Environmental Impact
While the project's production of electricity is a small portion of Detroit Edison's power needs, the environmental significance of this operation is impressive. By capturing over 4 million cubic feet per day of landfill gas, the Riverview landfill gas recovery system has reduced over 1,200 tons of sulfur dioxide emissions which would have been produced by fossil-fueled power generation. Each day the project converts methane into a viable energy source. Over 20 billion cubic feet of gas has been beneficially recovered since 1988.
The landfill was constructed on top of a naturally occurring 10-foot thick clay liner. Recently constructed cells incorporate a synthetic liner and a 2-foot thick sand drainage layer. Berms, trees and other natural landscaping help minimize the noise from the site, which is closely surrounded by residential development. An additional 14 acres of wetland has been reserved as natural habitat for waterfowl, deer, and other native creatures. Local residents now golf on the landfill unaware of the gas collection and energy project adjacent to the golf course.
Community Enrichment
Annual revenues to the city of Riverview from the operation of the landfill and gas collection system are substantial. This income ensures that Riverview has one of the best Public Works Departments in the Metro-Detroit area, and one of the lowest tax bases. Fire, police, waste collection, and other public programs are supported by the landfill revenue.
In addition to funding, the landfill provides recreational activities to the local residents. From 1979 to 1996, the Riverview Land Preserve played host to one of the first winter sports hills built on layers of solid waste. The site has two driving ranges and three executive-type golf holes adjacent to the existing 27-hole municipal golf course.