RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Science-Based Solutions Reject Boyan Slat's Approach to Rid the Ocean of Plastic Print
Thursday, 03 September 2015 12:41

Eriksen writes: "There are no islands of plastic, rather a smog of plastic that pervades the oceans. The last four years have produced more research publications on plastic marine pollution than the previous four decades. We understand the problem differently."

Plastic pollution in ocean. (photo: Surf Rider Foundation)
Plastic pollution in ocean. (photo: Surf Rider Foundation)


Science-Based Solutions Reject Boyan Slat's Approach to Rid the Ocean of Plastic

By Marcus Eriksen, EcoWatch

03 September 15

 

ecades-old notions of mythical plastic islands and garbage patches invoked hundreds of cleanup schemes, like the Dutch organization “Ocean Cleanup Project’s” (OCP) 60km-wide Net Array. While the media sensationalism in the early 2000’s created plenty of public outcry, we still today battle misconceptions about the efficacy of ocean cleanup. The latest effort of OCP in the North Pacific and the subsequent public messaging warrant a reminder of the latest science on the issue and some constructive feedback moving forward.

While capture and reclamation of ocean plastics are attractively simple, and can be justified for recovering navigational hazards from lost fishing nets and line, our research has ultimately led us to believe that these types of concepts are not an effective approach to deal with plastic pollution. The 5 Gyres Institute with eight other colleagues conducted 24 ocean expeditions, over 100k ocean miles over seven years, producing the first global estimate of all plastics in all oceans. As a result 5 Gyres strongly advocates upstream design and policy solutions to clean up the oceans. Our history with Dutch ingenuity goes back several years.

You’ve got to love the Dutch and their marvelous technical approach to managing the ocean, with dams, docks and dredges making their life below sea-level warm and cozy. We met one such engineer, Dutch astronaut Wubbo Johannes Ockels, back in 2010 aboard the Stad Amsterdam studying plastic in the middle of the Indian Ocean Gyre. We listened to him describe giant man-made plastic trash islands in the shape of pinwheels that would spin with the aid of large wind-driven parachutes, catching more plastic and creating more real estate for people to live on.

Boyan Slat, founder of OCP, explained his alternate idea to us over dinner in Amsterdam two years later, as a 60 kilometer-wide net and boom system that passively captures drifting plastic. With wide public support he remains undeterred, despite wide criticism from the scientific community on mechanical design and ecological impacts. OCP has now completed a journey across the North Pacific with 30 vessels, called the Mega Expedition. We respect and admire innovation, but feel the need to offer some important suggestions.

Ecological Impacts Must Be Thoroughly Evaluated

After our meeting in Amsterdam with OCP, then again in Long Beach, we both participated in an online webinar to discuss the efficacy of the Net Array, with its 60km sweeping arms.

OCP’s feasibility study acknowledges that neutrally buoyant marine life will sink and go under the net. When asked during the webinar about the passive floating organisms that do not swim, Slat was not aware of them. The potential for “bycatch” is too great to be ignored. Organisms like the beautiful purple janthina snail, rafting barnacles and numerous jellies, like the wind-driven velella velella, could amount to tens of millions of organisms captured over a short time.

Janthina snail with a common jellyfish called “By the Wind Sailor. (photo: Peter Parks/Norbert Wu Productions)
Janthina snail with a common jellyfish called “By the Wind Sailor. (photo: Peter Parks/Norbert Wu Productions)

The solution here is to produce a proper Environmental Impact Report (EIR) from an outside agency. Though we’re thoroughly impressed with Slat’s “big picture” thinking, he must conform to the ethical standards of any structural development of this magnitude. Knowing the full environmental impact of his project is currently missing from the OCP plan.

There are no islands of plastic, rather a smog of plastic that pervades the oceans. The last four years have produced more research publications on plastic marine pollution than the previous four decades. We understand the problem differently. Our study estimates 269K tons from 5.25 trillion particles globally, of which an astounding 92 percent were particles smaller than a grain of rice, or microplastic.

While an earlier global study of microplastics showed a 100x less on the sea surface than expected, supporting our understanding that the sea surface is not the final resting place. Researchers have now found microplastic and synthetic fibers frozen into ice cores, abundant on the sea floor and on every beach worldwide. Along the way it passes through the bodies of billions of organisms. We now understand that the ocean is moving our trash toward the subtropical gyres, shredding it into microplastic and then distributing it worldwide above and below the waves.

Map of 5.25 trillion plastic particles in the world’s oceans. (photo: Laurent Lebreton)
Map of 5.25 trillion plastic particles in the world’s oceans. (photo: Laurent Lebreton)

Ocean Recovery Efforts are “Too Late” in the Game to Capture Most of the Trash

The OCP’s Net Array is “too late” in the pathway of trash. The science of plastic in the ocean shows us that the plastic entering the ocean is shredding rapidly into microplastic. It’s mostly small stuff out in the gyres, except for large persistent fishing gear. OCP will mostly capture fishing gear, which is designed to persist at sea (the Mega Expedition has demonstrated this).

Nations are clamoring to stop the flow of trash in their rivers, based on a recent study by Jenna Jambeck identifying the individual contributions of plastic pollution from 192 countries. Jambeck estimates 4-12 million tons of plastic washing down the world’s rivers. OCP’s recovery innovations, if brought upstream, will capture more plastic before it degrades and impacts marine life, and more than likely at less cost than the Net Array.

What’s out there now is leaving the gyres faster than we think. Drifting balls of tar give us some precedent to understand this. Tarballs were polluting beaches worldwide a lot more in the 1970s than today. As soon as international Maritime Law in the 1980’s stopped oil tankers from washing out oil residues into the sea, we witnessed a rapid decline in tarballs on beaches. The plastic out there now will not be on the surface forever, with the likely endgame being the seafloor.

It is Worthwhile Going After the Macroplastic That’s Out There Now?

Yes, the navigational hazards created by derelict fishing gear costs the maritime industry 100’s of millions of dollars annually and warrant some action. At the same time, large plastics are rapidly becoming microplastics, with horrible repercussions for marine life.

From our global estimate research we found that only 8 percent of the plastic objects in the ocean are macroplastics larger than a grain of rice. Although that 8 percent represents most of the weight of trash in the ocean, more than 70 percent of it is derelict fishing gear (lost nets, line and buoys). It’s useful to capture what’s out there before it becomes microplastics or damages vessels.

At the 2015 G7 meeting in Germany, plastic marine pollution solutions were put on the table, including Fishing for Litter as the only viable ocean cleanup program, and described as “a useful last option in the hierarchy, but can only address certain types of marine litter.”

When Slat and I had our webinar last summer I asked him at the very end, “Of the $2 million you’ve raised so far, would you consider funding a small incentivize recovery program, like Fishing for Litter in the North Pacific to see if fishermen could collect more trash at sea, more efficiently and cheaper, than you can?“

What we know is that similar incentivized recovery programs are proving to be successful in the North Sea and around Scotland. In Korea a $10 incentive per 100 liter bag of trash picked up by fishermen is working. But again, this is only a temporary solution.

We advocate solutions to derelict fishing gear that create Extended Producer Responsibility—EPR, like net tagging or lease programs for fishing fleets, where nets, buoys and lines are borrowed and returned, and heavy fines if lost. Slat followed the webinar with “No.”

The Mega Expedition’s Claims Need to Be Revisited

All data is useful data. Based on an idea suggested by Charles Moore last year when we all sat down in Long Beach, California, Slat arranged for 30 boats to sail from Hawaii back to the west coast of North America. OCP claims it has collected more data than all previous science work in the last 40 years and will provide the most updated analysis of plastic in the world’s oceans. Both of these statements need clarification.

First, the last 40 years amounts to 11,000 samples. There is simply not enough time for 30 boats in three weeks to even come close to match this. Second, this is not a global analysis. It is a snapshot of the ocean in one place for, one month, in one year, and is heavily biased by the 2011 Japanese Tsunami.

OCP is surveying the one place in the ocean where oceanographer Nikolai Maximenko has predicted the debris field from the 2011 Japanese Tsunami now resides. OCP is measuring the effects of a catastrophic event—a plastic pollution anomaly.

When 5 Gyres and Algalita teamed up to sail from Tokyo to Hawaii in 2012, we studied the sub-surface debris field of tsunami debris, and found plenty of it. Thanks to modeling work done by the IPRC, we knew very well that by 2015-2016 all of what we saw would be in the accumulation zone between Hawaii and California, where the Mega Expedition recently surveyed. 

2011 Tsunami debris movement mapping. (photo: International Pacific Research Center)
2011 Tsunami debris movement mapping. (photo: International Pacific Research Center)

The one significant scientific contribution that OCP can make is to compare the 2015 Mega Expedition snapshot data to all previous data in the same region to see how early levels of plastic marine pollution compare to the catastrophic event that was just recently sampled.

Constructive Suggestions for Ocean Cleanup Project:

1. Consider moving the Net Array upstream to capture trash before it fragments. Many countries around the world are deploying structures of all kinds to catch trash downstream, from nets to waterwheels, with the last stop at river mouths. OCP could contribute their engineering expertise to the growing industry designing systems to tackle waste upstream.

2. OCP must produce a thorough environmental impact statement. There is the potential for the Net Array to capture significant bycatch, therefore a thorough environmental impact statement from an outside agency is necessary.

3. Examine alternatives. It would be a cost effective exercise to support an incentivized program for fisherman to recover plastic pollution in the region where OCP plans to deploy the Net Array. It may prove to do a better job. It is likely that Hawaiian fisherman would gladly collect derelict fishing gear if given $1 euro/kilo, which is a fraction of OCP’s $4.5 euro/kilo anticipated cost/benefit of the net. It’s worth a try. Also, consider supporting a net lease program with a commercial fishing fleet. Because derelict fishing gear is the most abundant and most damaging to marine life and ocean navigation, this upstream solution is long-term and only beginning to be implemented.

4. Support design change and EPR. Consider supporting other upstream solutions, like EPR and product design, in order to reduce the trash load heading downriver. One of our Dutch heroes are the Plastic Soup Foundation, which were the first to campaign for the removal of plastic microbeads from consumer products.

We want to encourage innovation from people like Boyan Slat, but with the guidance of good, open-minded, pragmatic science. What we know about the problem has changed drastically since OCP first proposed the Net Array. We believe that the public will support a shift in priorities if presented well and reflects wide scientific agreement and collaboration. Willingness to change course with new information is admirable, and I think OCP’s funders will appreciate that.

In the meantime, we welcome a dialogue, even another public webinar like the one we had last year to address these concerns.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Bubblewashing Print
Thursday, 03 September 2015 11:53

Krugman writes: "These days, media balance often seems to involve retroactively rewriting history to avoid telling readers that one side of a policy debate got things completely wrong."

Paul Krugman. (photo: The New York Times)
Paul Krugman. (photo: The New York Times)


Bubblewashing

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times

03 September 15

 

lmost 15 years have passed since I warned about media “balance” that involved systematically abdicating the journalistic duty of informing readers about simple matters of fact. As I said way back when,

If a presidential candidate were to declare that the earth is flat, you would be sure to see a news analysis under the headline ”Shape of the Planet: Both Sides Have a Point.” After all, the earth isn’t perfectly spherical.

So have things improved? In some ways, they may have gotten even worse. These days, media balance often seems to involve retroactively rewriting history to avoid telling readers that one side of a policy debate got things completely wrong.

READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Here's How Donald Trump Responded to My Essay About Him Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36573"><span class="small">Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, The Washington Post</span></a>   
Thursday, 03 September 2015 10:18

Abdul-Jabbar writes: "This morning, an essay of mine was published titled, 'This is the Difference Between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.' Trump's response to my piece is the best, though inelegant, support for my claims."

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. (photo: Andrew D. Bernstein/NBAE/Getty Images)
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. (photo: Andrew D. Bernstein/NBAE/Getty Images)


Here's How Donald Trump Responded to My Essay About Him

By Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, The Washington Post

03 September 15

 

his morning, an essay of mine was published titled, “This is the Difference Between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.” Trump’s response to my piece is the best, though inelegant, support for my claims. Here again, he attacks a journalist who disagrees with him, not by disputing the points made but by hurling schoolyard insults such as “nobody likes you.” Look behind the nasty invective and you find an assault on the Constitution in the effort to silence the press through intimidation. The full text is below.

Notes from Donald Trump covering Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's work. (photo: The Washington Post)
Notes from Donald Trump covering Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's work. (photo: The Washington Post)

Dear Kareem,

Now I know why the press always treated you so badly — they couldn’t stand you. The fact is that you don’t have a clue about life and what has to be done to make America great again!

Best wishes,

Donald Trump

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
James O'Keefe Aims at Hillary, Stings Self Print
Thursday, 03 September 2015 08:44

Nuzzi writes: "James O'Keefe assured me it wasn't a joke. Standing at the lectern at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Tuesday morning, in a charcoal suit and plaid tie, O'Keefe said he was serious. This was a bombshell. This was criminal."

Conservative activist James O'Keefe. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty)
Conservative activist James O'Keefe. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty)


James O'Keefe Aims at Hillary, Stings Self

By Olivia Nuzzi, The Daily Beast

03 September 15

 

Conservative activist James O’Keefe is so determined to catch Clinton’s campaign breaking the law that his group broke the law to do it.

ames O’Keefe assured me it wasn’t a joke.

Standing at the lectern at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Tuesday morning, in a charcoal suit and plaid tie, O’Keefe said he was serious.   

This was a bombshell.

This was criminal.

O’Keefe is a conservative activist and media celebrity known for producing sting videos targeting liberal organizations and politicians.

His most (only) successful takedown occurred in 2009 when he recorded himself dressed up as a pimp, asking ACORN employees to help him fund his brothel. They took the bait, and after he released the footage, ACORN collapsed.

His other perpetually-costumed truth hunts have failed.

In 2010, he was arrested in New Orleans for trying to make illegal recordings at Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu’s office. Two of the activists accompanying him were dressed up as telephone repairmen. In 2014, he donned an Osama Bin Laden mask and crossed the U.S.-Mexico border to prove how easy it is (Bin Laden had been dead, by this point, for three years).

O’Keefe says he’s a journalist who wants to expose “waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, dishonesty and malfeasance in society,” but he is, at his core, a showman. And if it weren’t so goddamn funny, the “bombshell” he dropped on Tuesday wouldn’t have been much of a show at all.

To the right of O’Keefe’s stage was a TV airing footage from inside Hillary Clinton’s June 7 campaign launch on Roosevelt Island. The camera focused unsteadily, like a scene out of the Blair Witch Project, on Clinton’s merchandise booth, where her campaign sold T-shirts and buttons.

“Hi, can I get a hat and a rainbow button, please?” O’Keefe’s undercover agent, a female whose name he refused to reveal, asked.

O’Keefe, narrating the video, informed us that two women working the booth were in fact high-ranking Clinton staffers: Molly Barker, the national director of marketing for the campaign, and Erin Tibe, the campaign’s national compliance manager.

And then, the bombshell.

When O’Keefe’s undercover agent approached the merchandise booth, she found herself standing next to a Canadian tourist. But when it came the tourist’s turn to make her purchase, there was an issue: Campaigns cannot legally accept donations from non-U.S. citizens.

O’Keefe’s undercover agent, apparently outraged on the Canadian woman’s behalf, protested: “She traveled all the way from Canada to support Hillary!”

But the Canadian woman, whose identity O’Keefe said is unknown (he claims his organization tried to track her down, but was unsuccessful), had a solution: O’Keefe’s undercover agent could just take her money and make the purchase for her.

Upon this suggestion, O’Keefe’s agent asked Barker, “Canadians can’t buy them, but Americans can buy it for them?”

Barker replied, “Not technically. You would just be making the donation.”

Under a false name, according to O’Keefe, his agent gave the campaign $75 in cash.

“These senior Hillary campaign officials are not rookies,” O’Keefe narrated. “They know the ins and outs of the election code, and we’ve shown you that they’re willing to break the law.”

He ended the video with a promise: There would be more bombshells like this one. “Stay tuned, Hillary, and check your email,” he joked.

The video ended with AOL’s “You’ve got mail” alert.

To O’Keefe, this footage is proof that the Clinton campaign is inclined toward criminal behavior. “It’s about the willingness to break the law,” he told the room full of reporters on Tuesday. “It’s not about the amount of money.”

But there is a problem: If Clinton’s campaign broke the law, so did O’Keefe’s organization.

A close reading of the Federal Election Commission’s campaign finance laws makes it clear that campaigns cannot “solicit or accept” donations from foreign nationals, and that individuals cannot “knowingly provide substantial assistance” by “acting as a conduit or intermediary for foreign national contributions and donations.” Individuals can’t legally make donations under a false name, either, meaning that if you’re keeping score: Clinton’s campaign appears to have violated the law once, and O’Keefe’s organization twice.

The FEC said they couldn’t comment on O’Keefe’s video because in order to determine whether or not the law was broken, someone would need to file a complaint against the Clinton campaign and the FEC would need to vote on whether or not they violated the law. Even if O’Keefe did file a complaint, this would never happen because the FEC is dysfunctional.

But O’Keefe admitted to reporters that he didn’t contact the FEC and he doesn’t have plans to file a complaint. Instead, he sent a letter to Clinton’s campaign, in which he seeks to have them return the $75 (though, since O’Keefe doesn’t know who the Canadian tourist is, it seems unlikely that the money will ever be returned to her).

Asked by The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank if they were admitting to breaking the law, O’Keefe’s lawyer said that their offenses were illegal, too, yes, but akin to “jaywalking.”

Clinton’s offenses, though, are gravely criminal. How this adds up, it’s not clear.

Paul Ryan, of the Campaign Legal Center, told me that according to my description of the video, it seemed O’Keefe’s staffer violated the law, and so did Clinton’s staffers who knew the money came from the Canadian tourist.

Clinton’s campaign has not yet responded to a request for comment.

After his bombshell revelation, I asked O’Keefe the obvious question: “Is this a joke? It feels like a prank.”

He replied, “Is this a joke? Well, the Clin­ton cam­paign doesn’t think it’s a joke, be­cause they’re talk­ing to The Wash­ing­ton Post about it. And we sent the let­ter to the Clin­ton cam­paign, so no, this is not a joke.”

After stumbling through questions for half an hour and failing to make a convincing case that this was the “bombshell” he promised, O’Keefe’s spokesperson asked, “Olivia, do you have a follow-up?”

Yeah, I said, were they sure this wasn’t a joke?

O’Keefe, now defensive, gave his soaring answer while maintaining eye contact. “Well, you know, I understand where you’re coming from. You’re trying to use ridicule, and I appreciate that…The Hillary campaign disagrees with you. They disagree with you. And I think a lot of people in this room also disagree with you…And I promise you that in the next couple years we’re going to have an army of people, 100 people, across the country investigating everything. And when that happens? These politicians are going to clean up their act. We’re going to create an army of exposers and if you are lying or stealing or cheating, we are going to find you and make you an unwilling Internet celebrity. I’m telling you that right now. And I’m very excited because this is just the beginning! We’ve got more. Every few days we’re gonna release another tape. And you can continue to say it’s a joke, but people are gonna be resigning.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
10 Lessons of the Iran Deal Print
Thursday, 03 September 2015 08:41

Swanson writes: "The next time someone tells you a particular country must be attacked as a 'last resort,' ask them politely to please explain why diplomacy was possible with Iran and not in this other case. If the U.S. government is held to that standard, war may quickly become a thing of the past."

Foreign leaders standing for photo after final agreement between the US and Iran to dismantle its nuclear program. (photo: James Clamor/AP)
Foreign leaders standing for photo after final agreement between the US and Iran to dismantle its nuclear program. (photo: James Clamor/AP)


10 Lessons of the Iran Deal

By David Swanson, World Beyond War

03 September 15

 

y the latest count, the nuclear agreement with Iran has enough support in the U.S. Senate to survive. This, even more than stopping the missile strikes on Syria in 2013, may be as close as we come to public recognition of the prevention of a war (something that happens quite a bit but generally goes unrecognized and for which there are no national holidays). Here, for what they’re worth, are 10 teachings for this teachable moment.

  1. There is never an urgent need for war. Wars are often begun with great urgency, not because there’s no other option, but because delay might allow another option to emerge. The next time someone tells you a particular country must be attacked as a “last resort,” ask them politely to please explain why diplomacy was possible with Iran and not in this other case. If the U.S. government is held to that standard, war may quickly become a thing of the past.

  2. A popular demand for peace over war can succeed, at least when those in power are divided. When much of one of the two big political parties takes the side of peace, the advocates of peace have a chance. And of course now we know which senators and Congress members will shift their positions with partisan winds. My Republican Congressman opposed war on Syria in 2013 when President Obama supported it, but supported greater hostility toward Iran in 2015 when Obama opposed it. One of my two Democratic Senators backed peace for a change, when Obama did. The other remained undecided, as if the choice were too complex.

  3. The government of Israel can make a demand of the government of the United States and be told No. This is a remarkable breakthrough. None of the actual 50 states expects to always get its way in Washington, but Israel does — or did until now. This opens up the possibility of ceasing to give Israel billions of dollars worth of free weapons one of these years, or even of ceasing to protect Israel from legal consequences for what it does with those weapons

  4. Money can make a demand of the U.S. government and be told No. Multibillionaires funded huge advertising campaigns and dangled major campaign “contributions.” The big money was all on the side opposing the agreement, and yet the agreement prevailed — or at least now looks like it will. This doesn’t prove we have a corruption-free government. But it does suggest that the corruption is not yet 100 percent.

  5. Counterproductive tactics employed in this victorious antiwar effort may end up making this a Pyrrhic victory. Both sides in the debate over the agreement advanced baseless claims about Iranian aggression and Iranian attempts to create nuclear weapons. Both sides depicted Iranians as completely untrustworthy and menacing. If the agreement is undone or some other incident arises, the mental state of the U.S. public regarding Iran is in a worse position than it was before, as regards restraining the dogs of war.

  6. The deal is a concrete step to be built on. It is a powerful argument for the use of diplomacy — perhaps even less hostile diplomacy — in other areas of the globe. It is also a verifiable refutation to future assertions of an Iranian nuclear threat. This means that U.S. weaponry stationed in Europe on the basis of that alleged threat can and must be withdrawn rather than remain as an open act of aggression toward Russia.

  7. When given the choice, the nations of the world will leap at an opening for peace. And they will not easily be brought back again. U.S. allies are now opening embassies in Iran. If the United States backs away from Iran again, it will isolate itself. This lesson should be borne in mind when considering violent and non-violent options for other countries.

  8. The longer a war with Iran is avoided, the stronger an argument we have for continuing to avoid it. When a U.S. push for war on Iran has been stopped before, including in 2007, this has not only put off a possible catastrophe; it has also made it more difficult to create. If a future U.S. government wants war with Iran, it will have to go up against public awareness that peace with Iran is possible.

  9. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) works. Inspections work. Just as inspections worked in Iraq, they work in Iran. Other nations, such as Israel, North Korea, India, and Pakistan, should be encouraged to join the NPT. Proposals for a nuclear-free Middle East should be pursued.

  10. The United States should itself cease violating the NPT and lead by example, ceasing to share nuclear weapons with other nations, ceasing to create new nuclear weapons, and working to disarm itself of an arsenal that serves no purpose but threatens apocalypse.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 Next > End >>

Page 2352 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN