# data[].attributes.body
strange animals - Gharials

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Adult and Baby Gharials | Ganges | BBC Studios

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Axolotls Have The Cutest Yawns | The Dodo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Meet the Vampire Squid | National Geographic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Landfill Harmonic -  the "Recycled Orchestra"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cannabis plants could help fight climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
cannabis plants could be the missing player in humanity’s fight against climate change, as hemp can absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This smart bucket helps young trees grow on dry and degraded land

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The World Economic Forum is an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas. Incorporated as a not-for-profit foundation in 1971, and headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the Forum is tied to no political, partisan or national interests.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Solar-powered plane set for global flight

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Great Green Wall initiative uses an integrated approach to restore a diversity of ecosystems in the North African landscape.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic-eating bacteria boost growing business of bioremediation - Nature Biotechnology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bacteria, fungi and plants can be grown and engineered to remove plastics, chemicals and pollutants from contaminated soil and water.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Americans go through hundreds of billions of plastic bags each year. In an effort to curb the number of bags being used once and then thrown away, cities around the world have instituted bans or taxes on plastic bags. But are paper or reusable bags much better for the environment? Science shows that there is not a clear answer.
Plastic Bags
A major advantage of plastic bags is that, when compared to other types of shopping bags, producing them carries the lowest environmental toll. The thin, plastic grocery store bags are most commonly made from high-density polyethylene (HDPE). Although production of these bags does use resources like petroleum, it results in less carbon emissions, waste, and harmful byproducts than cotton or paper bag production. Plastic bags are also relatively sturdy and reusable. Many of the studies about different bagging options that show plastic bags production demands less resources assume plastic bags are used at least twice-once coming home and once as a trash bag-and factor this into the calculations about which bags are more sustainable.

Plastic bags are recyclable, though few people recycle them. Recycling plastic bags is a difficult task; they fly away in the recycling plant and get stuck in machinery. Because of this, many cities do not offer curbside recycling for plastic bags. Instead, large-scale retailers offer bag recycling services. However these services are dependent on the consumer bringing the plastic bags back to the store.

Bags that are not recycled end up becoming litter, because they do not biodegrade. In addition to filling up landfills and becoming eyesores, plastic bags that become litter endanger many facets of the environment, including marine life and the food chain. This is because plastic bags, like all plastic materials, eventually break up into microscopic pieces, which scientists refer to as microplastics. Microplastics have been found nearly everywhere: in marine animals, farmland soil, and urban air.

Though scientists have only just begun studying the consequences of microplastic proliferation, and we do not yet know their effect on animals, humans, and the environment, scientists are concerned about how this level of plastic pollution could change our planet. The studies that found plastic bags to be less harmful to the environment than paper and reusable bags did not take effects of litter into account and instead assumed that the plastic bags would be recycled or used as trash bags.
Paper Bags
Paper bags have some advantages over plastic bags when it comes to sustainability. They are easier to recycle, and, because they are biodegradable, they can be used for purposes like composting. However, paper is very resource-heavy to produce: Manufacturing a paper bag takes about four times as much energy as it takes to produce a plastic bag, plus the chemicals and fertilizers used in producing paper bags create additional harm to the environment.

Studies have shown that, for a paper bag to neutralize its environmental impact compared to plastic, it would have to be used anywhere from three to 43 times. Since paper bags are the least durable of all the bagging options, it is unlikely that a person would get enough use out of any one bag to even out the environmental impact.

Still, the fact that paper is recyclable helps lessen its impact. In 2018, 68.1 percent of paper consumed in the United States was recovered for recycling, a percentage that has been rising in the last decade. However, because paper fibers become shorter and weaker each time the recycling process takes place, there is a limit to how many times paper can be recycled.
Reusable Bags
Reusable bags are made from many different materials, and the environmental impact of producing those materials varies widely. One study from the United Kingdom (U.K.) found that, regarding bag production, cotton bags have to be reused 131 times before they reduce their impact on climate change to the same extent as plastic bags. To have a comparable environmental footprint (which encompasses climate change as well as other environmental effects) to plastic bags, a cotton bag potentially has to be used thousands of times. Materials other than cotton, however, perform much better in sustainability metrics. Nonwoven polypropylene (PP) is another popular option. Made from a more durable kind of plastic, these bags need to be reused around eleven times to break even with the impact of conventional plastic.

In addition to varying widely in their eco-friendliness, there is the chance that reusable bags go unused, because consumers have to remember to bring the bags with them to the store. The biggest positive of reusable bags is that their use cuts down on the amount of litter on land and in the ocean. Studies have found that bans on plastic bags in cities in the United States and Europe have decreased the amount of plastic litter in nearby waters.
Things to Consider
Because reusable and paper bags have a huge environmental cost upfront, and plastic bags create greater negative effects after being used, it is hard to determine which type of bag is truly the most sustainable. Regardless of whether the bag is plastic, paper, or another material, the most sustainable choice is the bag you already have. In every study and for every type of bag, it was clear that reusing the bag as many times as you can reduces its impact on the environment. Overall, making the effort to reuse any bag that comes into your possession, and disposing of the bag responsibly, is key.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Though you may have heard reusable bags are always best, recent studies show a much more complicated picture.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What’s your water footprint? It’s the tap water and the “virtual water” used to produce your food, electricity, gas and home goods.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This story is part of Planet or Plastic?-our multiyear effort to raise awareness about the global plastic waste crisis. Learn what you can do to reduce your own single-use plastics, and take your pledge. Join a conversation with Kathryn Kellogg on zero waste on Reddit at 2 pm ET May 18.

Imagine 15 grocery bags filled with plastic trash piled up on every single yard of shoreline in the world. That's how much land-based plastic trash ended up in the world's oceans in just one year. The world generates at least 3.5 million tons of plastic and other solid waste a day, 10 times the amount a century ago, according to World Bank researchers. The U.S. is the king of trash, producing a world-leading 250 million tons a year-roughly 4.4 pounds of trash per person per day.

And yet there are a growing number of people-often young millennial women-who are part of a zero-waste movement. Their yearly trash output can be small enough to fit inside an eight-ounce mason jar. These are not wannabe hippies, but people embracing a modern minimalist lifestyle. They say it saves them money and time and enriches their lives.

Kathryn Kellogg is one of those young millennials who has downsized her trash pile-anything that hasn't been composted or recycled-so two years' worth literally fits inside one 16-ounce jar. Meanwhile, the average American produces 1,500 pounds of trash a year. (Learn more about Kellogg in the recent plastic issue of National Geographic magazine.)

"We also saved about $5,000 a year by purchasing fresh food instead of packaged, buying in bulk, and making our own products like cleaners and deodorant," says Kellogg, who lives with her husband in a small house in Vallejo, California.

Kellogg is one of several zero-waste bloggers who share online the details of their efforts, along with practical tips and encouragement, for others looking to embrace a zero-waste lifestyle. In three years, she has gained 300,000 monthly readers on her blog goingzerowaste.com and on Instagram.

"I think many people are ready to cut their waste," says Kellogg. However, she doesn't want people to fixate on trying to stuff all their trash into a jar. Zero-waste is really about trying to minimize your trash and making better choices in your life, she says. "Just do the best you can and buy less."

A Thriving Community

A breast cancer scare in college led Kellogg to start reading labels on personal-care products and finding ways to limit her exposure to potentially toxic chemicals. She found alternatives and started making her own products. Like her own readers, Kellogg learned from others, including New York City's Lauren Singer, who has the very popular Trash is for Tossers blog. Singer started reducing her waste footprint as an environmental studies student in 2012 and has turned zero-waste into a career as a speaker, consultant, and retailer. She has two stores dedicated to making trash-free living easier for everyone.

There's an active zero-waste community online sharing ideas, challenges, and support for those struggling with unhelpful friends and family who think it's weird to worry about trash. "There's a fear of being rejected when you try to do things differently," Kellogg says. "But it's not a radical act to clean up a kitchen spill with a cloth towel instead of a paper towel."

Many of the solutions to cutting waste use practices that were commonplace before the era of plastics and disposable products. Think cloth napkins and handkerchiefs, vinegar and water for cleaning, glass or stainless-steel containers for left-overs, cloth grocery bags. These, and similar old-school solutions, produce no waste and are cheaper in the long run.

Questioning What's Normal

Going zero-waste means questioning what's normal and thinking outside the box, Kellogg says. As one example, she mentions that she loves tortillas but hates making them. But as part of her zero-waste quest, she didn't want to buy packaged ones at the grocery. Eventually, she hit on the solution: buy a bunch of fresh-made ones from her local Mexican restaurant. The restaurant was even happy to put the tortillas in Kellogg's container because it saves them money.

"Many such solutions to waste are insanely simple," she says. "And any step to reduce waste is a step in the right direction."

Cincinnati's Rachel Felous took more than a few steps in January 2017 and cut her waste to one bag for the year. Felous was surprised and delighted with the impact it's had on her life.

"Going zero waste has been great," she says. "I found an amazing community, made new friends, and new opportunities have come my way," says Felous.

Although an environmentally aware nature lover, Felous hadn't really thought about how much waste she produced until she moved. That's when she realized how much stuff she'd accumulated, including a dozen half-used bottles of shampoo and conditioners. Not long after reading an article on zero-waste she vowed to take more responsibility for her own footprint. Felous also documents her struggles, challenges, and successes on Instagram during her quest to slash the trash.

By weight 75 to 80 percent of all household trash is organic matter that can be composted and turned into soil. As an apartment dweller, Felous deals with her organic waste by putting it in the freezer. Once a month, she takes her frozen lump to her parent's house, where a local farmer picks it up to feed animals or for composting. If the organic waste went to a landfill it likely wouldn't compost, because air can't circulate enough there.

Felous, who runs her own web design and photography business out of her home, advises others to approach zero waste with small steps and show themselves kindness. Making a lifestyle change is a journey, it doesn't happen overnight. But it's worth the effort, she says. "I don't know why I didn't start sooner."

A Regular Family

Shawn Williamson started ten years ago. While his neighbors in the suburbs outside of Toronto drag three or four bags of trash to the curb on cold winter nights, Williamson stays warm inside watching hockey on TV. Williamson, his wife, and daughter have taken just six bags of trash to the curb in those 10 years. "We live a very normal life. We've just eliminated waste," he says.

Contrary to what most people think, cutting out waste isn't a lot of work, he adds. "We buy in bulk to cut down on shopping trips, which saves us money and time," Williamson says.

The only unusual thing about their small, 20-year old house is the amount of shelving used to store bulk purchases of rice, flour, dried beans, nuts, toilet paper, and other products-enough to avoid going shopping for a month, he estimates. "It's not cluttered. I still park my car in the garage."

Williamson, a business consultant specializing in sustainability, says his goal is simply to be less wasteful in all aspects of life. "It's a mindset of looking for better ways of doing things. Once I figure it out there's little effort to maintain it," he says.

It helps that his community has a good recycling program for plastics, paper, and metals and he has room in his backyard for two small composters-one for summer and winter-that produce lots of rich earth for his garden. For everything else, he shops carefully to avoid waste and notes that throwing things out costs money: packaging pushes up the cost of the product, and then we pay for disposal of packaging in our taxes, he says.

Buying local makes it easier to buy foods and other products without packaging, from meat to soap. And when there is no choice, he leaves the packaging behind at the checkout counter. Stores can often reuse or recycle it, and leaving it sends a message: many customers don't want their avocados wrapped in plastic.

Even after ten years of slashing waste, new ideas still pop into Williamson's head. And here he means waste in the broader sense-not getting a second car that's parked 95 percent of the day, or shaving in the shower to save time. His advice: take a good look at what you might be wasting in your life. "If you eliminate it, you'll have a happier and more profitable life," he says.

Five Principles of Zero-waste From the Experts*

1. Refuse - refuse to buy things with lots of packaging

2. Reduce - don't buy things you don't really need

3. Reuse - repurpose worn out items, shop for used goods, and purchase reusable products like steel water bottles

4. Compost - up to 80 percent of waste by weight is organic. But this rarely decomposes in landfills

5. Recycle - It still takes some energy and resources to recycle, but it's better than sending stuff to the landfill or allowing it to become litter

*These are listed in order of importance

Editor's note: We corrected the spelling of Kathryn's name from an earlier version of this story.

This story is part of Women of Impact, a National Geographic project centered around women breaking barriers in their fields, changing their communities, and inspiring action. Join the conversation in our Facebook group.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Zero-Waste People Make Only a Jar of Trash a Year

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This story is part of Planet or Plastic?-our multiyear effort to raise awareness about the global plastic waste crisis. Learn what you can do to reduce your own single-use plastics, and take your pledge. Join a conversation with Kathryn Kellogg on zero waste on Reddit at 2 pm ET May 18.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As long as humans have been exploring space, we've also been creating a bit of a mess. Orbiting our planet are thousands of dead satellites, along with bits of debris from all the rockets we've launched over the years. This could pose an issue one day.

What is space junk?

Space junk, or space debris, is any piece of machinery or debris left by humans in space.

It can refer to big objects such as dead satellites that have failed or been left in orbit at the end of their mission. It can also refer to smaller things, like bits of debris or paint flecks that have fallen off a rocket.

Some human-made junk has been left on the Moon, too.

How much space junk is there?

While there are about 2,000 active satellites orbiting Earth at the moment, there are also 3,000 dead ones littering space. What's more, there are around 34,000 pieces of space junk bigger than 10 centimetres in size and millions of smaller pieces that could nonetheless prove disastrous if they hit something else.

How does space junk get into space?

All space junk is the result of us launching objects from Earth, and it remains in orbit until it re-enters the atmosphere.

Some objects in lower orbits of a few hundred kilometres can return quickly. They often re-enter the atmosphere after a few years and, for the most part, they'll burn up - so they don't reach the ground. But debris or satellites left at higher altitudes of 36,000 kilometres - where communications and weather satellites are often placed in geostationary orbits - can continue to circle Earth for hundreds or even thousands of years.

Some space junk results from collisions or anti-satellite tests in orbit. When two satellites collide, they can smash apart into thousands of new pieces, creating lots of new debris. This is rare, but several countries including the USA, China and India have used missiles to practice blowing up their own satellites. This creates thousands of new pieces of dangerous debris.

What risks does space junk pose to space exploration?

Fortunately, at the moment, space junk doesn't pose a huge risk to our exploration efforts. The biggest danger it poses is to other satellites in orbit.

These satellites have to move out of the way of all this incoming space junk to make sure they don't get hit and potentially damaged or destroyed.

In total, across all satellites, hundreds of collision avoidance manoeuvres are performed every year, including by the International Space Station (ISS), where astronauts live.

How can we clean up space junk?

The United Nations ask that all companies remove their satellites from orbit within 25 years after the end of their mission. This is tricky to enforce, though, because satellites can (and often do) fail. To tackle this problem, several companies around the world have come up with novel solutions.

These include removing dead satellites from orbit and dragging them back into the atmosphere, where they will burn up. Ways we could do this include using a harpoon to grab a satellite, catching it in a huge net, using magnets to grab it, or even firing lasers to heat up the satellite, increasing its atmospheric drag so that it falls out of orbit.

However, these methods are only useful for large satellites orbiting Earth. There isn't really a way for us to pick up smaller pieces of debris such as bits of paint and metal. We just have to wait for them to naturally re-enter Earth's atmosphere.

What is the Kessler syndrome?

This is an idea proposed by NASA scientist Donald Kessler in 1978. He said that if there was too much space junk in orbit, it could result in a chain reaction where more and more objects collide and create new space junk in the process, to the point where Earth's orbit became unusable.

This situation would be extreme, but some experts worry that a variant of this could be a problem one day, and steps should be taken to avoid it ever happening. This idea was also popularised in the movie Gravity.

Will space junk be a problem in the future?

It could well be. Several companies are planning vast new groups of satellites, called mega constellations, that will beam internet down to Earth. These companies, which include SpaceX and Amazon, plan to launch thousands of satellites to achieve global satellite internet coverage. If successful, there could be an additional 50,000 satellites in orbit. This also means a lot more collision avoidance manoeuvres will need to be done.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is space junk and why is it a problem?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Your guide to space junk, or space debris, that humans have left in space. What is space junk, where did it come from and how do we get rid of it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bee extinction: Why we're saving the wrong bees

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Subscribe for updates

Get updates on our progress towards clean oceans directly in your inbox.

Close popup

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch (GPGP) is the largest of the five offshore plastic accumulation zones in the world's oceans. It is located halfway between Hawaii and California.
PLASTIC ACCUMULATION

It is estimated that 1.15 to 2.41 million tonnes of plastic are entering the ocean each year from rivers. More than half of this plastic is less dense than the water, meaning that it will not sink once it encounters the sea.

1.15 to 2.41 million metric tonnes of plastic are entering the ocean each year.

Tweet this

The stronger, more buoyant plastics show resiliency in the marine environment, allowing them to be transported over extended distances. They persist at the sea surface as they make their way offshore, transported by converging currents and finally accumulating in the patch.

Once these plastics enter the gyre, they are unlikely to leave the area until they degrade into smaller microplastics under the effects of sun, waves and marine life. As more and more plastics are discarded into the environment, microplastic concentration in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch will only continue to increase.

ESTIMATION OF SIZE

The GPGP covers an estimated surface area of 1.6 million square kilometers, an area twice the size of Texas or three times the size of France.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch covers an estimated surface of 1.6 million square kilometers

To formulate this number, the team of scientists behind this research conducted the most elaborate sampling method ever coordinated.

This consisted of a fleet of 30 boats, 652 surface nets and two flights over the patch to gather aerial imagery of the debris.

Sampling at different locations within the same time period allowed a more accurate estimate of the size of the patch and the plastic drifting in it.

LOCATION

Due to seasonal and interannual variabilities of winds and currents, the GPGP's location and shape are constantly changing. Only floating objects that are predominantly influenced by currents and less by winds were likely to remain within the patch.

By simulating concentration levels in the North Pacific, the researchers were able to follow the location of the patch, demonstrating significant seasonal and interannual variations. On average the patch orbits around 32°N and 145°W. However, the team observed seasonal shift from west to east and substantial variations in latitude (North to South) depending on the year.

The Ocean Cleanup is currently cleaning up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch with System 03.

Learn more

Help fund our scale-up and let's make the Great Pacific Garbage Patch a thing of the past

Donate

At the time of sampling, there were more than 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic in the patch that weigh an estimated 80,000 tonnes. These figures are much higher than previous calculations.
TOTAL MASS AND COUNT

80'000 tonnes of plastic float in the GPGP, equivalent to 500 Jumbo Jets

The mass of the plastic in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (GPGP) was estimated to be approximately 80,000 tonnes, which is 4-16 times more than previous calculations. This weight is also equivalent to that of 500 Jumbo Jets.

4 to 16 times more plastic in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch than Previously Estimated

Tweet this

The center of the GPGP has the highest density and the further boundaries are the least dense. When quantifying the mass of the GPGP, the team chose to account only for the denser center area. If the less-dense outer region was also considered in the total estimate, the total mass would then be closer to 100,000 tonnes.

A total of 1.8 trillion plastic pieces were estimated to be floating in the patch - a plastic count that is equivalent to 250 pieces of debris for every human in the world.

Using a similar approach as they did when figuring the mass, the team chose to employ conservative estimations of the plastic count. While 1.8 trillion is a mid-range value for the total count, their calculations estimated that it may be range from 1.1 to up to 3.6 trillion pieces.

Concentration

Using data from multiple reconnaissance missions, a mass concentration model was produced to visualize the plastic distribution in the patch.

The mass concentration model, pictured below, shows how the concentration levels gradually decrease by orders of magnitude towards the outside boundaries of the GPGP. The center concentration levels contain the highest density, reaching 100s of kg/km² while decreasing down to 10 kg/km² in the outermost region.

These results prove that plastic pollution at sea, while densely distributed within the patch, is scattered and does not form a solid mass, thus demystifying the trash island concept.

Vertical distribution

The Ocean Cleanup measured the vertical distribution of plastic during six expeditions between 2013 to 2015. Results from these expeditions proved that the buoyant plastic mass is distributed within the top few meters of the ocean.,

Factors such as wind speed, sea state, and plastic buoyancy will influence vertical mixing. However, buoyant plastic will eventually float back to the surface in calmer seas. Larger pieces were observed to resurface much more rapidly than smaller pieces.

Persistency

Characteristics of the debris in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, such as plastic type and age, prove that plastic has the capacity to persist in this region.

Plastic in the patch has also been measured since the 1970's and the calculations from subsequent years show that microplastic mass concentration is increasing exponentially - proving that the input of plastic in the patch is greater than the output. Unless sources are mitigated, this number will continue to rise.

The vast majority of plastics retrieved were made of rigid or hard polyethylene (PE) or polypropylene (PP), or derelict fishing gear (nets and ropes particularly). Ranging in size from small fragments to larger objects and meter-sized fishing nets.

Size classes

Plastic within the patch was categorized into four size classes:
- Microplastics (0.05 - 0.5 cm)
- Mesoplastics (0.5 - 5 cm)
- Macroplastics (5 - 50 cm)
- Megaplastics (anything above 50 cm)

92% of the total mass is made of debris larger than 5mm

Tweet this

When accounting for the total mass, 92% of the debris found in the patch consists of objects larger than 0.5 cm, and three-quarters of the total mass is made of macro- and mega plastic. However, in terms of object count, 94% of the total is represented by microplastics.

Categorization types

75% to 86% of GPGP Plastics Comes from Fishing Activities

Once the plastics were collected, a team of volunteers classified the plastic into:
- Type H: Hard plastic, plastic sheet or film;
- Type N: Plastic lines, ropes, and fishing nets;
- Type P: Pre-production plastics (cylinders, spheres or disks);
- Type F: Fragments made of foamed materials

These plastic types were then screened for clues on age and origin. This was performed by examining each object for dates, languages, trademarks, symbols or 'made in' statements.

Why large debris matter

Because the plastics have been shown to persist in this region, they will likely break down into smaller plastics while floating in the GPGP.

This deterioration into microplastics is usually the result of sun exposure, waves, marine life, and temperature changes. Microplastics have been discovered floating within the water surface layers, but also in the water column or as far down as the ocean floor.

Once they become this small, microplastics are very difficult to remove and are often mistaken for food by marine animals.

Not only does plastic pollution in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch pose risks for the safety and health of marine animals, but there are health and economic implications for humans as well.

Impact on wildlife

Plastic has increasingly become a ubiquitous substance in the ocean. Due to its size and color, animals confuse the plastic for food, causing malnutrition; it poses entanglement risks and threatens their overall behavior, health, and existence.

84% of samples contained toxic chemicals

Studies have shown that about 700 species have encountered marine debris, and 92% of these interactions are with plastic. 17% of the species affected by plastic are on the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Red List of Threatened Species.

Toxic for Sea Surface Feeders

180X more plastic than food at the surface of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch

Tweet this
Floating at the surface of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (GPGP) is 180x more plastic than marine life. Animals migrating through or inhabiting this area are then likely consuming plastic in the patch. For example, sea turtles by-caught in fisheries operating within and around the patch can have up to 74% (by dry weight) of their diets composed of ocean plastics. Laysan albatross chicks from Kure Atoll and Oahu Island have around 45% of their wet mass composed of plastics from surface waters of the GPGP.

Since 84% of this plastic was found to have at least one Persistent Bio-accumulative Toxic Persistent Bio-accumulative Toxic (PBT) chemical, animals consuming this debris are therefore ingesting the chemicals attached to the plastic.
Entanglement of Marine Life
Fishing nets account for 46% of the mass in the GPGP and they can be dangerous for animals who swim or collide into them and cannot extract themselves from the net. Interaction with these discarded nets, also known as ghost nets , often results in the death of the marine life involved.

Impact on Humans and Society

Once plastic enters the marine food web, there is a possibility that it will contaminate the human food chain as well. Efforts to clean and eradicate ocean plastic have also caused significant financial burdens.

Plastic pollution costs 13B dollars per year.

Affects the Human Foodchain

Through a process called bioaccumulation, chemicals in plastics will enter the body of the animal feeding on the plastic, and as the feeder becomes prey, the chemicals will pass to the predator - making their way up the food web that includes humans. These chemicals that affected the plastic feeders could then be present within the human as well.

Affects the Economy

According to a study conducted in collaboration with Deloitte, yearly economic costs due to marine plastic are estimated to be between $6-19bn USD. The costs stem from its impact on tourism, fisheries and aquaculture, and (governmental) cleanups. These costs do not include the impact on human health and the marine ecosystem (due to insufficient research available). This means that intercepting plastic in rivers is much more cost-effective than dealing with the consequences downstream. Learn more in our interactive map.

Resulting from several research missions, traveling across and above the GPGP, The Ocean Cleanup team compiled an unprecedented amount of data to better understand the plastic that persists in this region.

Boyan Slat - The New Picture of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (2018)

Research Expeditions

"To accurately quantify a problem of the size, we had to do research at a scale that had never been done before" - Boyan Slat

Tweet this

Scientists have been studying this area since the 1970's - usually by means of dragging a small sampling net through the debris. This method showed a bias towards smaller objects and did not provide much insight into the larger pieces, and, thus, the entire scope of the GPGP.

Over the course of three years, researchers at The Ocean Cleanup went on several data collection missions. This included the Multi-Level-Trawl expedition, where they analyzed the depth at which buoyant plastic debris may be vertically distributed; the Mega Expedition using vessels to cross the patch with many trawls at once; and the Aerial Expedition which involved the use of a plane flying at low altitude to observe the debris from above.

2015 - Multi-Level-Trawl Expedition

Realizing that previous methods of analyzing the plastic in the patch needed improvement, The Ocean Cleanup designed a new research tool, called the multi-level-trawl, which allowed measurements of 11 water layers simultaneously going as far down as 5 meters below surface level. This trawl was then used in the Vertical Distribution Research.

The multi-level-trawl allowed the team to study further down into the water and understand to which depths buoyant plastic may be distributed. Through these studies, it was observed that buoyant plastic floats primarily in the first few meters of the water.

2015 - Mega Expedition

In 2015, 30 vessels and 652 surface nets, in parallel, crossed the GPGP as part of the Mega Expedition.
Numerous vessel owners offered the use of their ships for the mission. Of those ships, many carried behind them a Manta-trawl; including one mothership, the 171ft long Ocean Starr, which was able to carry two 6-meter-wide trawls and a survey balloon.

The fleet returned with over 1.2 million plastic samples that rendered an unprecedented amount of plastic measurements from the three months of study. Scientists present on the expedition noted that there was an alarming amount of plastic floating in the patch, and their preliminary findings indicated that there were more large objects than originally expected.

2016 - Aerial Expedition

After the Mega Expedition, the team wanted to learn more about these large plastic pieces that were difficult to come by. Megaplastics are more scattered than the smaller plastics, and, to study this important aspect of the patch, the team needed to cover an even larger area.

Using a C-130 Hercules aircraft, The Ocean Cleanup surveyed 311 km² with advanced sensors and an RGB camera (CS-4800i) that captured one photo every second of flight time. They took two flights and came back with over 7,000 single frame mosaics from the mission.

Ocean Research Laboratory

Once the ocean plastic was brought back to the Netherlands, it then needed to be counted, classified and analyzed.

Counting and Classifying

The first step in analyzing the plastic was to quantify it - to turn this physical matter into data.

Every piece of plastic that was recovered was cleaned, counted and classified by size and type. In total, 1.2 million plastic samples were counted, one by one, and were used to further study the physical properties and toxicity of the plastic that floats in the GPGP.

The Research team takes on the monumental task of counting and classifying the Mega Expedition samples.

Understanding Physical Properties

Not only is the size and count of the plastic in the GPGP important to calculate, but the way in which the plastic interacts in the water helps the team learn more about the buoyancy and depths of the plastic.

To test this, various experiments were performed on the plastic in environments that were intended to replicate oceanic conditions and particularly salinity. Laboratory tests were conducted to measure the vertical speed of the plastic as it resurfaces.

More than 4000 rising speed tests to understand how plastic particles behave in the water.

Understanding Toxicity

It is commonly known that harmful PBT (Persistent Bio-accumulative Toxic) chemicals are found in ocean plastics, so researchers at The Ocean Cleanup tested plastic samples from the expeditions for their chemical levels. Their results helped them to realize what chemicals are present in the patch and what that means for animals feeding there.

Plastics ranging from various type and size were analyzed by placing them in mixtures that would allow the various chemicals to be identified. A process known as Chromatography. They found through various tests that 84% of the plastics in the GPGP contain at least one type of PBT chemical.

Ocean Plastic Data Science

Numerous computational and mathematical processes and methods were used throughout the study of the GPGP, allowing the team to visualize and characterize many features of the patch and the plastic within it.

Turning Ocean Plastic into Data

When the manta trawls samples were captured and then brought on the vessel, several criteria were noted in the datasheets, including the date, duration, and final coordinates of each tow.

With this information, the team was able to identify the exact location where the plastic was retrieved. The location and duration of all tows were confirmed during a post-processing phase by inspecting all the recorded datasheets against GPS trackers that were installed on all participating vessels. The total distance of tows, for example, combined with the net's characteristics allowed the researchers to estimate the total surveyed surface.

Process Aerial Expedition Data

Aboard the C-130 Hercules aircraft used for the Aerial Expedition were three types of sensors: Lidar (an advanced active sensor that is similar to that used on Google's autonomous cars), SWIR imager (an infrared camera to detect ocean plastic) and an RGB camera.

There were 3 sensor technicians, 7 navigation personnel and 10 researchers who helped track the plastic from above and monitor the equipment on board.

The data from this expedition were then analyzed and processed resulting in multispectral and geo-referenced imagery that was used to screen the surface area for plastic by trained observers and a machine-learning algorithm, providing spatial distribution of larger debris (>0.5m).

A Key to Convert Pixels into Kilograms

The mass of the plastic debris in the GPGP was calculated using imagery from the Aerial Expedition. By comparing the top view surface against dry mass of multiple objects collected during the first expedition at sea, including ghost nets, the team was able to make these estimations.

Merge all the Data into Comprehensive Computer Models

The data and imagery gathered from these objectives were eventually used by our team of computational modelers to build various models and computer-generated graphics. These served as a visual representation of the studies and tests that had been performed during the expeditions.

Research of this nature is crucial when understanding the many facets of the GPGP. These models have helped the engineers at The Ocean Cleanup to further improve the design of the cleanup system, which was deployed mid-2018.

We also use modeling to identify the pathways that bring plastic to the gyres. In 2022 our researchers published a new study based on over 6000 plastic objects (over 5 cm in size) captured in the GPGP by our System 001/B cleaning system in 2019. We then compared our field observations with our 'virtual particle' modeling results, allowing us to see the most statistically probable sources of GPGP plastic.

This indicated that over 75% of plastics in the GPGP - not only the 46% made up of fishing nets, as we discovered in 2018 - are attributable to offshore fishing activities. More research will be required in order to discover if this also applies to the other garbage patches around the world.

Learn more

Donate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Great Pacific Garbage Patch * The Ocean Cleanup

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is the largest accumulation of ocean plastic in the world and is located between Hawaii and California. Scientists of The Ocean Cleanup Foundation have conducted the most extensive analysis ever of this area.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Seeing a whale stranded on a beach often provokes a strong reaction. It can make people curious - beached whales can do strange things, like explode. It can also be upsetting to witness a creature so magnificent in water reduced to lifeless blubber on land. What rarely registers, however, is the lost opportunity for carbon sequestration.

Whales, particularly baleen and sperm whales, are among the largest creatures on Earth. Their bodies are enormous stores of carbon, and their presence in the ocean shapes the ecosystems around them.

From the depths of the ocean, these creatures are also helping to determine the temperature of the planet - and it's something that we've only recently started to appreciate.

"On land, humans directly influence the carbon stored in terrestrial ecosystems through logging and the burning of forests and grasslands," according to a 2010 scientific paper. "In the open ocean, the carbon cycle is assumed to be free of direct human influences."

But that assumption neglects the surprising impact of whaling.

Humans have killed whales for centuries, their bodies providing us with everything from meat to oil to whalebone. The earliest record of commercial whaling was in 1000 CE. Since then, tens of millions of whales have been killed, and experts believe that populations may have declined from anywhere between 66% and 90%.

The bodies of whales, among the largest creatures on Earth, are huge stores of carbon (Credit: Alamy)

When whales die, they sink to the ocean floor - and all the carbon that is stored in their enormous bodies is transferred from surface waters to the deep sea, where it remains for centuries or more.

In the 2010 study, scientists found that before industrial whaling, populations of whales (excluding sperm whales) would have sunk between 190,000 to 1.9 million tonnes of carbon per year to the bottom of the ocean - that's the equivalent of taking between 40,000 and 410,000 cars off the road each year. But when the carcass is prevented from sinking to the seabed - instead, the whale is killed and processed - that carbon is released into the atmosphere.

Andrew Pershing, a marine scientist at the University of Maine and an author of that study, estimates that over the course of the 20th Century whaling added about 70 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. "This is a lot, but 15 million cars do this in a single year. The US currently has 236 million cars," he says.

But whales are not only valuable in death. The tides of excrement that these mammals produce are also surprisingly relevant to the climate.

Whales feed in the deep ocean, then return to the surface to breathe and poo. Their iron-rich faeces creates the perfect growing conditions for phytoplankton. These creatures may be microscopic, but, taken together, phytoplankton have an enormous influence on the planet's atmosphere, capturing an estimated 40% of all CO2 produced - four times the amount captured by the Amazon rainforest.

"We need to think of whaling as being a tragedy that has removed a huge organic carbon pump from the ocean that would have been having a much larger multiplying effect on phytoplankton productivity and the ocean's ability to absorb carbon," says Vicki James, policy manager at Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC).

Whale poo is a powerful fertiliser for the ocean's phytoplankton, which have a large potential to capture carbon (Credit: Alamy)

The ocean's missing whales have had some unexpected impacts, too.

For instance, as whale populations declined, the orcas that predated them turned to smaller marine mammals like sea otters. The otters subsequently declined, leading to the spread of sea urchins, which munched away the kelp forests around the North Atlantic - with a knock-on effect on marine carbon sequestration.

What this means is that restoring whale populations to their pre-whaling numbers could be an important tool in tackling climate change, sequestering carbon both directly and indirectly, and thus helping to make a small dent in the enormous volume of CO2 emitted by fossil fuels every year.

There have been various other proposals for how to achieve this reduction, including tree-planting and stimulating phytoplankton blooms by adding iron to the ocean, a form of geoengineering known as iron fertilisation. But tree-planting requires a scarce resource: terrestrial land, which may already be in use as another valuable habitat or farmland. The beauty of restoring whale populations is that there is plenty of space in the ocean - space once filled with whales.

The resulting plumes of whale poo would also vastly outstrip the potential of ocean iron fertilisation. It would take 200 successful blooms per year to match the potential of a fully restored whale population, according to Pershing's study.

Marine phytoplankton capture carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, acting as a carbon sink (Credit: Alamy)

And, unlike with risky geoengineering techniques, the benefits would not just accrue to the climate, but to the whole ecosystem.

"Whale carcasses provide a unique habitat for deep sea species, many of which are only found on these 'whale falls'. Research has shown that a single skeleton can provide food and habitat for up to 200 species during the final stages of decay," says WDC's James.

In 2019, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) published a report looking at the benefits of putting whales back in the ocean. And they did it in a way that politicians would understand: by putting a dollar value on it.

This study found that, when you add up the value of the carbon sequestered by a whale during its lifetime, alongside other benefits like better fisheries and ecotourism, the average great whale is worth more than $2m (£1.48m), with the entire global stock amounting to over $1tn (£740bn).

The economists behind this study are now working on a project to transform this price tag from theory into reality, through a mechanism known as carbon offsetting. The idea is to persuade carbon emitters to pay a certain amount of money to protect whale populations, rather than invest in reducing their own emissions, helping them to achieve a neutral carbon footprint.

"What you're doing is valuing the service from the whales, because they're sequestering carbon dioxide," says Thomas Cosimano, one of the economists who co-authored the IMF paper. "It doesn't mean that whales aren't doing other things. This is just a benchmark we can use to establish a lower bound on what the value of the whale would be."

With the carbon-capturing potential of whales quantified, economists are devising an offsetting scheme centred on whales (Credit: Alamy)

It's a complicated scheme, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility: the team has been working on a similar carbon-market-based approach for protecting elephants from poachers in the central tropical forests of Africa, which is expected to be in place by the end of the year.

Already, a Chilean charity called the Fundación MERI is figuring out the foundations for a whale-based carbon market, installing early-warning acoustic buoys that will monitor the locations of whales and generate alternative routes for ships. It is believed to be the world's first project to protect whales because of the carbon storage that they provide.

The IMF study concludes that whale protection must now become a top priority in the global effort to tackle climate change.

"Since the role of whales is irreplaceable in mitigating and building resilience to climate change, their survival should be integrated into the objectives of the 190 countries that in 2015 signed the Paris Agreement for combating climate risk," the authors write.

Later this year, the UN climate conference will take place in Scotland, a country whose coasts regularly host species like minke and humpback whales. With a carbon market for whales now a real possibility, perhaps it's time to put these creatures on the agenda.

--
Sophie Yeo edits the UK nature, ecology and conservation newsletter Inkcap The emissions from travel it took to report this story were 0kg CO2. The digital emissions from this story are an estimated 1.2g to 3.6g CO2 per page view. Find out more about how we calculated this figure here Join one million Future fans by liking us on If you liked this story, sign up for the weekly bbc.com features newsletter, called "The Essential List". A handpicked selection of stories from BBC Future, Culture, Worklife, and Travel, delivered to your inbox every Friday. Facebook, or follow us on Twitter or Instagram. . .
--

--

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Seeing a whale stranded on a beach often provokes a strong reaction. It can make people curious - beached whales can do strange things, like explode. It can also be upsetting to witness a creature so magnificent in water reduced to lifeless blubber on land.