# data[].attributes.body
AWESOME stuff for all of your inquiries. Videos, all kinds of stuff. Check it out.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our first feature documentary film:

Now available worldwide! Our first feature-length documentary is a seething exposé of the true cost of plastic pollution - and the heroes and villains at work behind the crisis.

Making Change Together

We make movies that make a difference

Our first movie, The Story of Stuff, started it all, launching an honest conversation about our consumption-crazed culture. Since then, we've produced dozens more animated shorts and documentaries that chart a path to a more just and sustainable future.

Want to help write the next chapter in the Story of Stuff? Whatever you have to offer, a better future needs it! Take our Changemaker Personality Quiz to see what role you can play in the movement.

We're part of a global movement working to hold polluters accountable and put people over profit. Join the movement for a future free from plastic pollution by taking action with us today.

The Story of "The Story Of Stuff"

Watch the film that started it all!

Learn

Media
There are lots of ways to tell a story. That's why we have a podcast, a book, a blog, and multiple video series - all to inform and inspire you.

Learn
Whether you're a teacher, a faith leader, or just somebody who is interested in learning more, we offer a diverse set of teaching tools for all ages.

Small Grants
Ready to help change the story? We provide small grants to grassroots groups all around the world to help amplify the efforts of changemakers on the frontlines.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Now available worldwide! Our first feature-length documentary is a seething exposé of the true cost of plastic pollution - and the heroes and villains at work behind the crisis. Our first movie, The Story of Stuff, started it all, launching an honest conversation about our consumption-crazed culture.

# data[].attributes.body
We should be checking this daily, they post great stuff.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Don’t miss what’s happening

People on Twitter are the first to know.

# data[].attributes.body
This is the website for the "Before the Flood" Documentary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2016, I had the privilege of witnessing a documentary that left an indelible mark on my perspective of the world. "Before the Flood," a groundbreaking film produced by Fisher Stevens and featuring the passionate voice of Leonardo DiCaprio, fearlessly delved into the daunting realm of climate change.

Having immersed myself in this powerful documentary, I found myself captivated by the raw honesty and urgency that emanated from the screen, as if the dire state of our planet was laid bare before my eyes. I felt compelled to embark on a deeper exploration

Through this analysis, I seek to shed light on the powerful themes woven throughout the documentary, urging us all to reflect on our role in shaping the future of our planet.

Leonardo DiCaprio's Environmental Journey:

One cannot discuss " Before the Flood " without discussing its messenger, Leonardo DiCaprio. A UN Messenger of Peace, DiCaprio dons the hat of an advocate in the film. He delves into the frontline of climate change, speaking to world leaders, scientists, and individuals affected by environmental degradation, and humanizes a global crisis often perceived as abstract.

DiCaprio's personal connection to the environmental cause is deeply rooted. Throughout the film, he reflects on his childhood, reminiscing about his interest in the natural world and the impact an artwork " The Garden of Earthly Delights " had on him.

In his quest for truth, he also confronts the disinformation spread by some influential figures, a topic further explored in our article on the top climate deniers.

This narrative strategy by the film's creators allows the audience to connect

with the issue on a personal level, adding a layer of emotional depth.

As he journeys through the documentary, DiCaprio's role oscillates between a student and a teacher. His genuine curiosity and eagerness to learn make the complex climate concepts accessible to audiences, while his celebrity status ensures the message reaches far and wide.

He encapsulates the role of an 'everyman', becoming the eyes and ears of the audience on this perilous journey.

The Global Climate Crisis:

"Before the Flood" paints a vivid picture of the urgency of climate change. It begins with the explanation of the Anthropocene era, marking a period where human activities started to have a significant global impact on Earth's climate and ecosystems. By setting this premise, it showcases how humans have triggered an environmental catastrophe.

The film's portrayal of the global impact and consequences of climate change is hard-hitting. It takes us from the melting glaciers of the Arctic to the rising seas threatening the existence of Pacific islands, showcasing the stark and undeniable reality of climate change. Each location visited and story told emphasizes the existential threat that the crisis presents.

What sets "Before the Flood" apart is its ability to communicate the gravity of climate change effectively. Through compelling visuals and expert testimonies, it translates scientific data into a language that resonates with audiences. Its purpose is not to create fear, but to convey the urgency for change, and in this aspect, it succeeds remarkably.

Eye-Opening Expeditions:

Throughout the documentary, audiences are taken on a global journey to witness the devastating impacts of climate change firsthand. From the rapidly melting polar ice caps to the burning forests in Indonesia, the visual narrative grips viewers, offering an immersive experience of environmental devastation.

There is a power in the visual medium that "Before the Flood" taps into effectively.

Images of once thriving glacial regions now turned into expanses of water, the ashes of cleared and burned forests, and the teary-eyed inhabitants of climate-threatened regions all serve to evoke an emotional response. The documentary understands that to spur people into action, it must first make them feel.

The expeditionary approach adopted by the documentary also ensures a broad scope of understanding. It shows the correlation of environmental issues across the globe. It elucidates how our actions in one part of the world can have devastating effects in another, emphasizing the global nature of the crisis.

Personal Stories and Testimonies:

In a clever storytelling move, the film doesn't only rely on data and facts. It brings climate change to a human level by highlighting personal narratives, demonstrating how environmental issues directly impact communities. It shows the viewer that climate change isn't a distant problem but one that's causing suffering here and now.

These personal stories are impactful because they add a human face to the crisis. From a villager in India dealing with floods to a farmer in America experiencing unpredictable weather patterns, these narratives elicit empathy. They make the abstract threat of climate change concrete, thus underlining the need for action.

Moreover, these narratives serve as a powerful tool for raising environmental awareness. They help to break the inertia and apathy that often accompany discussions about climate change, by providing relatable and tangible stories. Through personal testimonials, "Before the Flood" manages to move beyond statistics and speak directly to the viewer's emotions.

Political Challenges and Policy Implications:

The movie doesn't shy away from the political landscape surrounding climate change. It navigates through intricate climate politics, exploring how political agendas can either hamper or promote climate action.

DiCaprio's conversations with world leaders bring a new dimension to the film, as they delve into the responsibility of the political class in combating the crisis.

The film also explores the influence of corporate lobbying on environmental policies. It highlights how short-term economic interests are often prioritized over the long-term wellbeing of the planet, causing a roadblock in the path towards a sustainable future. This critique of policy-making underscores the need for robust political will in addressing climate change.

Despite these challenges, "Before the Flood" also shines a light on policy opportunities for change. It champions the Paris Agreement and renewable energy subsidies as essential components of a climate-friendly policy landscape. The documentary aims to motivate viewers to demand more climate-conscious policies from their leaders.

Innovative Solutions and Technologies:

Amidst the bleak scenarios painted by the documentary, the film also highlights a beacon of hope: innovation. It showcases the potentials of green technology and renewable energy as viable solutions to the climate crisis. The film takes the audience on a journey from the wind turbines of Denmark to the solar fields of China, illustrating the world's capacity for transformation.

But the documentary doesn't just limit the conversation to the technology itself. It examines the economic and social implications of these solutions, scrutinizing their feasibility and scalability. It also underscores the significance of governmental support in fostering a favorable environment for these green alternatives.

"Before the Flood" also emphasizes that while technology offers a way forward, it's not a silver bullet. Technological innovations need to be complemented by broader systemic changes, such as policy adjustments, economic incentives, and cultural shifts towards sustainability. The documentary thus presents a balanced view of the role of technology in climate action.

The Role of Corporations and Accountability:

This film leaves no stone unturned when it comes to exploring the various dimensions of the climate crisis. It scrutinizes the role of corporations in environmental degradation, questioning the practices of industries like fossil fuels and palm oil. Furthermore, it effectively exposes the destructive behaviors of these corporations, igniting discussions about corporate responsibility.

The documentary doesn't merely critique corporations but highlights the need for transparency and accountability. It introduces the concept of carbon pricing as a mechanism to hold corporations accountable for their environmental footprints. It argues for a shift from profit-centered practices to sustainability-centered business models.

The documentary also emphasizes the power of consumers in driving corporate change. It encourages viewers to be conscious of their consumption patterns and the impacts they may have on the environment. The message is clear: corporations have a crucial role to play in environmental stewardship, but consumers also share this responsibility.

The Power of Awareness and Education:

One of the core themes in the film is the power of awareness and education. Throughout the film, DiCaprio acts as a conduit of information, facilitating the spread of knowledge about climate change. This role underscores the importance of awareness in catalyzing environmental action.

"Before the Flood" excels as an educational tool. It presents complex information about climate change in a digestible format, making it accessible to a broad audience. It incorporates scientific insights, expert testimonies, and striking visuals to enhance understanding and retention of the presented facts.

Moreover, the film exemplifies the role of public engagement in environmental action. It underscores the importance of collective understanding and dialogue in tackling climate change. It prompts viewers to question, learn, and discuss, fostering a community that's informed and engaged in the fight against climate change.

Activism and Grassroots Movements:

This documentary is not just about the problems; it's about the solutions too. It highlights the power of grassroots movements and activism in combating climate change. It showcases how individuals and communities worldwide are taking matters into their own hands, refusing to wait for governments and corporations to take action.

The film highlights instances of successful activism, like community-driven renewable energy projects and local conservation efforts. These stories serve as an inspiration, indicating that change is possible when people band together. It also dispels the notion that climate action is solely the responsibility of governments and corporations.

The film explores the environmental impact of individual lifestyle choices, from dietary habits to modes of transport. It urges viewers to reflect on their habits, prompting them to consider more sustainable alternatives.

It offers practical suggestions for reducing one's carbon footprint, such as adopting a plant-based diet or reducing air travel. It calls on viewers to assume personal responsibility for the health of the planet.

By drawing attention to the impact of personal choices, "Before the Flood" invites viewers to become active participants in the climate solution. It reminds us that while the climate crisis is a systemic issue requiring large-scale solutions, our everyday choices can also make a difference.

The message is clear: individual responsibility is a powerful tool in the fight against climate change.

Media Influence and Communication:

"Before the Flood" recognizes the influential role of the media in shaping public perception of climate change. It critiques the media's handling of the crisis, highlighting how false balance and misinformation can hinder public understanding and impede action.

The film itself serves as an effective example of the media's potential to enlighten audiences about environmental issues. It shows that media, when leveraged appropriately, can be an invaluable tool in the fight against climate change.

In essence, "Before the Flood" emphasizes the need for accurate and engaging environmental reporting. It makes a case for responsible journalism that prioritizes factual information over sensationalism and bias. It underlines the media's responsibility in fostering a well-informed and proactive public.

2020 was the hottest year in the global temperature record, going back 140 years. 2020 statistically tied with the previous record holder, 2016 - a year when El Niño, a cyclical climate pattern, gave temperatures an above average boost. pic.twitter.com/Ght03Sl2VQ

- NASA GISS (@NASAGISS) January 14, 2021

What are some global initiatives and movements that align with the message of "Before the Flood"?

"Before the Flood" aligns with initiatives such as the Paris Agreement, Fridays for Future, and Global Climate Strikes.

What are some of the environmental phenomena depicted in "Before the Flood"?

The film showcases environmental phenomena such as glacial retreats, deforestation, rising sea levels, and the impact on wildlife and ecosystems.

Are there any criticisms or controversies surrounding the film?

"Before the Flood" has faced some criticism and controversy, with some questioning its effectiveness, scientific accuracy, and potential political bias.

What steps can individuals take after watching "Before the Flood" to make a difference?

Individuals can take actions such as reducing energy consumption, supporting renewable energy initiatives, advocating for policy changes, and spreading awareness.

How has "Before the Flood" influenced viewers personally in their understanding and response to climate change?

The film has sparked personal reflections, motivated lifestyle changes, and inspired individuals to become more active in addressing climate change, both on individual and collective levels.

Conclusion:

"Before the Flood" is more than just a film; it's a wake-up call. It pulls no punches in portraying the dire state of our planet, but it also instills a sense of hope and urgency for action. Through Leonardo DiCaprio's journey, we witness the power of awareness, the importance of education, the potential of technology, and the strength of collective action.

The documentary serves as a stark reminder of the continued need for action and collaboration in addressing climate change. It calls for a concerted effort from governments, corporations, and individuals alike.

As we venture further into the era of climate crisis, this film remains a relevant and compelling guide, encouraging each one of us to play our part in ensuring a sustainable future for our planet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Before the Flood: An Environmental Awakening Movie Analysis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2016, I had the privilege of witnessing a documentary that left an indelible mark on my perspective of the world. "Before the Flood," a groundbreaking film produced by Fisher Stevens and featuring the passionate voice of Leonardo DiCaprio, fearlessly delved into the daunting realm of climate change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recovering gold, copper, and other metals from electronic waste isn't just sustainable, it's actually 13 times cheaper than extracting metals from mines, researchers report in the American Chemical Society's journal Environmental Science & Technology.

Researchers from Tsinghua University in Beijing and Macquarie University in Australia looked at data from eight recycling companies in China and calculated the cost for extracting metals from e-waste in a practice called urban mining. They note that a typical cathode-ray tube TV contains almost a pound of copper and more than half a pound of aluminum. It also contains 0.02 ounces of gold.

The recyclers' expenses, which were offset by government subsidies and revenue from selling the recovered materials and components, included costs for waste collection, labor, energy, material and transportation plus capital costs for equipment and buildings, according to American Chemical Society.

"The researchers conclude that with these offsets, it costs 13 times more to obtain these metals from ore than from urban mining," the ACS says.

Although the study was limited to copper and gold extracted and processed from e-waste streams made up of recycled TV sets, the researchers say their results indicate a trend and potential to be applied across a broader range of e-waste sources and extracted metals.

"If these results can be extended to other metals and countries, they promise to have positive impact on waste disposal and mining activities globally, as the circular economy comes to displace linear economic pathways," they wrote in the abstract.

Extracting metals from e-waste has long made financial and environmental sense to companies like Dell. Michael Murphy, vice president of global product compliance engineering and environmental affairs at Dell Technologies, told Environmental Leader that PCs are a complex product type, but value streams come out of them.

"One key is the extraction of precious metals," he said. "We've helped design for recyclability so our partners can get the materials that are of most value easily, and either get them back into our product or into other sectors."

Earlier this year, Dell collaborated with actress and activist Nikki Reed on a limited edition jewelry collection made in the United States using gold recovered from Dell's recycling programs. Since 2012, the company says it has turned more than 50 million pounds of post-consumer recycled materials into new products.
The 3rd Annual Environmental Leader & Energy Manager Conference takes place May 15 - 17, 2018 in Denver. Learn more here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Extracting Metals from E-Waste Costs 13 Times Less Than Mining Ore

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recovering gold, copper, and other metals from electronic waste isn't just sustainable, it's actually 13 times cheaper than extracting metals from mines, researchers report in the American Chemical Society's journal Environmental Science & Technology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
climate change could lower the quality of your coffee - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate change could lower the quality of your coffee

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ethiopia, a leading world coffee producer, could lose up to 60% of its suitable coffee farming land by the end of this century because of climate change, a study finds.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Water - Canada's Greatest Resource

With over 202,000 km of coastline along three oceans and 891,163 square kilometres of its total area covered by fresh water, Canada is a nation defined by its connection to water. Unfortunately, those waters are under threat from a growing environmental concern: microplastics.

Microplastics are small plastic particles now being found in Canadian waters at an alarming rate, the harmful effects of which are not yet fully understood by science. One form of microplastics known as microbeads are becoming a significant concern due to their miniscule size and growing abundance. Regularly found in our lakes, rivers and oceans, these microbeads are compromising the habitat and food sources of not only Canadian species, but also the precious water systems that supply our drinking water. The Government of Canada has taken an important first step by recently adding microbeads to the List of Toxic Substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act; however, there are still many other sources of microplastics polluting our waters. In fact, in a recent study researchers found microplastics in every sample that was taken near shore areas along both Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.

Sign the Petition Please take our Survey

Why should you care?

Do you live or vacation on or near a body of water? Do you enjoy recreational activities on or in the water? Do you eat fresh fish taken from Canadian waters? Do you like seeing wildlife like loons and otters frolicking in waters near the cottage? If so, your level enjoyment around the water could be adversely affected.

Microplastics such as microbeads have a big impact on our water. Microbeads can become coated in toxins which when digested are harmful to fish and aquatic wildlife. Once these toxins are introduced into our food chain the impact is potentially catastrophic. We don't yet know what the long time impacts are to wildlife - or to human life.
The Canadian Wildlife Federation has always found strength in its supporters
As a result, we need to hear from you. We are actively involved in research and education around this issue, but we want your take on the matter! Please take the time to complete the survey below. And add your name to the national petition calling for the Government of Canada to invest immediately in science and research to determine the impact of microplastic pollution of our waters and to address the other sources of microplastics that continue to pollute our lakes, rivers and oceans. We will take this petition to the Government when Parliament resumes.

Current CWF projects around the issue of microplastics include:

Partnering with McGill University on research to understand the impacts of microplastics on wildlife and habitat

Working with non-governmental and government agencies and organizations to develop a long-term national strategy for fish habitat conservation

Supporting the work of marine rescue organizations who respond when marine animals are in danger for a variety of reasons including being stranded on beaches or entangled in fishing gear or plastic waste

Educating youth through our Healthy Waters program about the impact of microplastics

Conducting shoreline assessment to determine water health through our Love Your Lake program

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With over 202,000 km of coastline along three oceans and 891,163 square kilometres of its total area covered by fresh water, Canada is a nation defined by its connection to water. Unfortunately, those waters are under threat from a growing environmental concern: microplastics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Water - Canada's Greatest Resource

With over 202,000 km of coastline along three oceans and 891,163 square kilometres of its total area covered by fresh water, Canada is a nation defined by its connection to water. Unfortunately, those waters are under threat from a growing environmental concern: microplastics.

Microplastics are small plastic particles now being found in Canadian waters at an alarming rate, the harmful effects of which are not yet fully understood by science. One form of microplastics known as microbeads are becoming a significant concern due to their miniscule size and growing abundance. Regularly found in our lakes, rivers and oceans, these microbeads are compromising the habitat and food sources of not only Canadian species, but also the precious water systems that supply our drinking water. The Government of Canada has taken an important first step by recently adding microbeads to the List of Toxic Substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act; however, there are still many other sources of microplastics polluting our waters. In fact, in a recent study researchers found microplastics in every sample that was taken near shore areas along both Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.

Sign the Petition Please take our Survey

Why should you care?

Do you live or vacation on or near a body of water? Do you enjoy recreational activities on or in the water? Do you eat fresh fish taken from Canadian waters? Do you like seeing wildlife like loons and otters frolicking in waters near the cottage? If so, your level enjoyment around the water could be adversely affected.

Microplastics such as microbeads have a big impact on our water. Microbeads can become coated in toxins which when digested are harmful to fish and aquatic wildlife. Once these toxins are introduced into our food chain the impact is potentially catastrophic. We don't yet know what the long time impacts are to wildlife - or to human life.
The Canadian Wildlife Federation has always found strength in its supporters
As a result, we need to hear from you. We are actively involved in research and education around this issue, but we want your take on the matter! Please take the time to complete the survey below. And add your name to the national petition calling for the Government of Canada to invest immediately in science and research to determine the impact of microplastic pollution of our waters and to address the other sources of microplastics that continue to pollute our lakes, rivers and oceans. We will take this petition to the Government when Parliament resumes.

Current CWF projects around the issue of microplastics include:

Partnering with McGill University on research to understand the impacts of microplastics on wildlife and habitat

Working with non-governmental and government agencies and organizations to develop a long-term national strategy for fish habitat conservation

Supporting the work of marine rescue organizations who respond when marine animals are in danger for a variety of reasons including being stranded on beaches or entangled in fishing gear or plastic waste

Educating youth through our Healthy Waters program about the impact of microplastics

Conducting shoreline assessment to determine water health through our Love Your Lake program

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With over 202,000 km of coastline along three oceans and 891,163 square kilometres of its total area covered by fresh water, Canada is a nation defined by its connection to water. Unfortunately, those waters are under threat from a growing environmental concern: microplastics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastic is the most prevalent type of marine debris found in our ocean and Great Lakes. Plastic debris can come in all shapes and sizes, but those that are less than five millimeters in length (or about the size of a sesame seed) are called "microplastics."

As an emerging field of study, not a lot is known about microplastics and their impacts yet. The NOAA Marine Debris Program is leading efforts within NOAA to research this topic. Standardized field methods for collecting sediment, sand, and surface-water microplastic samples have been developed and continue to undergo testing. Eventually, field and laboratory protocols will allow for global comparisons of the amount of microplastics released into the environment, which is the first step in determining the final distribution, impacts, and fate of this debris.

Microplastics come from a variety of sources, including from larger plastic debris that degrades into smaller and smaller pieces. In addition, microbeads, a type of microplastic, are very tiny pieces of manufactured polyethylene plastic that are added as exfoliants to health and beauty products, such as some cleansers and toothpastes. These tiny particles easily pass through water filtration systems and end up in the ocean and Great Lakes, posing a potential threat to aquatic life.

Microbeads are not a recent problem. According to the United Nations Environment Programme, plastic microbeads first appeared in personal care products about fifty years ago, with plastics increasingly replacing natural ingredients. As recently as 2012, this issue was still relatively unknown, with an abundance of products containing plastic microbeads on the market and not a lot of awareness on the part of consumers.

On December 28, 2015, President Obama signed the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, banning plastic microbeads in cosmetics and personal care products.

Video Transcript

Plastic is everywhere. A lot of it ends up in the ocean. Most plastics in the ocean break up into very small particles. These small plastic bits are called "microplastics." Other plastics are intentionally designed to be small. They're called microbeads and are used in many health and beauty products. They pass unchanged through waterways into the ocean. Aquatic life and birds can mistake microplastics for food. Research is being conducted. But there's still much we don't know. In 2015, the U.S. banned the use of microbeads. But microplastics are still a huge problem. You can help keep plastic out of the ocean. Remember: Reduce. Reuse. Recycle.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Microplastics are small plastic pieces less than five millimeters long which can be harmful to our ocean and aquatic life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A world-first study by Australian researchers has found that krill can digest certain forms of microplastic into smaller - but no less pervasive - fragments.

The study, published in Nature Communications journal on Friday, found that Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba, can break down 31.5 micron polyethylene balls into fragments less than one micron in diameter.

The study was conducted in laboratory conditions with new plastics. The lead researcher, Dr Amanda Dawson, who completed the study as part of a PhD with Griffith University, said that it was likely that microplastics in the ocean would be even easier to digest because they had already been degraded by UV radiation.

Within five days in a plastic-free environment, all plastics had left the krills' systems, meaning that microplastics from krill would not accumulate in animals further up the food chain, such as whales.

The digested fragments were on average 78% smaller than the original fragments, with some up to 94% smaller.

Unfortunately, Dawson said, krill were unlikely to provide a solution to the levels of plastics and microplastics polluting the oceans.

"It's not necessarily helping plastic pollution, it's just changing it to make it easier for small animals to eat it," she said. "It could be a new source of plastics for the deep ocean."

A study by Newcastle University in December found microplastics in the stomachs of deep-sea creatures from 11km deep trenches in the Pacific Ocean.

Dawson said microplastics that had been digested by krill were also too small to be detected in most oceanic plastic surveys, meaning the level of microplastics in the ocean could be higher than currently assumed.

Co-author Dr So Kawaguchi, a krill biologist from the Australian Antarctic Division, where the experiments were conducted, said the krill had effectively turned microplastics into nanoplastics.

"It's a new pathway for microplastics to interact with the ecosystem, and we need to learn more about how microplastics interact with the environment," Kawaguchi said.

Microplastics are fragments of less than 5mm in diameter. Krill cannot consume anything greater than 2mm in diameter.

"They are not going to be able to eat a drink bottle," Dawson said.

The plastics they do consume are broken up by the animal's gastric mill, which Dawson said functioned like a mortar and pestle.

"I would assume that other planktonic crustaceans should be able to do this as well, we just haven't seen it yet in any laboratory studies," she said.

It's not clear whether fibrous microplastics, such as fishing line or threads from clothing, can be digested in the same manner. Fibrous microplastics made up a greater proportion of the microplastics encountered by krill in the wild, Dawson said.

A global analysis conducted by US academics last year found that plastic waste was so high as to threaten a "a near permanent contamination of the natural environment".
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Krill found to break down microplastics - but it won't save the oceans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A world-first study by Australian researchers has found that krill can digest certain forms of microplastic into smaller - but no less pervasive - fragments. The study, published in Nature Communications journal on Friday, found that Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba, can break down 31.5 micron polyethylene balls into fragments less than one micron in diameter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why is bottled water a concern? Here are just a few reasons... Making bottles to meet America's demand for bottled water uses more than 17 million barrels

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why is bottled water a concern? Here are just a few reasons... Making bottles to meet America's demand for bottled water uses more than 17 million barrels

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A million plastic bottles are bought around the world every minute and the number will jump another 20% by 2021, creating an environmental crisis some campaigners predict will be as serious as climate change.

New figures obtained by the Guardian reveal the surge in usage of plastic bottles, more than half a trillion of which will be sold annually by the end of the decade.

The demand, equivalent to about 20,000 bottles being bought every second, is driven by an apparently insatiable desire for bottled water and the spread of a western, urbanised "on the go" culture to China and the Asia Pacific region.

More than 480bn plastic drinking bottles were sold in 2016 across the world, up from about 300bn a decade ago. If placed end to end, they would extend more than halfway to the sun. By 2021 this will increase to 583.3bn, according to the most up-to-date estimates from Euromonitor International's global packaging trends report.

Most plastic bottles used for soft drinks and water are made from polyethylene terephthalate (Pet), which is highly recyclable. But as their use soars across the globe, efforts to collect and recycle the bottles to keep them from polluting the oceans, are failing to keep up.

Fewer than half of the bottles bought in 2016 were collected for recycling and just 7% of those collected were turned into new bottles. Instead most plastic bottles produced end up in landfill or in the ocean.

Between 5m and 13m tonnes of plastic leaks into the world's oceans each year to be ingested by sea birds, fish and other organisms, and by 2050 the ocean will contain more plastic by weight than fish, according to research by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

Experts warn that some of it is already finding its way into the human food chain.

Scientists at Ghent University in Belgium recently calculated people who eat seafood ingest up to 11,000 tiny pieces of plastic every year. Last August, the results of a study by Plymouth University reported plastic was found in a third of UK-caught fish, including cod, haddock, mackerel and shellfish. Last year, the European Food Safety Authority called for urgent research, citing increasing concern for human health and food safety "given the potential for microplastic pollution in edible tissues of commercial fish".

Dame Ellen MacArthur, the round the world yachtswoman, now campaigns to promote a circular economy in which plastic bottles are reused, refilled and recycled rather than used once and thrown away.

"Shifting to a real circular economy for plastics is a massive opportunity to close the loop, save billions of dollars, and decouple plastics production from fossil fuel consumption," she said.

Hugo Tagholm, of the marine conservation and campaigning group Surfers Against Sewage, said the figures were devastating. "The plastic pollution crisis rivals the threat of climate change as it pollutes every natural system and an increasing number of organisms on planet Earth.

"Current science shows that plastics cannot be usefully assimilated into the food chain. Where they are ingested they carry toxins that work their way on to our dinner plates." Surfers Against Sewage are campaigning for a refundable deposit scheme to be introduced in the UK as a way of encouraging reuse.

Tagholm added: "Whilst the production of throwaway plastics has grown dramatically over the last 20 years, the systems to contain, control, reuse and recycle them just haven't kept pace."

In the UK 38.5m plastic bottles are used every day - only just over half make it to recycling, while more than 16m are put into landfill, burnt or leak into the environment and oceans each day.

"Plastic production is set to double in the next 20 years and quadruple by 2050 so the time to act is now," said Tagholm.

There has been growing concern about the impact of plastics pollution in oceans around the world. Last month scientists found nearly 18 tonnes of plastic on one of the world's most remote islands, an uninhabited coral atoll in the South Pacific.

Another study of remote Arctic beaches found they were also heavily polluted with plastic, despite small local populations. And earlier this week scientists warned that plastic bottles and other packaging are overrunning some of the UK's most beautiful beaches and remote coastline, endangering wildlife from basking sharks to puffins.

The majority of plastic bottles used across the globe are for drinking water, , according to Rosemary Downey, head of packaging at Euromonitor and one of the world's experts in plastic bottle production.

China is responsible for most of the increase in demand. The Chinese public's consumption of bottled water accounted for nearly a quarter of global demand, she said.

"It is a critical country to understand when examining global sales of plastic Pet bottles, and China's requirement for plastic bottles continues to expand," said Downey.

In 2015, consumers in China purchased 68.4bn bottles of water and in 2016 this increased to 73.8bn bottles, up 5.4bn.

A worker sorts plastic bottles at a recycling centre on the outskirts of Wuhan, Hubei province, China. Photograph: Jie Zhao/Corbis/Getty Images

"This increase is being driven by increased urbanisation," said Downey. "There is a desire for healthy living and there are ongoing concerns about groundwater contamination and the quality of tap water, which all contribute to the increase in bottle water use," she said. India and Indonesia are also witnessing strong growth.

Plastic bottles are a big part of the huge surge in usage of a material first popularised in the 1940s. Most of the plastic produced since then still exists; the petrochemical-based compound takes hundreds of years to decompose.

Major drinks brands produce the greatest numbers of plastic bottles. Coca-Cola produces more than 100bn throwaway plastic bottles every year - or 3,400 a second, according to analysis carried out by Greenpeace after the company refused to publicly disclose its global plastic usage. The top six drinks companies in the world use a combined average of just 6.6% of recycled Pet in their products, according to Greenpeace. A third have no targets to increase their use of recycled plastic and none are aiming to use 100% across their global production.

Plastic drinking bottles could be made out of 100% recycled plastic, known as RPet - and campaigners are pressing big drinks companies to radically increase the amount of recycled plastic in their bottles. But brands are hostile to using RPet for cosmetic reasons because they want their products in shiny, clear plastic, according to Steve Morgan, of Recoup in the UK.

You'll find them on the beaches, too. Photograph: Barbara Walton/EPA

In evidence to a House of Commons committee, the British Plastics Federation (BPF), a plastics trade body, admitted that making bottles out of 100% recycled plastic used 75% less energy than creating virgin plastic bottles. But the BPF said that brands should not be forced to increase the recycled content of bottles. "The recycled content ... can be up to 100%, however this is a decision made by brands based on a variety of factors," said Philip Law, director general of the BPF.

The industry is also resisting any taxes or charges to reduce demand for single-use plastic bottles - like the 5p charge on plastic bags that is credited with reducing plastic bag use by 80%.

Dame Ellen MacArthur, sailor and long-distance yachtswoman. Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian

Coca Cola said it was still considering requests from Greenpeace to publish its global plastics usage. A spokeswoman said: "Globally, we continue to increase the use of recycled plastic in countries where it is feasible and permitted. We continue to increase the use of RPet in markets where it is feasible and approved for regulatory food-grade use - 44 countries of the more than 200 we operate in."

She agreed plastic bottles could be made out of 100 percent recycled plastic but there was nowhere near enough high quality food grade plastic available on the scale that was needed to increase the quantity of rPET to that level.

"So if we are to increase the amount of recycled plastic in our bottles even further then a new approach is needed to create a circular economy for plastic bottles," she said.

Greenpeace said the big six drinks companies had to do more to increase the recycled content of their plastic bottles. "During Greenpeace's recent expedition exploring plastic pollution on remote Scottish coastlines, we found plastic bottles nearly everywhere we went," said Louisa Casson, oceans campaigner for Greenpeace.

"It's clear that the soft drinks industry needs to reduce its plastic footprint."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A million bottles a minute: world's plastic binge 'as dangerous as climate change'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A million plastic bottles are bought around the world every minute and the number will jump another 20% by 2021, creating an environmental crisis some campaigners predict will be as serious as climate change. New figures obtained by the Guardian reveal the surge in usage of plastic bottles, more than half a trillion of which will be sold annually by the end of the decade.

# data[].attributes.body
Pipelines

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A representative of TransCanada Corp., which owns the pipeline, says the leak spilled 9,700 barrels of oil into South Dakota farmland

smithsonian.com

In November of last year, a leak in the Keystone pipeline seeped oil into a remote stretch of farmland in Marshall County, South Dakota. Now, Shannon Marvel of Aberdeen News is reporting that the leak was nearly twice as big as reports stated at the time of the incident.

TransCanada Corp., which owns the pipeline, initially estimated that 5,000 barrels-or about 210,000 gallons-had spilled in the leak. But Robynn Tysver, a spokeswoman for the company, now tells Marvel that the number was closer to 9,700 barrels, or 407,400 gallons. The new estimate makes the Marshall County Keystone leak the seventh-largest onshore oil or petroleum spill since 2010, as reported to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

According to , the Keystone pipeline transports 590,000 barrels of oil every day from fields in Alberta, Canada to refineries in the United States. A preliminary report suggests that the November leak may have been caused by damage to the pipeline that occurred during construction in 2008, Marvel reports.

In the wake of the incident, TransCanda shut down the pipeline, but was able to resume operations less than two weeks later.

"The remediation work on the property has been completed," Tysver tells Marvel. "We have replaced the last of the topsoil and have seeded the impacted area."

The spill occurred just days before Nebraska's Public Service Commission was due to decide whether it would grant the final permit needed to begin construction on a sister pipeline, the controversial Keystone XL. Though supporters of the pipeline said that the project would bolster job development in the United States, opponents worried that a spill would threaten groundwater and agricultural land. The Marshall County leak seemed to vindicate these concerns.

"We've always said it's not a question of whether a pipeline will spill, but when, and today TransCanada is making our case for us," Kelly Martin of the Sierra Club, an environmental organization, said in a statement, as Mitch Smith and Julie Bosman of the New York Times reported at the time. "This is not the first time TransCanada's pipeline has spilled toxic tar sands, and it won't be the last."

Nebraska regulators ultimately voted to approve a route for the pipeline through their state.

According to Lorraine Chow of , the original Keystone pipeline has leaked "a significant amount of oil three times in less than seven years." Documents reviewed by Reuters reportedly reveal that the amount and frequency of these leaks are substantially higher than what TransCanada indicated to regulators in risk assessments.

Like this article?
SIGN UP for our newsletter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Keystone Pipeline Leak Was Twice as Big as Previously Thought

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
smithsonian.com In November of last year, a leak in the Keystone pipeline seeped oil into a remote stretch of farmland in Marshall County, South Dakota. Now, Shannon Marvel of Aberdeen News is reporting that the leak was nearly twice as big as reports stated at the time of the incident.

# data[].attributes.body
From Story of Stuff

# data[].attributes.body
Cotton Industry

# data[].attributes.body
7 Billion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With the worldwide population expected to exceed seven billion in 2011, National Geographic magazine offers a 7-part series examining specific challenges and solutions to the issues we face. The magazine introduces the series with its January cover story "7 Billion," offering a broad overview of demographic trends that got us to today and will impact us all tomorrow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Canadian Indigenous girl makes safe water plea to UN in New York | CBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wikwemikong First Nation representative Autumn Peltier spoke to General Assembly

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Reduce, Reuse and Rethink is a CBC News series about recycling. We're looking at why our communities are at a turning point and exploring ways to recycle better. You can be part of the conversation by joining our Facebook group.

Canadians are throwing too much garbage into their blue bins, sometimes out of laziness or ignorance, but sometimes with the best of intentions. And it's costing recycling programs millions of dollars a year.

Even a few spoonfuls of peanut butter left in a jar can contaminate a tonne of paper and make it unmarketable - destined for the dump. Same for that glob of yogurt left in the bottom of the container.

"It's shameful, it's awful. In some instances almost one in three pounds of what goes in a blue box shouldn't be there," says Mark Badger, executive vice-president of Canada Fibers, which runs 12 plants that sort about 60 per cent of the curbside recycling collected in Ontario.

Contamination is the technical name for non-recyclable material or garbage in the recycling system, from leftover food in containers to non-recyclable plastic packaging to more obvious garbage such as clothing and propane tanks.

Many cities are struggling to clean up their recycling and lower their contamination rates, but the potential solutions also have high costs and trade-offs. In the cities with the dirtiest recycling, Toronto and Edmonton, contamination rates can be upwards of 25 per cent.

Badger has seen everything, including many items that are hazardous to plant employees.

"Things like blood bags," he said. "Things like IV tubing. Things like needles and sharps. Things like dead animals. Things like bullets. Things like bear spray."

It's expensive to process contamination as recycling, only to end up sending it to the dump as garbage.

"You basically pay twice to manage garbage," says Jim McKay, general manager of solid waste management for the City of Toronto.

As it moves through the system, contamination can damage other materials, especially in cities such as Toronto where everything goes in the same bin. That can turn tonnes of other perfectly good recyclables into garbage or at least lower their value and make them more difficult to sell to offset the cost of recycling programs.

McKay estimates that each percentage point decrease in contamination could lower recycling costs in Toronto by $600,000 to $1 million a year, "and that correlates right back into the rates that we charge for waste collection."

And under the city's contract with Canada Fibers, if the city's average contamination rate reaches 27 per cent, it will get hit with an extra $5 million charge.

Different contaminants, different problems

Contamination has recently become a much bigger issue because China, the world's biggest importer of recyclable material, started banning imports of paper with more than 0.5 per cent contamination - a standard that North American cities are struggling to meet.

"Something as simple as a piece of paper with a coffee stain on it - that piece of paper a year ago would have been recyclable," says McKay. "Today that's actually garbage."

Medical waste, such as blood bags and used syringes, or dead animals are also expensive problems because workers need to temporarily shut down the plant and sanitize everything when that comes through.

But a lot of contamination is less obvious.

At a transfer station in Toronto's west end, cardboard, plastic bags and other blue bin waste is temporarily piled into multi-storey mounds so it can be loaded into bigger trucks before heading to the local sorting plant.

McKay uses a big garden rake to snag items out of the pile that he deems non-recyclable, including a bag that once contained dog treats and a black plastic coffee cup lid bearing the recycling symbol.

"It looks like recycling, feels like recycling, it's actually marked as recycling," he says "It's not."

At least, not in Toronto. The technology at the local Canada Fibers plant can't identify and sort black plastic.

It's a growing problem as our food and other products are increasingly stuffed and wrapped in confusing new types of packaging.

Clean on the coasts

St. John's and Vancouver have contamination rates of just three and 4.6 per cent respectively. That keeps costs down and makes it easier to sell their recyclables for a higher price. St. John's is able to sell almost all its recyclables, including paper, within Canada, says Ian Froude, the municipal councillor who handles public works.

Those cities keep it clean partly by either not accepting or requiring special handling of common contaminants:

Glass and styrofoam, which break into shards or pieces that contaminate paper and plastic when they get embedded.

Plastic bags, which often contain food residue when put out for curbside recycling.

Froude said St. John's decided not to accept those materials after consulting with other cities on the design of its recycling program seven years ago and hearing how hard it was to market contaminated material.

"If it's not purchased by somebody, it's got to eventually go to the landfill, so you're wasting your time," he said.

In Vancouver, glass goes in a separate bin, and plastic bags and styrofoam must be returned to a depot.

Both cities also require their residents to separate paper, cardboard and containers in their curbside recycling, unlike Edmonton and Toronto, where everything typically goes in one bin or bag.

Allen Langdon, managing director of Recycle BC, which runs recycling programs province-wide, says "single-stream" programs that don't require residents to sort recyclables always have the highest contamination.

With the new international standards brought in by China's crackdown on contamination, Langdon says, "One of the things this is going to force is [for] people to look at their programs again and determine whether they can meet the standard that markets are demanding while still using single-stream collection."

The cost of cleaner recycling

Edmonton is reviewing its recycling program.

Michael Robertson, the materials recovery facility contract manager for the City of Edmonton, says when the city opted for a single-stream program two decades ago, its philosophy was to keep recycling as simple as possible.

St. John's illustrates the trade-off - its contamination rate may be low, but only about 60 per cent of households participate, apartment dwellers have to make a request in order to participate at all, and about 35 per cent of households still put five bags of garbage out on the curb every week.

But Edmonton is considering several options, including requiring residents to sort their recyclables, changing the items it accepts and upgrading its plant with technology to better sort out contamination.

In the meantime, both Toronto and Edmonton are taking other measures, including slowing the belts at their recycling sorting facilities to sort material more effectively and targeting residents with education campaigns. Toronto is hitting residents with audits and has considered fining violators.

They say residents can help reduce contamination by:

Emptying and rinsing containers.

Making sure garbage bags go in the garbage.

Use their city's online app (Waste Wizard in Toronto and WasteWise in Edmonton - there are equivalents in other cities) if they're not sure whether an item is recyclable.

"If everybody took the initiative to make that effort and educate themselves in each individual instance where they were uncertain, it would definitely improve the quality of the product we're seeing here," Robertson says.

In the meantime, he says, if you're not sure whether something is recyclable and don't have time to do the research, it's better to put it in your recycling bin and risk a little contamination.

"We would rather have it come here so we can determine if it's recyclable," he says, "than erring the other way and losing the opportunity to recycle that material."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Many Canadians are recycling wrong, and it's costing us millions | CBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Reduce, Reuse and Rethink is a CBC News series about recycling. We're looking at why our communities are at a turning point and exploring ways to recycle better. You can be part of the conversation by joining our Facebook group.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Could Canada lead the way in fighting plastics pollution?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SumOfUs is a global movement of consumers, investors, and workers all around the world, standing together to hold corporations accountable for their actions and forge a new, sustainable and just path for our global economy. It's not going to be fast or easy. But if enough of us come together, we can make a real difference.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The life cycle of a t-shirt - Angel Chang

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'The most disgusting thing I've seen in the water'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The giant build-up of plastic bottles, cutlery and polystyrene plates was captured by underwater photographer Caroline Power.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'The most disgusting thing I've seen in the water'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The giant build-up of plastic bottles, cutlery and polystyrene plates was captured by underwater photographer Caroline Power.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A craft beer company has brewed up a brilliant idea.

Saltwater Brewery in Delray Beach, Florida, has created edible six-pack rings that feed, rather than kill, marine life if the rings end up in the ocean and an animal happens to eat it. The rings are created from beer by-products during the brewing process such as barley and wheat and are completely safe for humans and fish to eat.

Courtesy of We Believers

The rings are also 100 percent biodegradable and compostable, which just ups the product's sustainability game.

The brand says that the innovative design is as resistant and efficient as plastic packaging. The only drawback is that edible six-pack rings are more expensive to produce. But the company hopes that customers will be willing to pay a little more in order to help the environment and animal life.

Courtesy of We Believers

"It's a big investment for a small brewery created by fisherman, surfers and people that love the sea," Peter Agardy, head of brand at Saltwater Brewery, said in the below video.

The brand also believes that if more breweries hop on this bandwagon, prices may go down. If more companies invested in the technology, production cost would go down and edible rings would become competitive with plastic ones, saving marine lives -- which is desperately needed.

Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

According to a report published in the journal PNAS, researchers have found that about 90 percent of seabirds have eaten plastic and are likely to retain some in their gut. They also are "virtually certain" that by 2050, any seabird found dead will have plastic in their stomach.

The Ocean Conservancy's 2015 Ocean Trash Index - which enlisted 561,895 volunteers to pick up 16,186,759 pounds of garbage - also offers a few staggering facts. It cites plastic as among the most common trash item ingested by sea turtles in 2015. Volunteers found 57 marine mammals, 440 fish and 22 sharks, skates and sting rays entangled in plastic. The index also explains that littering isn't the sole culprit for plastic in the ocean. Plastic can also be blown by the wind from a trashcan or dump, end up in a storm drain and then travel through pipes into the ocean.

Facts like these makes a concept like edible six-pack rings seem vital.

"We hope to influence the big guys," Chris Goves, Saltwater Brewery's president, said. "And hopefully inspire them to get on board,"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Edible Rings On Six-Packs Feed Marine Life If They End Up In The Ocean

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A craft beer company has brewed up a brilliant idea. Saltwater Brewery in Delray Beach, Florida, has created edible six-pack rings that feed, rather than kill, marine life if the rings end up in the ocean and an animal happens to eat it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Environmental Impact of the Cotton T-Shirt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Albatrosses are ingesting plastic - Blue Planet II: Episode 7 Preview - BBC One

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastics are everywhere. While you're reading this article, there are probably numerous plastic items within your reach (your computer, your pen, your phone). A plastic is any material that can be shaped or molded into any form -- some are naturally occurring, but most are man-made.

Plastics are made from oil. Oil is a carbon-rich raw material, and plastics are large carbon-containing compounds. They're large molecules called polymers, which are composed of repeating units of shorter carbon-containing compounds called monomers. Chemists combine various types of monomers in many different arrangements to make an almost infinite variety of plastics with different chemical properties. Most plastic is chemically inert and will not react chemically with other substances -- you can store alcohol, soap, water, acid or gasoline in a plastic container without dissolving the container itself. Plastic can be molded into an almost infinite variety of shapes, so you can find it in toys, cups, bottles, utensils, wiring, cars, even in bubble gum. Plastics have revolutionized the world.

Advertisement

Because plastic doesn't react chemically with most other substances, it doesn't decay. Therefore, plastic disposal poses a difficult and significant environmental problem. Plastic hangs around in the environment for centuries, so recycling is the best method of disposal. However, new technologies are being developed to make plastic from biological substances like corn oil. These types of plastics would be biodegradable and better for the environment.

In this article, we'll examine the chemistry of plastic, how it's made, how it's used, and how it's disposed of and recycled. We'll also look at some new biologically based plastics and their role in the future of plastic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastics are everywhere. While you're reading this article, there are probably numerous plastic items within your reach (your computer, your pen, your phone). A plastic is any material that can be shaped or molded into any form -- some are naturally occurring, but most are man-made. Plastics are made from oil.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Earth is losing plants, animals and clean water at a dramatic rate, according to four new United Nations scientific reports on biodiversity.

Scientists meeting in Colombia issued four regional reports Friday on how well animal and plants are doing in the Americas; Europe and Central Asia; Africa; and the Asia-Pacific area.

Their conclusion after three years of study: Nowhere is doing well.

The reports project that, if current trends continue:

By the year 2050 the Americas will have 15 percent fewer plants and animals than now.

In Asia, there will be no fish stocks for commercial fishing by 2048.

More than a quarter of the species that live only in Europe are threatened now.

Africa could lose half of some bird and mammal species by 2100.

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem was about more than just critters, said study team chairman Robert Watson. It is about keeping Earth livable for humans, because we rely on biodiversity for food, clean water and public health, the prominent British and U.S. scientist said.

"This is undermining well-being across the planet, threatening us long-term on food and water," Watson said in an interview.

Scientists pointed to this week's death of the last male northern white rhino in Africa, severe declines in the numbers of elephants, tigers and pangolins, but said those are only the most visible and charismatic of species that are in trouble.

What's happening is a side effect of the world getting wealthier and more crowded with people, Watson said. Humans need more food, more clean water, more energy and more land. And the way society has tried to achieve that has cut down on biodiversity, he said.

Crucial habitat has been cut apart, alien species have invaded places, chemicals have hurt plants and animals, wetlands and mangroves that clean up pollution are disappearing, and the world's waters are overfished, he said.

Man-made climate change is getting worse, and global warming will soon hurt biodiversity as much as all the other problems combined, Watson said.

"We keep making choices to borrow from the future to live well today," said Jake Rice, Canada's chief government scientist for fisheries and oceans, who co-chaired the Americas report.

Duke University conservationist Stuart Pimm, who wasn't part of the study team, said the reports make sense and are based on well-established scientific data: "Are things pretty dire? Yes."

Among the regional findings:

The Americas

If current trends continue, by the year 2050 the Americas will have 15 percent fewer plants and animals than now. That means there will be 40 percent fewer plants and animals in the Americas than in the early 1700s.

Nearly a quarter of the species that were fully measured are now threatened, Rice said.

And when all of "nature's contributions" are taken into account, nearly two-thirds are declining and more than one-fifth are "decreasing strongly," Rice said.

Asia-Pacific

If trends continue, there will be no "exploitable fish stocks" for commercial fishing by 2048. Around that same, the region will lose 45 per cent of its biodiversity and about 90 per cent of its crucial corals, if nothing changes, said Asia co-chair Sonali Seneratna Sellamuttu, a senior researcher at the International Water Management Institute.

"All major ecosystems are threatened in the region," she said.

Europe and Central Asia

Even though it is the region that Watson said may be doing the best, 28 percent of the species that only live in Europe are now threatened. In the last decade, 42 percent of the land plant and animal species have declined, said Europe co-chair Mark Rounsevell of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany.

Wetlands have been cut in half since 1970.

Africa

Africa could lose half of some bird and mammal species by 2100. And more than 60 percent of the continent's people depend on natural resources for their livelihoods, said report co-chair Luthando Dziba of South African National Parks.

Already more than 20 percent of Africa's species are threatened, endangered or extinct.

While scientists said government and society needs to change its ways, individuals can use less energy, less water and eat less red meat, Watson said.

"A balanced diet can really help," he said. There are "lots of individual things you can do."

The outlook is bleak if society doesn't change, but it still can, Watson said.

"Some species are threatened with extinctions. Others, just pure numbers will go down," Watson said. "It will be a lonelier place relative to our natural world. It's a moral issue. Do we humans have right to make them go extinct."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Asia could run out of fish by 2048, UN reports | CBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Asia, there will be no fish stocks for commercial fishing by 2048 if trends continue. That's one of the projections made by four new United Nations scientific reports on biodiversity that showed the Earth is losing plants, animals and clean water at a dramatic rate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Devastating. Rich Horner was diving off the coast of Bali at Manta Point when he came across this nightmare. Here's what he had to say about it: "The ocean currents brought us in a lovely gift of...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Humans Have Created Enough Plastic To Cover The Eight Largest Country In The World | Well this is upsetting.

via All That's Interesting | By George Takei’s Oh Myyy! | Facebook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
13M views, 3.3K likes, 103 loves, 1.6K comments, 177K shares, Facebook Watch Videos from George Takei’s Oh Myyy!: Well this is upsetting.

via All That's Interesting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Receding sea ice means polar bears in the Beaufort Sea struggle to capture enough food and go hungry - right when they should be fattening up for the summer.

A newly released study examines the foraging habits and feeding requirements of the Arctic's greatest predator, which are difficult to study.

"High-energy, high-fat lifestyle challenges an Arctic apex predator, the polar bear" was published Thursday in the Feb. 2 issue of the journal Science.

"Basically, [the] bears are having less opportunities to catch seals and they're exhibiting greater movement patterns than they had historically, and that's influencing their survival rates and their reproductive success," said Anthony Pagano, the study's lead author and a research wildlife biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey based in Anchorage, Alaska.

The movement of nine bears was tracked by human observation and GPS tracking collars as they hunted for food across hundreds of kilometres of Beaufort Sea ice offshore Prudhoe Bay, Alaska.

The study was carried out over eight to 11 days each April in 2014, 2015 and 2016, and included blood chemistry analysis to determine the basic metabolic needs of the polar bears.

"One of the reasons we started this research is because there just is not much known about the basic behaviours of these animals," Pagano said.

"This study really helps to better understand some of their basic biology, so we can come to understand how changing ice conditions might be influencing their energy demands."

Pagano said much of the foundational work in understanding the basic foraging habits and behaviour of polar bears is based on work done about 40 years ago.

Basically, this is the first time the biology, movement, foraging habits, hunting success and feeding demands of a group of Beaufort Sea polar bears has been studied this intensely.

Researchers discovered the polar bears have a higher metabolic rate than previously assumed - up to 1.6 times higher - meaning the animals require up to 1.6 times the food energy than previously understood, just to maintain body weight.

The higher metabolic rate, coupled with the fact that the bears studied now travel hundreds of kilometres further to hunt as sea ice recedes, means the bears are burning even more energy to catch fewer "energetically dense" ring seals.

"With the data from this study we can start to quantify what that means for the energy expenditure and how many seals they need to be catching."

The report estimates that a solitary female polar bear on spring ice would "need to eat one adult ringed seal, three subadult ringed seals or 19 newborn ringed seals every 10 to 12 days."

An adult ring seal can weigh up to 70 kilograms, according to the website sealingnunavut.ca.

Pagano said the working assumption is that as the ice recedes and the bears move further North following receding ice, they will move over deep water that is less conducive to seal hunting.

Of the nine bears observed, four were successful hunters. Five were not.

"Some bears were able to catch seals and put on a lot of mass and fat," Pagano said. "These [other] bears that were scavenging or fasting ... were losing quite a bit of mass."

Pagano said unsuccessful hunters lost about 10 per cent of their body mass - 18 to 20 kilograms - over an eight to 10 day period during the study.

"It really highlights the reliance these bears have on catching seals, and the reliance they have on their fat stores when they're not able to catch seals.

"The basic concern is polar bears put on a majority of their body fat in the late spring and early summer when they're concentrating on recently weaned seal pups," Pagano said.

Receding sea ice only threatens to compound the problem as polar bears move northward over deeper water that's less conducive to hunting seal.

Regional results may vary

Pagano said it would be hard to say how widely these results might apply across the Beaufort Sea.

"How activity patterns and forging success rates might vary between regions and times of year is hard to speculate."

Other researchers have shown declining polar bear populations across the Beaufort Sea region, but this study wasn't meant to address questions of overall polar bear decline in the North.

"For this study we're not looking at trends," Pagano said.

"There's no information here or documentation of how our results may relate to historical patterns simply because there isn't any information, as far as we're aware, of what the activity levels were of these bears historically."

But the report does conclude with one seemingly inescapable conclusion for polar bears facing the same situation as those studied.

[The sea ice] used to be solid frozen all year long but it's not like that anymore. It keeps opening up, the ice breaks up and piles up. - Robert Kuptana

"These increases in movement rates and potential loss of opportunities to catch seals is going to result in a energetic imbalance for these animals, and ultimately influence their ability to provide for their cubs ... reduce cub survival and ultimately lead to population decline," Pagano said.

Inuit experience

Nobody has more history and experience with polar bears in the Beaufort Sea than the North's Indigenous people.

The study wasn't meant to address historical or traditional Indigenous knowledge, but the conclusion doesn't come as a surprise to Robert Kuptana, an Inuit elder in the region.

Kuptana, 75, was born in an Igloo almost 100 kilometres north of Ulukhaktok, N.W.T., on the eastern shores of the Beaufort Sea on Victoria Island.

He has been hunting polar bears as part his community's subsistence hunting lifestyle since he was 13, and considers 1964 as his best hunting year ever because that's when he killed 16 polar bears.

The sea ice is "not like it used to be," he said, adding he's observed fewer polar bears in the region and has to travel further to find them.

"Polar bears, they follow where the animals are, such as seals," he said. "They also go further north probably because of a depletion of ice."

"[The sea ice] used to be solid frozen all year long but it's not like that anymore. It keeps opening up, the ice breaks up and piles up."

He says it's become difficult to hunt for bears, and when hunters do make it out they see fewer bears while travelling further to try and find them.

"Now and then we go [to] Wynniatt Bay. There it seems like more polar bears have their young ones there where there is more solid ice."

Wynniatt Bay is on the north end of Victoria Island, over 300 kilometres from Ulukhaktok.

Kuptana said the polar bears he sees today look as healthy as ever, although he does see fewer of them.

But he adds that his people have always travelled far to hunt, and the observability of polar bears from year-to-year has never been consistent.

He said Inuit traditional knowledge used to guide the hunt is something scientists may at times overlook.

However, he doesn't doubt climate change and receding ice will have an negative impact on the polar bear because of what he says should be an obvious reason.

"His home is in the ice and snow."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The North's 'apex predator' threatened by receding sea ice in the Beaufort Sea, study says | CBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Receding sea ice means polar bears in the Beaufort Sea struggle to capture enough food and go hungry - right when they should be fattening up for the summer. A newly released study examines the foraging habits and feeding requirements of the Arctic's greatest predator, which are difficult to study.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a landfill outside Delhi, a man stands on a pile of circuit boards, washing dirt off of himself with a hose after a day of extracting precious metals from the guts of old computers and cell phones. Nearby, cans of acid sit ready to melt plastic from the boards; in the background, another truckload of e-waste is arriving.

The photo is one of a series German photographer Kai Löffelbein took over the last seven years for a new book called CTRL-X: A Topography of E-Waste, documenting what happens to old phones, laptops, and other gadgets in dumps and workshops in India, Ghana, and China.

As a photographer, surrounded by electronic equipment himself, Löffelbein "started to wonder where all my stuff will end up in the future," he says. In 2011, he traveled to Agbogbloshie, a dump in the middle of Accra, Ghana, where workers break open old gadgets with their hand or rocks, and burn the coating off of copper cables, with toxic smoke drifting into a neighboring vegetable market.

In India, he visited a district dedicated to electronic waste near Delhi, where workers also dismantle and burn old products to extract materials to sell. Whatever is left is dumped into drains, and pollutants like lead, mercury, and hexavalent chromium leach into soil and drinking water. The country is now one of the largest producers of e-waste in the world and has laws regulating how the waste should be collected and processed, but most of it is still handled in the informal sector.

In China, Löffelbein traveled to Guiyu, a former rice village that became famous as a global center of e-waste. By 2005, roughly 60,000 workers in the city dismantled electronics-much of it coming from the United States-in small workshops. Löffelbein visited in 2013. Since then, the industry has evolved. The government built a large, industrial center for recycling and forced small workshops to join the center or shut down; imported e-waste was banned. But only a small number of workers ended up transitioning to the new center.

"It begged the question, where did all these people go?" says Jim Puckett, executive director of the Basel Action Network, a nonprofit that campaigns for the safe handling of old electronics. "Did they give up this kind of work, or did they move it somewhere else? Most people think they moved it elsewhere in China or to Southeast Asia."

The Basel Action Network uses hidden trackers to watch where electronic waste goes -often shipped from recyclers in the United States that claim to process waste domestically. As waste shifted away from Guiyu, the trackers showed it going to electronic junkyards in Hong Kong. Now, as Hong Kong also begins to crack down on e-waste, the flows of old gadgets are beginning to move again. Countries like Cambodia, Laos, and others in Southeast Asia may become new hotspots.

"Whenever there's money to be made and people either don't have the laws in place to restrict it or they're not enforcing the laws, you're going to have it going to the path of least resistance and the path of externalizing costs," says Puckett. "When I say externalizing costs, in other words, it's cheaper to just let people bear the burden of poisons rather than properly apply cost and money to preventing harm."

Most of the world-though not the United States-has ratified the Basel Convention, which prohibits sending hazardous waste from more developed countries to less developed countries. But the treaty is often violated, and as more consumers in poorer countries buy products like smartphones, domestic e-waste is also growing. This year, the world will throw out around 50 million tons of electronic waste.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
See Inside The Hellish E-Waste Dumps Where Old Electronics Go To Die

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a landfill outside Delhi, a man stands on a pile of circuit boards, washing dirt off of himself with a hose after a day of extracting precious metals from the guts of old computers and cell phones. Nearby, cans of acid sit ready to melt plastic from the boards; in the background, another truckload of e-waste is arriving.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District wants help from the state to develop a repayment plan to compensate for what may be excessive water diversions from the San Bernardino National Forest.

In a letter to the State Water Resources Control Board, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, the water wholesaler for nearly 700,000 people from Yucaipa to Bloomington, has asked the state for assistance in crafting a document to have Nestlé compensate the San Bernardino district for its over-appropriation of water used for its
Arrowhead bottled water brand.

"There has been a reduction of water levels in the San Bernardino Basin Area that has been approximately equal to the over-appropriation of water by Nestlé," the letter states, "...the simplest way (to remedy that) would be for Nestlé to purchase a quantity of replacement water to refill the 'hole' in the San Bernardino Basin Area caused by the over-appropriation."

The letter to the state was unanimously approved by the Valley District's board during a regularly scheduled meeting Tuesday and signed by Susan Longville, president of the Valley District's board of directors.

"This is our responsibility to do these things," Longville said. "This could take a long time to play through. We hope Nestlé will respond favorably."

On Dec. 20, the state water board issued a Report of Investigation saying that Nestlé Waters North America 's current operations in the San Bernardino National Forest appear to have significantly exceeded authorized water diversions.

The report found that in the period from 1947 to 2015, Nestlé reported extractions from springs in the San Bernardino National Forest that have averaged 192 acre-feet, or 62.6 million gallons per year. In the report, the State Water Board said that NWNA must limit its use of water to 26 acre-feet annually, or 8.47 million gallons annually unless it has evidence of valid water rights.

"While Nestlé may be able to claim a valid basis of right to some water in Strawberry Canyon, a significant portion of the water currently diverted by Nestlé appears to be diverted without a valid basis of right," according to the Report of Investigation.

State Water Board officials said they needed more time to evaluate San Bernardino Valley District's letter and had no comment.

A representative for Nestlé said they plan to comply with the laws necessary for water collection.

"We appreciate there will be many views expressed by those representing varied interests throughout this process," a Nestlé spokeswoman said. "We look forward to following the process set forth by the State Water Resources Control Board and to complying with all applicable laws regarding our water collection."

The San Bernardino Valley District also alleges that the over-appropriation of water by Nestlé has likely had an adverse impact on fish and wildlife in the Strawberry Creek watershed.

Valley District has been working with a number of other water agencies, plus the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish & Wildlife to develop a habitat conservation plan that includes recovering native species like the Santa Ana sucker fish, the Arroyo chubb, the speckled dace and the mountain yellow-legged frog.

"All of which would have likely been adversely affected by Nestle's over-appropriation of water," according to the letter.

Valley District urges the State Water Board to work with it, Nestle, the San Bernardino National Forest, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish & Wildlife "to craft a physical solution that will remedy these adverse effects of Nestle's over-appropriation of water from Strawberry Creek."

Tim Krantz, an environmental studies professor at the University of Redlands, said it "is generous" of the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District to offer to settle the dispute without litigation.

Suggesting that "Nestle may make them whole" by purchasing a "quantity of water to 'fill the hole' in the aquifer equivalent to the amount of the over-appropriation," Krantz said, "this would technically resolve the water balance issues between Nestle and the water districts."

Much of the Nestlé controversy swirls around a special-use permit, which Nestlé pays the Forest Service $524 annually for its piping and other hardware necessary for water extraction, under a permit that expired in 1988.

As part of U.S. Forest Service regulations, however, these kinds of permits stay in effect until they are renewed or denied.

Three environmental and community-based groups have filed an appeal of a federal court ruling allowing Nestlé to continue to remove millions of gallons of water annually from the San Bernardino National Forest.

In September 2016, Riverside-based federal Judge Jesus G. Bernal rejected plaintiffs' arguments that the U.S. Forest Service had broken federal procedures in allowing Nestlé Waters North America to remove water from the West Fork of Strawberry Creek.

The original lawsuit was filed in October 2015 by the Center for Biological Diversity, the Story of Stuff Project, and The Courage Campaign claiming that the Forest Service made errors in allowing Nestlé to maintain pipelines, pumps and other structures in the San Bernardino National Forest for 28 years after its permit expired.

The State Water Board conducted its Report of Investigation because of complaints from individuals and organizations going back to April 2015, according to state documents.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
San Bernardino area agency wants Nestlé to pay them back for extra water diversions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District wants help from the state to develop a repayment plan to compensate for what may be excessive water diversions from the San Bernardino National Forest.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District wants help from the state to develop a repayment plan to compensate for what may be excessive water diversions from the San Bernardino National Forest.

In a letter to the State Water Resources Control Board, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, the water wholesaler for nearly 700,000 people from Yucaipa to Bloomington, has asked the state for assistance in crafting a document to have Nestlé compensate the San Bernardino district for its over-appropriation of water used for its
Arrowhead bottled water brand.

"There has been a reduction of water levels in the San Bernardino Basin Area that has been approximately equal to the over-appropriation of water by Nestlé," the letter states, "...the simplest way (to remedy that) would be for Nestlé to purchase a quantity of replacement water to refill the 'hole' in the San Bernardino Basin Area caused by the over-appropriation."

The letter to the state was unanimously approved by the Valley District's board during a regularly scheduled meeting Tuesday and signed by Susan Longville, president of the Valley District's board of directors.

"This is our responsibility to do these things," Longville said. "This could take a long time to play through. We hope Nestlé will respond favorably."

On Dec. 20, the state water board issued a Report of Investigation saying that Nestlé Waters North America 's current operations in the San Bernardino National Forest appear to have significantly exceeded authorized water diversions.

The report found that in the period from 1947 to 2015, Nestlé reported extractions from springs in the San Bernardino National Forest that have averaged 192 acre-feet, or 62.6 million gallons per year. In the report, the State Water Board said that NWNA must limit its use of water to 26 acre-feet annually, or 8.47 million gallons annually unless it has evidence of valid water rights.

"While Nestlé may be able to claim a valid basis of right to some water in Strawberry Canyon, a significant portion of the water currently diverted by Nestlé appears to be diverted without a valid basis of right," according to the Report of Investigation.

State Water Board officials said they needed more time to evaluate San Bernardino Valley District's letter and had no comment.

A representative for Nestlé said they plan to comply with the laws necessary for water collection.

"We appreciate there will be many views expressed by those representing varied interests throughout this process," a Nestlé spokeswoman said. "We look forward to following the process set forth by the State Water Resources Control Board and to complying with all applicable laws regarding our water collection."

The San Bernardino Valley District also alleges that the over-appropriation of water by Nestlé has likely had an adverse impact on fish and wildlife in the Strawberry Creek watershed.

Valley District has been working with a number of other water agencies, plus the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish & Wildlife to develop a habitat conservation plan that includes recovering native species like the Santa Ana sucker fish, the Arroyo chubb, the speckled dace and the mountain yellow-legged frog.

"All of which would have likely been adversely affected by Nestle's over-appropriation of water," according to the letter.

Valley District urges the State Water Board to work with it, Nestle, the San Bernardino National Forest, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish & Wildlife "to craft a physical solution that will remedy these adverse effects of Nestle's over-appropriation of water from Strawberry Creek."

Tim Krantz, an environmental studies professor at the University of Redlands, said it "is generous" of the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District to offer to settle the dispute without litigation.

Suggesting that "Nestle may make them whole" by purchasing a "quantity of water to 'fill the hole' in the aquifer equivalent to the amount of the over-appropriation," Krantz said, "this would technically resolve the water balance issues between Nestle and the water districts."

Much of the Nestlé controversy swirls around a special-use permit, which Nestlé pays the Forest Service $524 annually for its piping and other hardware necessary for water extraction, under a permit that expired in 1988.

As part of U.S. Forest Service regulations, however, these kinds of permits stay in effect until they are renewed or denied.

Three environmental and community-based groups have filed an appeal of a federal court ruling allowing Nestlé to continue to remove millions of gallons of water annually from the San Bernardino National Forest.

In September 2016, Riverside-based federal Judge Jesus G. Bernal rejected plaintiffs' arguments that the U.S. Forest Service had broken federal procedures in allowing Nestlé Waters North America to remove water from the West Fork of Strawberry Creek.

The original lawsuit was filed in October 2015 by the Center for Biological Diversity, the Story of Stuff Project, and The Courage Campaign claiming that the Forest Service made errors in allowing Nestlé to maintain pipelines, pumps and other structures in the San Bernardino National Forest for 28 years after its permit expired.

The State Water Board conducted its Report of Investigation because of complaints from individuals and organizations going back to April 2015, according to state documents.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
San Bernardino area agency wants Nestlé to pay them back for extra water diversions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District wants help from the state to develop a repayment plan to compensate for what may be excessive water diversions from the San Bernardino National Forest.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Our Blue Planet: Turtles battle with plastic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These turtles on Christmas Island have to battle a wall of debris to reach the ocean. #OurBluePlanet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Strawless In Seattle, Produced by Lonely Whale Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We use 500 million plastic straws every day in America. Many plastic straws end up in our ocean, polluting water and harming sea life. Join the movement, #StopSucking For A Strawless Ocean.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inspiring 12-year-old Timoci spoke at the UN Climate Change Conference.  Most viewed in 2017

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Our Blue Planet: How does plastic actually enter our oceans? | This is how plastic ends up in our oceans.
#OurBluePlanet | By BBC Earth | Facebook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1.2M views, 6.3K likes, 63 loves, 1K comments, 22K shares, Facebook Watch Videos from BBC Earth: This is how plastic ends up in our oceans.
#OurBluePlanet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why do we form such strong attachments to our things? Let's take a look at the psychology of ownership:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most of us wear synthetic fabrics like polyester every day. Our dress shirts, yoga pants, fleeces, and even underwear are all increasingly made of synthetic materials - plastic, in fact. But these synthetic fabrics, from which 60% of all clothing on earth is made, have a big hidden problem: when they're washed, they release tiny plastic bits - called microfibers - that flow down our drains, through water treatment plants, and out into our rivers, lakes and oceans by the billions.

Go deeper:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most of us wear synthetic fabrics like polyester every day. Our dress shirts, yoga pants, fleeces, and even underwear are all increasingly made of synthetic materials - plastic, in fact.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most of us wear synthetic fabrics like polyester every day. Our dress shirts, yoga pants, fleeces, and even underwear are all increasingly made of synthetic materials - plastic, in fact. But these synthetic fabrics, from which 60% of all clothing on earth is made, have a big hidden problem: when they're washed, they release tiny plastic bits - called microfibers - that flow down our drains, through water treatment plants, and out into our rivers, lakes and oceans by the billions.

Go deeper:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most of us wear synthetic fabrics like polyester every day. Our dress shirts, yoga pants, fleeces, and even underwear are all increasingly made of synthetic materials - plastic, in fact.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
"bbc earth" "nature documentary" wildlife nature explore animals "natural history" "frozen planet" "blue planet" "blue planet ii" "planet earth 2" "blue planet 2" "life of mammals" "david attenborough" "sir david attenborough" "planet dinosaur" "bbc documentary" bbc

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The world is an amazing place full of stories, beauty and natural wonder. Explore the official BBC Earth YouTube channel and meet the animals and wildlife of...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
"bbc earth" "nature documentary" wildlife nature explore animals "natural history" "frozen planet" "blue planet" "blue planet ii" "planet earth 2" "blue planet 2" "life of mammals" "david attenborough" "sir david attenborough" "planet dinosaur" "bbc documentary" bbc

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The world is an amazing place full of stories, beauty and natural wonder. Explore the official BBC Earth YouTube channel and meet the animals and wildlife of...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Gaunt polar bear rings alarm over climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | After losing huge amount, Greenland ice is melting faster than ever

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The controversy surrounding blood diamonds from the Democratic Republic of the Congo has made headlines over the past decade, but a relatively obscure mineral is also prompting international concern.

Human rights observers charge that coltan, used in electronic devices such as cellphones, DVD players, video game systems and computers, has been directly linked to financing civil wars in Africa, especially in the DRC.

Men, women and children are said to be forced at gunpoint to mine coltan that is then shipped out of the country at huge profits.

"Coltan is extracted under terrible working conditions in mines in eastern Congo," DanChurchAid, a Danish humanitarian nongovernmental organization, reported in 2006. "The United Nations reports child labour in Africa has significantly increased in coltan mines. In some regions of the Congo, about 30 per cent of schoolchildren are now forced to work in the mines."

On Friday, the Global e-Sustainability Initiative and the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition announced the launch of a Conflict-Free Smelter (CFS) program to combat the problem.

"The CFS program aims to identify smelters that can demonstrate through an independent third-party assessment that the raw materials they procured did not originate from sources that contribute to conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo," stated the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition, a Washington-based industry group whose members include Apple, Celestica, IBM and Cisco.

Canadian New Democrat MP Paul Dewar introduced a bill in the House of Commons recently to fight the mining of conflict minerals in Central Africa, specifically in the Democratic Republic of Congo. If successful, Dewar's bill and similar initiatives around the world could prompt stricter guidelines and control on where the mineral is sourced by the major electronics producers.

What is Coltan?

Coltan, also known as columbite-tantalite, is a dull black metallic mineral containing the elements niobium and tantalum. Tantalum, a heat-resistant material that can hold a strong electrical charge, is used to make capacitors used in a wide variety of electronic devices, from cellphones to nuclear reactors. It is also used in high-heat-resistant steel alloys for applications such as aircraft engines.

Where is it found?

The mineral is found in a number of countries including Australia, Brazil, Canada and China, in addition to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Potential mines are also being explored in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Greenland, Mozambique, the United States, Finland, Afghanistan, Venezuela and Colombia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The controversy surrounding blood diamonds from the Democratic Republic of the Congo has made headlines over the past decade, but a relatively obscure mineral is also prompting international concern. Human rights observers charge that coltan, used in electronic devices such as cellphones, DVD players, video game systems and computers, has been directly linked to financing civil wars in Africa, especially in the DRC.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The hidden coltan mines in a forgotten corner of the Democratic Republic of Congo fuel our 21st century lifestyle

The black tar-like mineral is the magical component that controls power-flow in your iPhone and Samsung Galaxy

Yet the men who pull coltan from the earth use picks and shovels working in dangerous and pressurised conditions

Many of the mines have been controlled by militia during years of conflict to fund weapons and ammunition for war

In this third dispatch from the DRC, MailOnline visited Luwow mine, which is now a conflict free mine, to find to find hundreds of workers toiling with picks, shovels and pans in scenes use reminiscent of 19th century gold rush

Scraping through shovels-full of silt for the precious mineral with their bare hands, miners use these primitive methods to harvest coltan - the magical conductor that powers your iPhone, Samsung Galaxy or other smartphones.

Covered head-to-foot in the ore-laden mud, hundreds of workers toil for 12 hours a day - in scenes reminiscent of a 19th century gold-rush.

Wielding picks and shovels legions of strong men delve deep into the mountainside to retrieve the precious natural deposit, which enables our high-tech mobile world of emails, social media and the internet.

Loaded into plastic-lined rice sacks miners carry the coltan ore on their shoulders and heads to a primitive sluice where the rock and sand is passed through gallons of water. Panned and filtered by hand the mineral sinks to the bottom as the waste washes away.

The contrast between the 19th cenbtury method in which coltan is mined and the ultra-modern electronic world that mineral-fuelled devices have created is stark.

This dispatch, from the coal-face of the Luwow mine, in the far reaches of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), is the latest in a series of MailOnline reports about the unique challenges faced by this troubled nation.

'The materials that enable your smartphone to work come from our mine,' Jotham Uwemeye, Secretary General of the Cooperamma miners' organisation, told MailOnline.

When refined, coltan becomes metallic tantalum, a heat-resistant powder that can hold a high electrical charge - crucial for the miniature circuit boards that power our smartphones, laptop computers, pagers and many other high-tech devices.

This mine, created by hacking away at the top of a mountain in the heart of Africa, is one of the few places in the world where this rare and sought-after mineral can be found.

Once separated the coltan is bagged and carried by foot or by motorcycle taxi down the crumbling and broken bare earth road to the dust-blown centre of Rubaya, one of a number of country towns at the heart of the DRC's mineral trade.

After their haul is weighed and classified, miners are paid $5 (£3.35) a day for the back-breaking work to dig out the precious mineral that powers our $500 (£335) smartphones.

But with a minimum wage set at $3 (£2.00) a day in the DRC the 1,400-strong work force at Luwow are prepared to endure the gruelling and sometimes dangerous conditions.

Manufacturers Apple, who make iPhones, and Samsung Electronics, who make the Galaxy, admit they use coltan mined in the DRC to make the smartphones that fuel our 24-7 lifestyle.

And Apple says it will continue to do so.

'Apple remains committed to driving economic development and creating opportunities to source conflict-free minerals from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and adjoining countries,' Apple told the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in February this year (2015).

Apple says its suppliers must adhere to its code that; 'every worker deserves to be treated with dignity and respect'.

Samsung says it 'recognises the seriousness of human rights violations and environmental pollution problems of mineral mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo'.

But at the Luwow mine safety procedures are non-existent. A foreman stands over the hundreds of miners urging them to work harder and faster. Accidents are common at DRC mines with seven workers killed at a small coltan excavation site last month when the walls of a poorly-supported tunnel collapsed.

Children as young as 10 can be found working at mines across the DRC although none were present at Luwow when MailOnline visited.

First discovered by Belgian prospectors almost a century ago this mine and dozens of others like it in the DRC's mineral-rich eastern regions, have been exploited by colonialists, dictators and war lords.

The payloads they release - uranium, gold, cassiterite (used to make tin) and now coltan - have fuelled huge advances in the modern world, including the atomic bombs, dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by US forces in World War II.

Uranium extracted from a mine at Shinkolobwe was used to create the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945 and much of the plutonium used in the bomb dropped on Nagasaki three days later.

The primitive Belgian colonial-administered excavation site, located in DRC's southern province of Katanga, continued to supply uranium for US nuclear weapons until 1960.

Ownership of many of the country's mines and profits made from them have funded the war that have blighted region for over 20 years.

The CNDP militia have used revenue from the sale of coltan at the Luwow mine to buy weapons and ammunition in their armed struggle against the DRC national army.

A damning United Nations' report in 2001, on the 'Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources', blamed the sale of coltan and other precious minerals to multi-national companies as the 'engine of conflict in the DRC'.

For many years the Luwow mine was controlled by a Rwandan-backed militia group, known as CNDP (National Congress for the Defence of the People). The armed group had helped popular leader Laurent Kabila overthrow hated dictator Mobutu Sese Seko 1997 but refused to relinquish control in eastern DRC. The CNDP has been accused of causing huge humanitarian suffering in what became known as the Second Congo War of 2006-2008.

COLTAN: THE MINERAL HIDDEN IN AN AFRICAN MOUNTAIN POWERING YOUR IPHONE

Break-away elements from the militia went on to form the M23 rebel group which brought havoc to eastern DRC in 2012, humiliating the national army and UN peacekeeping forces, and taking control of the city of Goma.

At least 800,000 people were forced from their homes and atrocities against civilians were widely reported, before they gave up their arms.

Minerals extracted from the Luwow mine were sold in Rwanda helping the tiny Great Lakes nation to claim to be the world's largest coltan exporter even though the country has no ore deposits.

However a US law, the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act, has led to a clampdown in the use of so-called 'conflict minerals', requiring western firms to determine the origin of suspicious resources used, such as coltan.

The Luwow is among the two-thirds of DRC mines, which had produced so called 'conflict minerals', but which are now no longer run by warlords.

'Every kilo extracted from the mine is given the Luwow ticket to prove it has been taken from a non-conflict mine,' Bernard Ndajisara, Cooperamma transparency agent, told MailOnline.

The Luwow mine was controlled by a rebel militia fighting government forces and using profits to fund its war. The mine is now a workers' cooperative, who sell their mineral to a merchant to export overseas.

'Each bag has the code PB164 stamped on it when it arrives at market in Goma,' Mr Ndajisara added.

M23 leader, General Bosco Ntaganda - known as 'The Terminator', is currently standing trial for war crimes at the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

Apple say they are aware of the harm that conflict minerals have caused in the DRC and are 'dedicated to using only conflict-free minerals in our products'.

An Apple spokeswoman added: 'The simplest path to calling Apple products conflict-free would be to redirect our demand through a small subset of smelters that are either conflict-free verified, or aren't sourcing from Central Africa.

'But this approach would do little to influence the situation on the ground, something we care deeply about.

'That's why we have been working to expand the number of verified sources in this region, so that more people can earn a good living, in better conditions.'

Samsung Electronics says it supports the ban on conflict minerals.

A spokeswoman for Samsung Electronics added: 'As a global manufacturer of consumer electronics, we understand the moral and ethical responsibility we have to our consumers and broader society.

'We remain committed to proactively participating in conversations and actions around the world to ban the use of conflict minerals and ensure responsibly source, conflict-free products.'

A United Nations' (UN) helicopter gunship flew past the mountain-top mine during the MailOnline visit.

Three bases, which are less than 50km from the mine, which armed groups had been operating to terrorise the local population were destroyed in the UN military assault, reports the following day revealed.

Promoting sustainable economic growth, creating jobs, promoting peace and establishing the rule of law are among the 17 sustainable development goals adopted by the United Nations last month.

The ambitious new set of aims hopes to end poverty, hunger and advance equality and protect the environment over the next 15 years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Nick Fagge For Mailonline In The Democratic Republic Of Congo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
iPhone mineral miners of Africa use their bare hands to find coltan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The hidden coltan mines in a forgotten corner of the Democratic Republic of Congo fuel our 21st century lifestyle The black tar-like mineral is the magical component that controls power-flow in your iPhone and Samsung Galaxy Yet the men who pull coltan from the earth use picks and shovels working

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To see a list of the raw materials that comprise a cell phone or a computer is to burrow to the planet's core. Some of the names are familiar - gold, tin - while others sound as exotic as the places from which they come - tantalum, indium. As our gadget dependency grows, so does our appetite for these bits of Earth. In fact, demand for the 14 most-critical minerals for today's electronic technologies may as much as triple over the next 20 years, according to the European Commission.

Myriad factors - volatile markets, low substitution rates, export restrictions - make some materials more precious than others. "The era of access to easy resources is over," says mining analyst Paul Bugala of Calvert Investments. And while governments may be eager to cash in on their mineral wealth, "the track record for developing countries taking advantage of natural-resource wealth in a sustainable way is really short," he says. "There's often a race to the bottom in terms of regulation and development cost. Any means necessary is used to make sure we have the coltan in our cell phones." Here, a look at these in-demand materials and the nations that produce them.
Charts reflect each country's officially reported share of global production, based on latest available data compiled by the European Commission. Only market share of 10% or higher is shown.
Canada: Lithium batteries account for roughly 20% of the cobalt used today, but portable battery usage is expected to rise sharply over the next decade, especially with the emergence of electric vehicles.

U.S.: Beryllium - a toxic, light metal with high melting point and strength - is used in computer and telecom products, as well as home appliances, automotive electronics, and medical equipment. The bulk of the world's beryllium is mined in Utah and Alaska.

Mexico: Geologists laud fluorspar both for its beauty - it's a rainbow of dazzling crystals, ranging from fluorescent white to deep black - and for its versatility. It's commonly used in steel, paints, floor insulation, high-performance optics (in place of glass), and even chimney linings.

Democratic Republic of the Congo: After protests against Intel and Apple for their opaque supply chains, President Barack Obama signed a law in July that requires firms to report to the SEC whether their products contain "conflict minerals," including the tin, gold, and cobalt that have helped fuel years of warfare in the D.R.C. Counting both black-market and official output, the D.R.C. also produces an estimated one-fifth of the world's tantalum, a coltan extract that helps energy storage in devices such as the iPod. "This law is going to affect virtually the entire U.S. manufacturing sector," says Rick Goss, VP of environment at the Information Technology Industry Council.

Brazil: The majority of niobium makes its way into structural steel. It's also used in medical tech (MRI scanners, pacemakers) and electronics (microcapacitors). From 1995 to 2005, production of the lustrous gray metal more than doubled. The big beneficiary: the Brazilian company CBMM, which controls 70% of the global market.

Russia: Vehicle manufacturers currently account for roughly half of global platinum and palladium consumption. Though automotive air-pollution-reduction technology in automobiles provides the hottest demand for the six platinum-group metals (iridium, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhodium, and ruthenium), these minerals can also be found up and down the electronics aisle, in hard disks, integrated circuits, and LCD panels.

Turkey: As recently as 1995, nearly half of the world's magnesium came from the U.S., but Uncle Sam has since lost its lead in the market for this commonly used structural metal. New production out of Turkey and China has lowered prices.

Afghanistan: Could minerals reinvent Afghanistan's economy and make it one of the world's premier mining centers? U.S. officials think so. This summer, they announced nearly $1 trillion in mineral deposits - including cobalt, niobium, rare earth metals, copper, gold, and iron - had been found in Afghanistan. An internal Pentagon memo says Afghanistan could become the "Saudi Arabia of lithium."

China: The world's No. 1 metals consumer holds more than half of the known global reserves of 9 of the 14 most critical raw materials. Thank it for your buzzing cell phone: China is the top producer of tungsten, which makes cell phones vibrate. Despite soaring international demand, it maintains strict export restraints; this past summer, it imposed new limits on output of minerals. The U.S. and EU cried foul, calling on the WTO to rule on the legality of such export restraints. Chinese Ministry of Commerce director general He Ning defends the restrictions necessary "to protect our environment and preserve the minerals for future generations."

Japan: Indium 's first large-scale use was in high-performance aircraft engines during World War II. Today, thin films for flat-screen displays are by far its No. 1 application.

India: While the recession has cut graphite demand, emerging technologies are expected to lift the mineral: Large-scale deployment of fuel-cell technology currently in development could transform the global graphite market.

Australia: Aussie-based Talison Minerals - which long supplied a third of the world's tantalum, used in gaming consoles, computers, and cameras - suspended production in 2008 due to cheaper prices being offered by miners in Africa, causing disarray in the tantalum market. It may restart its mine next year.

South Africa: In 2007, South Africa lost to China a title it had held for a century - world's top gold producer - but it still holds the crown for platinum, which is used in catalytic converters and many high-tech lab applications. The earth's largest reserves are located in the Bushveld Complex.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How a Handful of Countries Control the Earth's Most Precious Materials

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To see a list of the raw materials that comprise a cell phone or a computer is to burrow to the planet's core. Some of the names are familiar - gold, tin - while others sound as exotic as the places from which they come - tantalum, indium.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Americans send about 38 billion water bottles a year to landfills. ¹ Considering the 1.5 million barrels of oil needed to make those bottles, the environmental impact of plastic bottle waste is truly staggering. ²

That's why we created Ban the Bottle. We advocate a simple commitment to reduce your personal waste by giving up bottled water, even if it's just a few days each week. Together, filtered water and a reusable bottle are an ideal solution for going green at home and on the go. It's an easy change that can make a big difference.
1 Fishman, Charles. "Message in a Bottle." Fast Company Magazine July 2007: 110.
2 Arnold, Emily, and Janet Larsen. "Bottled Water: Pouring Resources Down the Drain." Earth Policy Institute. 2 Feb. 2006. 28 June 2007.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ban the Bottle | A Blog Devoted to Banning Plastic Water Bottles & Staying Hydrated

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Americans send about 38 billion water bottles a year to landfills. 1 Considering the 1.5 million barrels of oil needed to make those bottles, the environmental impact of plastic bottle waste is truly staggering. 2 That's why we created Ban the Bottle.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Stay informed this Earth Day by finding out what really happens to the plastic you throw away:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Post by TEDEducation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Imagine an area 34 times the size of Manhattan. Now imagine it covered ankle-deep in plastic waste - piles of soda bottles and plastic bags, takeout containers by the mile, drinking straws as far as the eye can see.

That's a total of about 19 billion pounds of garbage. And according to one of the best estimates available, that's how much plastic waste ends up in our oceans every year.

"We're being overwhelmed by our waste," said Jenna Jambeck, an environmental engineer who led the 2015 study that determined this staggering number. According to Jambeck's research, this figure is on track to double by 2025 unless something is done, swiftly and at a global scale, to stem the tide of garbage.

Plastic ― a versatile, durable and inexpensive material ― has in many ways been a boon to humanity, used in everything from medical equipment to parts of airplanes. But some of the very traits that have made plastics so popular (they're cheap, and therefore easy to throw away) have also made them a growing problem in our landfills and oceans. Today, plastics are the No. 1 type of trash found in the sea. Ocean Conservancy, a nonprofit that organizes an annual coastal cleanup event in more than 150 countries worldwide, said plastic debris makes up around 85 percent of all the trash collected from beaches, waterways and oceans ― and that's just the stuff we can see.

There are also untold numbers of extremely small plastic fragments in marine waters. Plastics are non-biodegradable and merely break down into smaller and smaller pieces with exposure to sunlight. These fragments, known as microplastics, are less than 5 millimeters long, or about the size of a sesame seed. Some are microbeads, tiny pieces of plastic that are added as exfoliants to health and beauty products, while others come from larger plastic pieces that have degraded over time.

Recent studies have found that microplastics can also get washed out of synthetic clothing, like those made of polyester or acrylic. A 2016 paper concluded that a single cycle of a washing machine could release more than 700,000 microplastic fibers into the environment.

The United Nations Environment Programme says there could be as many as 51 trillion microplastic particles in our seas. Many of them have accumulated in five enormous swirling ocean convergences known as gyres. Marcus Eriksen, a co-founder of the 5 Gyres Institute, an organization dedicated to reducing plastic pollution, describes marine microplastics as a "plastic smog throughout the world's oceans."

From Land To The Sea

So, how does all this plastic waste end up in the oceans?

Some of it comes from ships and offshore oil and gas platforms, but more than 80 percent of plastic waste in the oceans comes from land. Activities like the deliberate dumping of garbage into waterways and water pollution by plastic manufacturers contribute to some of this ocean trash, but mismanaged waste disposal appears to be the primary culprit.

In 2010, according to Jambeck's research, over 50 percent of waste in more than 60 countries worldwide was found to be inadequately managed, mostly due to a lack of waste management infrastructure coupled with ballooning populations. In China, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand and the Philippines ― which were identified in a 2015 Ocean Conservancy report as the top five plastic-polluting nations in the world ― the amount of mismanaged waste was closer to 75 percent or more.

Developing nations don't bear all the blame: The United States has an ocean pollution problem, too. The main issue in this country is littering, according to Jambeck. "Even though we do have robust and effective waste management systems, we have litter," she said. "And because our per-person waste generation rate is so high in the U.S., even that small amount of litter contributes to this problem." The United States is one of the world's top five waste-generating developed countries, according to the World Economic Forum.

Litter that consists of single-use plastic products is a particularly troublesome source of ocean garbage ― the plastic bag wafting in the wind that finds its way to a storm drain; the potato chip bag forgotten on a beach; the plastic soda bottle washed away in a stream that leads to a river and, finally, the sea.

Worldwide, "single-use packaging is the biggest source of trash" found in or near bodies of water, said Ocean Conservancy's Nick Mallos. In 2015, volunteers in the group's International Coastal Cleanup event collected almost 1 million plastic beverage bottles, 800,000 plastic bottle caps, and about half a million each of plastic bags and drinking straws - and this was in just a single day.

The Not-Very-Long History Of Plastics

Though it seems now that the world couldn't possibly function without them, consumer plastics are a remarkably recent invention. The first plastic bags were introduced in the 1950s, the same decade that plastic packaging began gaining in popularity in the United States.

"What I think many people aren't aware of is just how quickly the amount of plastic in the world has increased," said Jambeck, speaking from her home in Athens, Georgia, earlier this month. According to her research, global plastic resin production has increased by about 620 percent since 1975.

This growth has happened so fast, in fact, that science is still catching up with the change. Plastics pollution research, for instance, is still a very early science.

"We put all these plastics into the environment and we still don't really know what the outcomes are going to be," said Susanne Brander, an ecotoxicologist at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington who studies the impact of plastic pollution on humans and wildlife.

What we do know, though, is disturbing.

Ocean Conservancy says plastics are believed to threaten at least 600 different wildlife species. One in three leatherback turtles, which often mistake plastic bags for edible jellyfish, have been found with plastic in their bellies. In February, a dead whale beached on Norway's coast had 30 plastic bags in its stomach. Ninety percent of seabirds, including albatross and petrels, are now eating plastics on a regular basis. By 2050, that figure is expected to rise to 100 percent.

And it's not just wildlife that's threatened by the plastics in our seas. A growing body of evidence suggests humans are consuming plastics through the seafood we eat.

In one study, 1 in 4 fish that researchers purchased from fish markets in Indonesia and the United States during the second half of 2014 were found to have plastic in their guts. It appears that some fish are mistaking plastic fragments coated in bacteria and algae for normal food sources.

Studies have also found microplastics in the digestive systems of shellfish, including oysters, mussels and lobsters. Two Belgian researchers, looking at the amount of microplastics in some shellfish, concluded in 2014 that the average European seafood consumer could be eating 11,000 microplastics every year.

For now, the potential risks to human health posed by this plastic consumption are not totally clear ― although preliminary research suggests some plastics could be toxic to humans, and could potentially increase the risk of cancer and liver damage, reproductive problems, and other negative health effects.

With this in mind, experts say that all of us have a critical role to play in mitigating the issue ― in ways both big and small.

At a global level,several countries have recently committed to reducing the amount of plastic they send into the oceans. At the Economist World Ocean Summit this week, 10 nations ― including Uruguay, Costa Rica, France and Indonesia ― vowed to reduce plastic marine litter as part of U.N. Environment's new #CleanSeas initiative.

As part of the campaign, Indonesia, one of world's top plastic polluters, committed to slashing its marine litter by 70 percent by 2025. Uruguay said it will introduce a tax on single-use plastic bags later this year. The United States has yet to join the U.N. campaign.

But it's not just countries that need to do their part. Corporations also have a role, as do individuals (yes, you).

We can all start by thinking twice before we use single-use plastic products ― and when we do use them, we should take care to properly dispose of them or recycle.

"The one thing I've learned in doing my research is that population density is a huge driver of ocean pollution, so especially in places with high population densities, our individual choices really do matter," Jambeck said. "Things that may seem mundane, like using a reusable bottle or a reusable bag - when taken collectively, these choices really do make a difference. I think it's empowering as a citizen to know that your choices can make an impact."
* * * Dominique Mosbergen is a reporter at HuffPost covering climate change, extreme weather and extinction. Send tips or feedback to dominique.mosbergen@huffingtonpost.com or follow her on Twitter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Oceans Are Drowning In Plastic -- And No One's Paying Attention

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Imagine an area 34 times the size of Manhattan. Now imagine it covered ankle-deep in plastic waste - piles of soda bottles and plastic bags, takeout containers by the mile, drinking straws as far as the eye can see. That's a total of about 19 billion pounds of garbage.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Imagine an area 34 times the size of Manhattan. Now imagine it covered ankle-deep in plastic waste - piles of soda bottles and plastic bags, takeout containers by the mile, drinking straws as far as the eye can see.

That's a total of about 19 billion pounds of garbage. And according to one of the best estimates available, that's how much plastic waste ends up in our oceans every year.

"We're being overwhelmed by our waste," said Jenna Jambeck, an environmental engineer who led the 2015 study that determined this staggering number. According to Jambeck's research, this figure is on track to double by 2025 unless something is done, swiftly and at a global scale, to stem the tide of garbage.

Plastic ― a versatile, durable and inexpensive material ― has in many ways been a boon to humanity, used in everything from medical equipment to parts of airplanes. But some of the very traits that have made plastics so popular (they're cheap, and therefore easy to throw away) have also made them a growing problem in our landfills and oceans. Today, plastics are the No. 1 type of trash found in the sea. Ocean Conservancy, a nonprofit that organizes an annual coastal cleanup event in more than 150 countries worldwide, said plastic debris makes up around 85 percent of all the trash collected from beaches, waterways and oceans ― and that's just the stuff we can see.

There are also untold numbers of extremely small plastic fragments in marine waters. Plastics are non-biodegradable and merely break down into smaller and smaller pieces with exposure to sunlight. These fragments, known as microplastics, are less than 5 millimeters long, or about the size of a sesame seed. Some are microbeads, tiny pieces of plastic that are added as exfoliants to health and beauty products, while others come from larger plastic pieces that have degraded over time.

Recent studies have found that microplastics can also get washed out of synthetic clothing, like those made of polyester or acrylic. A 2016 paper concluded that a single cycle of a washing machine could release more than 700,000 microplastic fibers into the environment.

The United Nations Environment Programme says there could be as many as 51 trillion microplastic particles in our seas. Many of them have accumulated in five enormous swirling ocean convergences known as gyres. Marcus Eriksen, a co-founder of the 5 Gyres Institute, an organization dedicated to reducing plastic pollution, describes marine microplastics as a "plastic smog throughout the world's oceans."

From Land To The Sea

So, how does all this plastic waste end up in the oceans?

Some of it comes from ships and offshore oil and gas platforms, but more than 80 percent of plastic waste in the oceans comes from land. Activities like the deliberate dumping of garbage into waterways and water pollution by plastic manufacturers contribute to some of this ocean trash, but mismanaged waste disposal appears to be the primary culprit.

In 2010, according to Jambeck's research, over 50 percent of waste in more than 60 countries worldwide was found to be inadequately managed, mostly due to a lack of waste management infrastructure coupled with ballooning populations. In China, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand and the Philippines ― which were identified in a 2015 Ocean Conservancy report as the top five plastic-polluting nations in the world ― the amount of mismanaged waste was closer to 75 percent or more.

Developing nations don't bear all the blame: The United States has an ocean pollution problem, too. The main issue in this country is littering, according to Jambeck. "Even though we do have robust and effective waste management systems, we have litter," she said. "And because our per-person waste generation rate is so high in the U.S., even that small amount of litter contributes to this problem." The United States is one of the world's top five waste-generating developed countries, according to the World Economic Forum.

Litter that consists of single-use plastic products is a particularly troublesome source of ocean garbage ― the plastic bag wafting in the wind that finds its way to a storm drain; the potato chip bag forgotten on a beach; the plastic soda bottle washed away in a stream that leads to a river and, finally, the sea.

Worldwide, "single-use packaging is the biggest source of trash" found in or near bodies of water, said Ocean Conservancy's Nick Mallos. In 2015, volunteers in the group's International Coastal Cleanup event collected almost 1 million plastic beverage bottles, 800,000 plastic bottle caps, and about half a million each of plastic bags and drinking straws - and this was in just a single day.

The Not-Very-Long History Of Plastics

Though it seems now that the world couldn't possibly function without them, consumer plastics are a remarkably recent invention. The first plastic bags were introduced in the 1950s, the same decade that plastic packaging began gaining in popularity in the United States.

"What I think many people aren't aware of is just how quickly the amount of plastic in the world has increased," said Jambeck, speaking from her home in Athens, Georgia, earlier this month. According to her research, global plastic resin production has increased by about 620 percent since 1975.

This growth has happened so fast, in fact, that science is still catching up with the change. Plastics pollution research, for instance, is still a very early science.

"We put all these plastics into the environment and we still don't really know what the outcomes are going to be," said Susanne Brander, an ecotoxicologist at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington who studies the impact of plastic pollution on humans and wildlife.

What we do know, though, is disturbing.

Ocean Conservancy says plastics are believed to threaten at least 600 different wildlife species. One in three leatherback turtles, which often mistake plastic bags for edible jellyfish, have been found with plastic in their bellies. In February, a dead whale beached on Norway's coast had 30 plastic bags in its stomach. Ninety percent of seabirds, including albatross and petrels, are now eating plastics on a regular basis. By 2050, that figure is expected to rise to 100 percent.

And it's not just wildlife that's threatened by the plastics in our seas. A growing body of evidence suggests humans are consuming plastics through the seafood we eat.

In one study, 1 in 4 fish that researchers purchased from fish markets in Indonesia and the United States during the second half of 2014 were found to have plastic in their guts. It appears that some fish are mistaking plastic fragments coated in bacteria and algae for normal food sources.

Studies have also found microplastics in the digestive systems of shellfish, including oysters, mussels and lobsters. Two Belgian researchers, looking at the amount of microplastics in some shellfish, concluded in 2014 that the average European seafood consumer could be eating 11,000 microplastics every year.

For now, the potential risks to human health posed by this plastic consumption are not totally clear ― although preliminary research suggests some plastics could be toxic to humans, and could potentially increase the risk of cancer and liver damage, reproductive problems, and other negative health effects.

With this in mind, experts say that all of us have a critical role to play in mitigating the issue ― in ways both big and small.

At a global level,several countries have recently committed to reducing the amount of plastic they send into the oceans. At the Economist World Ocean Summit this week, 10 nations ― including Uruguay, Costa Rica, France and Indonesia ― vowed to reduce plastic marine litter as part of U.N. Environment's new #CleanSeas initiative.

As part of the campaign, Indonesia, one of world's top plastic polluters, committed to slashing its marine litter by 70 percent by 2025. Uruguay said it will introduce a tax on single-use plastic bags later this year. The United States has yet to join the U.N. campaign.

But it's not just countries that need to do their part. Corporations also have a role, as do individuals (yes, you).

We can all start by thinking twice before we use single-use plastic products ― and when we do use them, we should take care to properly dispose of them or recycle.

"The one thing I've learned in doing my research is that population density is a huge driver of ocean pollution, so especially in places with high population densities, our individual choices really do matter," Jambeck said. "Things that may seem mundane, like using a reusable bottle or a reusable bag - when taken collectively, these choices really do make a difference. I think it's empowering as a citizen to know that your choices can make an impact."
* * * Dominique Mosbergen is a reporter at HuffPost covering climate change, extreme weather and extinction. Send tips or feedback to dominique.mosbergen@huffingtonpost.com or follow her on Twitter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Oceans Are Drowning In Plastic -- And No One's Paying Attention

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Imagine an area 34 times the size of Manhattan. Now imagine it covered ankle-deep in plastic waste - piles of soda bottles and plastic bags, takeout containers by the mile, drinking straws as far as the eye can see. That's a total of about 19 billion pounds of garbage.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We need these biodegradable "plastic" bags everywhere.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Post by WeNeedThisbyattn.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Britain plans to ban the sale of plastic straws and is pressing other Commonwealth countries, such as Canada, to join.

Plastic straws have been a hot-button issue for environmental for video of marine biologists removing a plastic straw from a sea turtle's nostril went viral online.
READ MORE: Halifax restaurateur issues a partial ban on plastic straws
On Thursday, British Prime Minister Theresa May pledged to eradicate plastic waste by 2042 as part of a "national plan of action."

"Plastic waste is one of the greatest environmental challenges facing the world, which is why protecting the marine environment is central to our agenda at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting," May said in a statement ahead of a Commonwealth summit.

Leaders from the Commonwealth - a network of 53 countries, mostly former British colonies - are meeting in London this week. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is also there and on Thursday was asked if he would join Britain in the ban.
WATCH: Growing movement to ban the plastic straw
Trudeau skirted the question, but did say he will "talk about this with the G7 nations and look at the solutions."

The ban also includes products such as cotton swabs, which are often flushed down the toilet, get into water systems, and then pose a threat to marine life and birds who may try to eat it.

READ MORE: California servers could be jailed for giving plastic straws to customers under new bill

Britain's announcement comes after many restaurants in the U.K. have already banned single-use plastic straws. On Wednesday, McDonald's in Britain said it would start using drinking straws made from paper.

Plastic straws have already been banned in several U.S. cities, such as Seattle, Miami Beach and Malibu, Calif.

Toronto restaurants hoping to ban plastic straws

The movement of eliminating plastic straws also made its way to several Canadian cities.

READ MORE: Toronto restaurants pushing for elimination of plastic straws to reduce waste

A project called, The Law Straw Toronto encourages bars and restaurants in the city to go straw-free.

Using the hashtag #StopSuckingToronto, over 100 restaurants, including Hemingway's on Cumberland Street and the Mill Street Brew Pub in the Distillery District, have jumped on board the initiative.

A growing number of bars and restaurants in Vancouver have also started banning straws. The city is not calling for an outright ban, but is proposing that servers ask customers whether they want to have a straw with their cocktails.

Vancouver's plan follows other cities that have taken aim at plastic waste. Victoria is set to ban plastic shopping bags in July after Montreal abolished them in January.
WATCH: Straw ban taking off in the Okanagan
The case against plastic straws

The growing ban on plastic straws comes as United Nations figures show eight million tonnes of plastic - bottles, packaging and other waste - enter the ocean each year, killing marine life and entering the human food chain.

READ MORE: Mutant enzyme that 'eats' plastic bottles could be a game-changer, scientists say

It takes plastic straws and stirrers up to 200 years to biodegrade.

Scientists have urged tougher restrictions on plastic waste. In December, almost 200 nations agreed to limit plastic pollution of the oceans, warning it could outweigh fish by 2030.
Take Our Poll- With files from Global News' Alana MacLeod and Reuters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Britain is banning plastic straws - and asking Canada to join

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Britain plans to ban the sale of plastic straws and is pressing other Commonwealth countries, such as Canada, to join. Plastic straws have been a hot-button issue for environmental for video of marine biologists removing a plastic straw from a sea turtle's nostril went viral online.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Britain plans to ban the sale of plastic straws and is pressing other Commonwealth countries, such as Canada, to join.

Plastic straws have been a hot-button issue for environmental for video of marine biologists removing a plastic straw from a sea turtle's nostril went viral online.
READ MORE: Halifax restaurateur issues a partial ban on plastic straws
On Thursday, British Prime Minister Theresa May pledged to eradicate plastic waste by 2042 as part of a "national plan of action."

"Plastic waste is one of the greatest environmental challenges facing the world, which is why protecting the marine environment is central to our agenda at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting," May said in a statement ahead of a Commonwealth summit.

Leaders from the Commonwealth - a network of 53 countries, mostly former British colonies - are meeting in London this week. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is also there and on Thursday was asked if he would join Britain in the ban.
WATCH: Growing movement to ban the plastic straw
Trudeau skirted the question, but did say he will "talk about this with the G7 nations and look at the solutions."

The ban also includes products such as cotton swabs, which are often flushed down the toilet, get into water systems, and then pose a threat to marine life and birds who may try to eat it.

READ MORE: California servers could be jailed for giving plastic straws to customers under new bill

Britain's announcement comes after many restaurants in the U.K. have already banned single-use plastic straws. On Wednesday, McDonald's in Britain said it would start using drinking straws made from paper.

Plastic straws have already been banned in several U.S. cities, such as Seattle, Miami Beach and Malibu, Calif.

Toronto restaurants hoping to ban plastic straws

The movement of eliminating plastic straws also made its way to several Canadian cities.

READ MORE: Toronto restaurants pushing for elimination of plastic straws to reduce waste

A project called, The Law Straw Toronto encourages bars and restaurants in the city to go straw-free.

Using the hashtag #StopSuckingToronto, over 100 restaurants, including Hemingway's on Cumberland Street and the Mill Street Brew Pub in the Distillery District, have jumped on board the initiative.

A growing number of bars and restaurants in Vancouver have also started banning straws. The city is not calling for an outright ban, but is proposing that servers ask customers whether they want to have a straw with their cocktails.

Vancouver's plan follows other cities that have taken aim at plastic waste. Victoria is set to ban plastic shopping bags in July after Montreal abolished them in January.
WATCH: Straw ban taking off in the Okanagan
The case against plastic straws

The growing ban on plastic straws comes as United Nations figures show eight million tonnes of plastic - bottles, packaging and other waste - enter the ocean each year, killing marine life and entering the human food chain.

READ MORE: Mutant enzyme that 'eats' plastic bottles could be a game-changer, scientists say

It takes plastic straws and stirrers up to 200 years to biodegrade.

Scientists have urged tougher restrictions on plastic waste. In December, almost 200 nations agreed to limit plastic pollution of the oceans, warning it could outweigh fish by 2030.
Take Our Poll- With files from Global News' Alana MacLeod and Reuters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Britain is banning plastic straws - and asking Canada to join

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Britain plans to ban the sale of plastic straws and is pressing other Commonwealth countries, such as Canada, to join. Plastic straws have been a hot-button issue for environmental for video of marine biologists removing a plastic straw from a sea turtle's nostril went viral online.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
However hot it is, however thirsty you are, however better it tastes, there is often a pang of guilt associated with grabbing a bottle of water from the cooler. The problem is polyethylene terephthalate - the thermoplastic polymer resin typically used to make plastic bottles.

It's estimated that nearly 350 million tons of plastic are produced globally each year, and despite the efforts of manufacturers and consumers, barely any of this is ultimately recycled. Most is destined for landfill or joins the five trillion pieces of plastic polluting the world's oceans. It's a problem that has been discussed at every level, from the local store to the World Economic Forum at Davos.

This January, evian made an announcement that changes the conversation, turning talk into action with a commitment to make all of its plastic bottles from 100% recycled plastic by 2025.

"We want to keep the plastic in the system and out of nature," asserts Patricia Oliva, evian global brand director. This is no small thing, even for a global brand that is on track to being carbon neutral by 2020. It involves a fundamental re-design of its packaging and processes to make its bottles from 100% recycled plastic.

That's the key to the circular approach at the heart of evian's thinking, a conscious shift from the traditional linear economy that relies on finite resources, to a circular economy that reuses or regenerates resources to deliver true sustainability. By making plastic bottles that can obviously and easily be recycled, evian gives them a value that makes them worth collecting, so more plastic stays in the system. The bottom line is that you don't need to create more plastic, and that's a huge win for the environment.

"The circular approach and making our bottles with 100% recycled plastics is now possible because of exciting new technologies," explains Patricia. Evian is partnering with breakthrough tech companies such as Loop Industries, whose pioneering innovation was showcased at Davos. Loop Industries has developed a revolutionary way of commercially transforming all types of PET plastic waste into virgin-quality PET resin, delivering both the quality and quantity of recycled raw material evian needs to make all of its bottles from 100% recycled plastic. "This will completely change the way we use plastic," declares Patricia.

Of course, for this to work evian needs a reliable supply of recycled plastic, so it is collaborating with governments and the waste processing industry to reinvigorate the collection of plastic. And, crucially, evian is sending out a strong message to the consumer that plastic bottles have evolved from a waste product to a valuable resource-so, recycle, recycle, recycle.

At Davos, Ellen MacArthur, Christiana Figueres from Mission2020, Stella McCartney and Patricia Oliva for evian joined forces in urging all industries to embrace the circular economy.

"To make this huge change in our system, we need other players to transform the way they are using and managing plastic," emphasizes Patricia.

Evian has delivered a compelling message, throwing down the gauntlet for change-and it is likely to be picked up. "Everyone is concerned about today's plastic systems," states Patricia. "We need to change, and everybody wants to change. We are showing that there are solutions and that we really can make a difference." Evian's approach could completely transform the way we think about plastics: they have imagined a world without plastic bottle waste, and with it the prospect of a truly guilt-free healthy beverage.

This content was written in association with our sponsor.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Changing the Way We Think About Plastics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
However hot it is, however thirsty you are, however better it tastes, there is often a pang of guilt associated with grabbing a bottle of water from the cooler. The problem is polyethylene terephthalate - the thermoplastic polymer resin typically used to make plastic bottles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
However hot it is, however thirsty you are, however better it tastes, there is often a pang of guilt associated with grabbing a bottle of water from the cooler. The problem is polyethylene terephthalate - the thermoplastic polymer resin typically used to make plastic bottles.

It's estimated that nearly 350 million tons of plastic are produced globally each year, and despite the efforts of manufacturers and consumers, barely any of this is ultimately recycled. Most is destined for landfill or joins the five trillion pieces of plastic polluting the world's oceans. It's a problem that has been discussed at every level, from the local store to the World Economic Forum at Davos.

This January, evian made an announcement that changes the conversation, turning talk into action with a commitment to make all of its plastic bottles from 100% recycled plastic by 2025.

"We want to keep the plastic in the system and out of nature," asserts Patricia Oliva, evian global brand director. This is no small thing, even for a global brand that is on track to being carbon neutral by 2020. It involves a fundamental re-design of its packaging and processes to make its bottles from 100% recycled plastic.

That's the key to the circular approach at the heart of evian's thinking, a conscious shift from the traditional linear economy that relies on finite resources, to a circular economy that reuses or regenerates resources to deliver true sustainability. By making plastic bottles that can obviously and easily be recycled, evian gives them a value that makes them worth collecting, so more plastic stays in the system. The bottom line is that you don't need to create more plastic, and that's a huge win for the environment.

"The circular approach and making our bottles with 100% recycled plastics is now possible because of exciting new technologies," explains Patricia. Evian is partnering with breakthrough tech companies such as Loop Industries, whose pioneering innovation was showcased at Davos. Loop Industries has developed a revolutionary way of commercially transforming all types of PET plastic waste into virgin-quality PET resin, delivering both the quality and quantity of recycled raw material evian needs to make all of its bottles from 100% recycled plastic. "This will completely change the way we use plastic," declares Patricia.

Of course, for this to work evian needs a reliable supply of recycled plastic, so it is collaborating with governments and the waste processing industry to reinvigorate the collection of plastic. And, crucially, evian is sending out a strong message to the consumer that plastic bottles have evolved from a waste product to a valuable resource-so, recycle, recycle, recycle.

At Davos, Ellen MacArthur, Christiana Figueres from Mission2020, Stella McCartney and Patricia Oliva for evian joined forces in urging all industries to embrace the circular economy.

"To make this huge change in our system, we need other players to transform the way they are using and managing plastic," emphasizes Patricia.

Evian has delivered a compelling message, throwing down the gauntlet for change-and it is likely to be picked up. "Everyone is concerned about today's plastic systems," states Patricia. "We need to change, and everybody wants to change. We are showing that there are solutions and that we really can make a difference." Evian's approach could completely transform the way we think about plastics: they have imagined a world without plastic bottle waste, and with it the prospect of a truly guilt-free healthy beverage.

This content was written in association with our sponsor.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Changing the Way We Think About Plastics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
However hot it is, however thirsty you are, however better it tastes, there is often a pang of guilt associated with grabbing a bottle of water from the cooler. The problem is polyethylene terephthalate - the thermoplastic polymer resin typically used to make plastic bottles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ever heard how scientists estimate that more than enough solar energy strikes the earth every hour to power our whole society for an entire year? Yep, that's right: every hour.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I'm in Paris for the big meeting on climate change hosted by President Macron. Leaders from around the world are here to take stock of the progress the world is making on this urgent challenge.

This is a pivotal moment. We need to adapt to the climate change that is already affecting the planet, and develop new tools that will keep the problem from getting worse. Innovation is key to doing both. Scientific advances in crop science, for example, will help farmers deal with changing weather patterns. And energy research will make it possible to power modern life-the way we live, work, travel, and make things-without adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

The good news is that there's a lot of progress to report on both fronts. Here's an overview of the developments I'll be highlighting in Paris.

More partners are chipping in on clean energy. The world needs to invest much more in energy research than it has been. Two years ago, 20 countries launched an effort called Mission Innovation in which they committed to doubling their spending on energy R&D by 2020. Today, Mission Innovation has grown to 23 members, raising the group's total commitment to more than $30 billion.

The growing list of partners also includes the private sector. In 2015 we started the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, a group of investors who are supporting entrepreneurs working on new sources of clean energy. Today the BEC is adding 15 companies, banks, funds, and institutional investors. The members of the BEC have committed billions of dollars to creating new energy companies and commercializing new energy products.

Just as important, we'll also be working to speed up the pace of progress. The world can't afford to wait the decades that it usually takes to develop promising technology, find investors, connect with governments willing to roll it out, and reach customers. Our goal is to bring ideas out of the lab and into the market much faster.

That's why I'm excited that these partners are working together like never before. Public and private funding for energy research often isn't coordinated, which is one reason some promising technologies never make it to market. The members of Mission Innovation and the BEC will bridge that gap. They'll work together to match cutting-edge scientists in government labs with investors who can help turn their ideas into products. They'll also partner with governments to make it easier to create and deploy new tools. As a first step, the BEC will work with four countries-Canada, Mexico, France, and the United Kingdom-as well as the European Commission on ways to coordinate public and private efforts.

Our $1 billion clean-energy investment fund is up and running. Breakthrough Energy Ventures has hired a staff of accomplished investors, company builders, scientists, and technologists. They have identified five areas that are especially promising but also underfunded. This is where we will focus our investments:

Grid-scale storage. One reason renewables haven't been more widely adopted is that storing energy for later use-for example, when it's dark or the wind isn't blowing-is expensive. Breakthroughs in storage-for example, storing energy as heat or in flywheels-would make today's renewable technology more practical and affordable.

Liquid fuels. We might be able to use sunlight to create fuels that could power airplanes, trucks, and other big polluters without adding more carbon to the atmosphere. (Earlier this year I wrote about my visit to one lab that's doing exciting work in this area.)

Mini-grids. These networks can deliver electricity locally-say, to a neighborhood or village-without being connected to a centralized grid. That would make them especially useful in poor regions, like parts of Africa and India, where larger grids aren't practical.

Alternative building materials. Making concrete and steel produces a lot of greenhouse gases. To construct all the buildings we'll need by 2050, we need new carbon-neutral building materials for homes and offices.

Geothermal power. There is a phenomenal amount of energy stored up as heat under the Earth's surface-many times more than we could get from all the known coal and oil reserves in the world. Tapping this source involves pumping steam or hot water from underground to drive turbines.

Small farmers are getting more help. Roughly 800 million poor people in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia rely on agriculture for their food and income. As the climate warms and the weather becomes more unpredictable, their crops will become dramatically less productive-and could be wiped out altogether. As many as 200 million people may be forced to migrate to regions where they can grow enough to survive.

Innovation can help prevent that kind of catastrophe. For our part, the Gates Foundation is investing in three areas that developing countries have said are especially crucial. One is improving crops-for example, developing varieties that yield more food, so farmers can get more for the work they put in. The second is protecting crops by making them able to resist diseases and tolerate the droughts and floods that will become more frequent. The third area is giving farmers more advanced ways to manage crops in a changing climate-helping them analyze their soil, for example, or use water more efficiently. And because progress depends on brilliant researchers contributing their talents, we're also co-funding a fellowship program that will train 600 African and European scientists. All told, we will spend more than $300 million in these areas over the next three years.

Of course, our work is only part of the effort to spark innovation that helps farmers adapt to a changing climate. The European Commission is also committing more than $300 million over the next three years, bringing the total to over $600 million in new money through 2020.

As you can see, there's a lot going on. I'm optimistic that if we keep up this momentum, we can stop climate change and help those who are being hurt the most by it-all while meeting the world's growing energy needs.

If you want to receive updates, sign up to become a Gates Notes Insider.

Get updates on the work I'm doing to stop climate change. Sign up and become a Gates Notes Insider. You'll be able to access exclusive content, comment on stories, subscribe to favorite topics and more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I'm in Paris for the big meeting on climate change hosted by President Macron. Leaders from around the world are here to take stock of the progress the world is making on this urgent challenge. This is a pivotal moment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastics are everywhere. While you're reading this article, there are probably numerous plastic items within your reach (your computer, your pen, your phone). A plastic is any material that can be shaped or molded into any form -- some are naturally occurring, but most are man-made.

Plastics are made from oil. Oil is a carbon-rich raw material, and plastics are large carbon-containing compounds. They're large molecules called polymers, which are composed of repeating units of shorter carbon-containing compounds called monomers. Chemists combine various types of monomers in many different arrangements to make an almost infinite variety of plastics with different chemical properties. Most plastic is chemically inert and will not react chemically with other substances -- you can store alcohol, soap, water, acid or gasoline in a plastic container without dissolving the container itself. Plastic can be molded into an almost infinite variety of shapes, so you can find it in toys, cups, bottles, utensils, wiring, cars, even in bubble gum. Plastics have revolutionized the world.

Advertisement

Because plastic doesn't react chemically with most other substances, it doesn't decay. Therefore, plastic disposal poses a difficult and significant environmental problem. Plastic hangs around in the environment for centuries, so recycling is the best method of disposal. However, new technologies are being developed to make plastic from biological substances like corn oil. These types of plastics would be biodegradable and better for the environment.

In this article, we'll examine the chemistry of plastic, how it's made, how it's used, and how it's disposed of and recycled. We'll also look at some new biologically based plastics and their role in the future of plastic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastics are everywhere. While you're reading this article, there are probably numerous plastic items within your reach (your computer, your pen, your phone). A plastic is any material that can be shaped or molded into any form -- some are naturally occurring, but most are man-made. Plastics are made from oil.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastics are derived from natural, organic materials such as cellulose, coal, natural gas, salt and, of course, crude oil. Crude oil is a complex mixture of thousands of compounds and needs to be processed before it can be used. The production of plastics begins with the distillation of crude oil in an oil refinery. This separates the heavy crude oil into groups of lighter components, called fractions. Each fraction is a mixture of hydrocarbon chains (chemical compounds made up of carbon and hydrogen), which differ in terms of the size and structure of their molecules. One of these fractions, naphtha, is the crucial compound for the production of plastics.

Two main processes are used to produce plastics - polymerisation and polycondensation - and they both require specific catalysts. In a polymerisation reactor, monomers such as ethylene and propylene are linked together to form long polymer chains. Each polymer has its own properties, structure and size depending on the various types of basic monomers used.

There are many different types of plastics, and they can be grouped into two main polymer families:

Examples of Thermoplastics
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS)
Polycarbonate (PC)
Polyethylene (PE)
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA)
Polypropylene (PP)
Polystyrene (PS)
Expanded Polystyrene (EPS)

Examples of Thermosets
Epoxide (EP)
Phenol-formaldehyde (PF)
Polyurethane (PUR)
Unsaturated polyester resins (UP)

Read more about the various types of plastics.

Contact us today for more information
Contact us today for more information about the benefits of plastics and the activities of PlasticsEurope.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastics are derived from natural, organic materials such as cellulose, coal, natural gas, salt and, of course, crude oil. Crude oil is a complex mixture of thousands of compounds and needs to be processed before it can be used. The production of plastics begins with the distillation of crude oil in an oil refinery.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay tested the effluent of eight wastewater treatment plants last year and found that 80 percent of the microplastics and other microscopic particles were fibers.

It is unclear what proportion of these fibers were synthetic or natural-synthetic fibers like polyester or acrylic are categorized as "microplastics" and, like other microplastics, do not break down in the water. But, plastic or not, the microfibers are a cause for concern. Once they enter the water, they can absorb chemicals and might work their way up the food chain.

Most of the animals in the water are tiny. They also evolved in a world where they haven't had to distinguish between a nutritious piece of plankton and a contaminant-laden plastic pellet. These animals mistake small manmade particles for food, potentially allowing contaminants to accumulate as they make their way from the base of the food web to the apex predator: humans.

And the fibers are, indeed, working their way into our marine food chain. When UC Davis researchers looked into the guts of fish from a market in Half Moon Bay, they found that 25 percent of the fish were carryingmanmade debris; fibers made up 80 percent of this debris. Fibers were also found in one-third of the oysters the researchers studied.

Microfibers are unique among marine debris for two reasons. The first is their shape; most microplastics exist as small spheres or fragments.

"These fibers are a bit longer, and they're loopy, and they can get caught in the digestive tract or in the stomach," says Chelsea Rochman, the lead scientist behind the UC Davis study. "They can cause an animal to starve or stop eating, or can actually loop around the organ."

Think about the large sources of plastic pollution you hear about-the buoys, nets, or fishing lines that entangle sea turtles or whales. Microfibers are essentially the shrunken-down version of this.

"So you could say a whale with a big rope isn't that different from plankton with a small fiber," Rochman says.

The second unique trait of fibers is their history. Clothes are often treated with chemicals throughout the manufacturing process. When their fibers enter our waterways, they attract the water's long-lingering chemicals on top of the chemicals they arrived with. This might sound like a lot for one little thread to handle, but its surface-area-to-mass ratio makes it really good at absorbing things.
Where Are These Fibers Coming From?
We are tied to synthetic clothing, says Stiv Wilson of the Story of Stuff.

"If you go to Marin and look at 90 percent of people dressed there, they're wearing active clothing meant for sports or that sort of thing," Wilson says. "These are all polluting textiles, essentially, and it's really hard for manufacturers to find a replacement because of the performance attributes of the fabric itself."

'Are the toxins leaching out in the gut and getting into the flesh of the fish? And are they getting in in high enough concentrations that they're a human health risk? Susan Williams, UC Davis

Every time a fleece jacket is washed, it releases hundreds, if not thousands, of fibers. The amount of plastic released by the laundering of 100,000 fleece jackets is equivalent to up to 11,900 plastic grocery bags, according to a study from the UC Santa Barbara Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, commissioned by Patagonia itself earlier this summer. And standard washing machines don't have filters to catch these fibers.

Once they escape from our laundry, the tiny, mobile threads work their way to our wastewater treatment plants. Here is where the journey becomes unclear, and where wastewater treatment agencies are working to learn more.

Some of the fibers might be captured by current methods. But this might create a problem in itself, says Wilson, in cases when the solid material that is separated out during treatment gets applied to the land as fertilizers.

"So we're also looking at corrupting soil," he says, "and eventually creating fiber runoff into watersheds."
Threading Together a Solution

Patagonia was the first company to take a look at its own manufacturing practices in response to microfiber pollution. After commissioning the UC Santa Barbara study, the company informed its customers about the issue in a blog post last month. One of the results presents an interesting conundrum to the company; Patagonia has encouraged customers to use their items for as long as possible, but older jackets were shown to shed more fibers.

The company did find one straightforward solution: front-loading washing machines shed less fibers than top-loading. Chelsea Rochman echoed this, recommending that concerned consumers use front-loading machines, wash synthetic clothes less often, and encourage appliance manufacturers to put a filter on washing machines.

Bay Area wastewater treatment plants are now focused on understanding the extent of the microfiber loads. "This is a stepwise type of effort to figure out-very importantly-what are the loads, where are the loads coming from, how detrimental are the loads?" says David Williams of the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA).

We also don't know whether there's an actual risk to humans. The UC Davis study found fibers in oysters, which we eat whole. But the only part of the fish they examined was the digestive system-not a part that Californians generally eat.

"Are the toxins leaching out in the gut and getting into the flesh of the fish?" asks Susan Williams, another UC Davis researcher. "And are they getting in in high enough concentrations that they're a human health risk?"

One first step, says David Williams, is to understand just how many of the fibers found in the Bay are, in fact, synthetic. BACWA's lab team has "been working for several months now on developing more robust protocols" in order to make the distinction.

"At the end of the day," he says, "everyone is on the same page about keeping our Bay clean."

Even if it means taking a long, hard look at our layers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Microfibers: How the Tiny Threads in Our Clothes Are Polluting the Bay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay tested the effluent of eight wastewater treatment plants last year and found that 80 percent of the microplastics and other microscopic particles were fibers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay tested the effluent of eight wastewater treatment plants last year and found that 80 percent of the microplastics and other microscopic particles were fibers.

It is unclear what proportion of these fibers were synthetic or natural-synthetic fibers like polyester or acrylic are categorized as "microplastics" and, like other microplastics, do not break down in the water. But, plastic or not, the microfibers are a cause for concern. Once they enter the water, they can absorb chemicals and might work their way up the food chain.

Most of the animals in the water are tiny. They also evolved in a world where they haven't had to distinguish between a nutritious piece of plankton and a contaminant-laden plastic pellet. These animals mistake small manmade particles for food, potentially allowing contaminants to accumulate as they make their way from the base of the food web to the apex predator: humans.

And the fibers are, indeed, working their way into our marine food chain. When UC Davis researchers looked into the guts of fish from a market in Half Moon Bay, they found that 25 percent of the fish were carryingmanmade debris; fibers made up 80 percent of this debris. Fibers were also found in one-third of the oysters the researchers studied.

Microfibers are unique among marine debris for two reasons. The first is their shape; most microplastics exist as small spheres or fragments.

"These fibers are a bit longer, and they're loopy, and they can get caught in the digestive tract or in the stomach," says Chelsea Rochman, the lead scientist behind the UC Davis study. "They can cause an animal to starve or stop eating, or can actually loop around the organ."

Think about the large sources of plastic pollution you hear about-the buoys, nets, or fishing lines that entangle sea turtles or whales. Microfibers are essentially the shrunken-down version of this.

"So you could say a whale with a big rope isn't that different from plankton with a small fiber," Rochman says.

The second unique trait of fibers is their history. Clothes are often treated with chemicals throughout the manufacturing process. When their fibers enter our waterways, they attract the water's long-lingering chemicals on top of the chemicals they arrived with. This might sound like a lot for one little thread to handle, but its surface-area-to-mass ratio makes it really good at absorbing things.
Where Are These Fibers Coming From?
We are tied to synthetic clothing, says Stiv Wilson of the Story of Stuff.

"If you go to Marin and look at 90 percent of people dressed there, they're wearing active clothing meant for sports or that sort of thing," Wilson says. "These are all polluting textiles, essentially, and it's really hard for manufacturers to find a replacement because of the performance attributes of the fabric itself."

'Are the toxins leaching out in the gut and getting into the flesh of the fish? And are they getting in in high enough concentrations that they're a human health risk? Susan Williams, UC Davis

Every time a fleece jacket is washed, it releases hundreds, if not thousands, of fibers. The amount of plastic released by the laundering of 100,000 fleece jackets is equivalent to up to 11,900 plastic grocery bags, according to a study from the UC Santa Barbara Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, commissioned by Patagonia itself earlier this summer. And standard washing machines don't have filters to catch these fibers.

Once they escape from our laundry, the tiny, mobile threads work their way to our wastewater treatment plants. Here is where the journey becomes unclear, and where wastewater treatment agencies are working to learn more.

Some of the fibers might be captured by current methods. But this might create a problem in itself, says Wilson, in cases when the solid material that is separated out during treatment gets applied to the land as fertilizers.

"So we're also looking at corrupting soil," he says, "and eventually creating fiber runoff into watersheds."
Threading Together a Solution

Patagonia was the first company to take a look at its own manufacturing practices in response to microfiber pollution. After commissioning the UC Santa Barbara study, the company informed its customers about the issue in a blog post last month. One of the results presents an interesting conundrum to the company; Patagonia has encouraged customers to use their items for as long as possible, but older jackets were shown to shed more fibers.

The company did find one straightforward solution: front-loading washing machines shed less fibers than top-loading. Chelsea Rochman echoed this, recommending that concerned consumers use front-loading machines, wash synthetic clothes less often, and encourage appliance manufacturers to put a filter on washing machines.

Bay Area wastewater treatment plants are now focused on understanding the extent of the microfiber loads. "This is a stepwise type of effort to figure out-very importantly-what are the loads, where are the loads coming from, how detrimental are the loads?" says David Williams of the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA).

We also don't know whether there's an actual risk to humans. The UC Davis study found fibers in oysters, which we eat whole. But the only part of the fish they examined was the digestive system-not a part that Californians generally eat.

"Are the toxins leaching out in the gut and getting into the flesh of the fish?" asks Susan Williams, another UC Davis researcher. "And are they getting in in high enough concentrations that they're a human health risk?"

One first step, says David Williams, is to understand just how many of the fibers found in the Bay are, in fact, synthetic. BACWA's lab team has "been working for several months now on developing more robust protocols" in order to make the distinction.

"At the end of the day," he says, "everyone is on the same page about keeping our Bay clean."

Even if it means taking a long, hard look at our layers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Microfibers: How the Tiny Threads in Our Clothes Are Polluting the Bay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay tested the effluent of eight wastewater treatment plants last year and found that 80 percent of the microplastics and other microscopic particles were fibers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay tested the effluent of eight wastewater treatment plants last year and found that 80 percent of the microplastics and other microscopic particles were fibers.

It is unclear what proportion of these fibers were synthetic or natural-synthetic fibers like polyester or acrylic are categorized as "microplastics" and, like other microplastics, do not break down in the water. But, plastic or not, the microfibers are a cause for concern. Once they enter the water, they can absorb chemicals and might work their way up the food chain.

Most of the animals in the water are tiny. They also evolved in a world where they haven't had to distinguish between a nutritious piece of plankton and a contaminant-laden plastic pellet. These animals mistake small manmade particles for food, potentially allowing contaminants to accumulate as they make their way from the base of the food web to the apex predator: humans.

And the fibers are, indeed, working their way into our marine food chain. When UC Davis researchers looked into the guts of fish from a market in Half Moon Bay, they found that 25 percent of the fish were carryingmanmade debris; fibers made up 80 percent of this debris. Fibers were also found in one-third of the oysters the researchers studied.

Microfibers are unique among marine debris for two reasons. The first is their shape; most microplastics exist as small spheres or fragments.

"These fibers are a bit longer, and they're loopy, and they can get caught in the digestive tract or in the stomach," says Chelsea Rochman, the lead scientist behind the UC Davis study. "They can cause an animal to starve or stop eating, or can actually loop around the organ."

Think about the large sources of plastic pollution you hear about-the buoys, nets, or fishing lines that entangle sea turtles or whales. Microfibers are essentially the shrunken-down version of this.

"So you could say a whale with a big rope isn't that different from plankton with a small fiber," Rochman says.

The second unique trait of fibers is their history. Clothes are often treated with chemicals throughout the manufacturing process. When their fibers enter our waterways, they attract the water's long-lingering chemicals on top of the chemicals they arrived with. This might sound like a lot for one little thread to handle, but its surface-area-to-mass ratio makes it really good at absorbing things.
Where Are These Fibers Coming From?
We are tied to synthetic clothing, says Stiv Wilson of the Story of Stuff.

"If you go to Marin and look at 90 percent of people dressed there, they're wearing active clothing meant for sports or that sort of thing," Wilson says. "These are all polluting textiles, essentially, and it's really hard for manufacturers to find a replacement because of the performance attributes of the fabric itself."

'Are the toxins leaching out in the gut and getting into the flesh of the fish? And are they getting in in high enough concentrations that they're a human health risk? Susan Williams, UC Davis

Every time a fleece jacket is washed, it releases hundreds, if not thousands, of fibers. The amount of plastic released by the laundering of 100,000 fleece jackets is equivalent to up to 11,900 plastic grocery bags, according to a study from the UC Santa Barbara Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, commissioned by Patagonia itself earlier this summer. And standard washing machines don't have filters to catch these fibers.

Once they escape from our laundry, the tiny, mobile threads work their way to our wastewater treatment plants. Here is where the journey becomes unclear, and where wastewater treatment agencies are working to learn more.

Some of the fibers might be captured by current methods. But this might create a problem in itself, says Wilson, in cases when the solid material that is separated out during treatment gets applied to the land as fertilizers.

"So we're also looking at corrupting soil," he says, "and eventually creating fiber runoff into watersheds."
Threading Together a Solution

Patagonia was the first company to take a look at its own manufacturing practices in response to microfiber pollution. After commissioning the UC Santa Barbara study, the company informed its customers about the issue in a blog post last month. One of the results presents an interesting conundrum to the company; Patagonia has encouraged customers to use their items for as long as possible, but older jackets were shown to shed more fibers.

The company did find one straightforward solution: front-loading washing machines shed less fibers than top-loading. Chelsea Rochman echoed this, recommending that concerned consumers use front-loading machines, wash synthetic clothes less often, and encourage appliance manufacturers to put a filter on washing machines.

Bay Area wastewater treatment plants are now focused on understanding the extent of the microfiber loads. "This is a stepwise type of effort to figure out-very importantly-what are the loads, where are the loads coming from, how detrimental are the loads?" says David Williams of the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA).

We also don't know whether there's an actual risk to humans. The UC Davis study found fibers in oysters, which we eat whole. But the only part of the fish they examined was the digestive system-not a part that Californians generally eat.

"Are the toxins leaching out in the gut and getting into the flesh of the fish?" asks Susan Williams, another UC Davis researcher. "And are they getting in in high enough concentrations that they're a human health risk?"

One first step, says David Williams, is to understand just how many of the fibers found in the Bay are, in fact, synthetic. BACWA's lab team has "been working for several months now on developing more robust protocols" in order to make the distinction.

"At the end of the day," he says, "everyone is on the same page about keeping our Bay clean."

Even if it means taking a long, hard look at our layers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Microfibers: How the Tiny Threads in Our Clothes Are Polluting the Bay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay tested the effluent of eight wastewater treatment plants last year and found that 80 percent of the microplastics and other microscopic particles were fibers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One of the factors driving the plastic pollution crisis is that very little of it gets reused effectively-as of 2015, only 9 percent of all plastics ever made had been recycled, a 2017 Science Advances study found.

This is because, as ScienceNews explained, when plastics break down, they usually break down into molecules that can't be easily reshaped into plastics or other useful items without going through many different chemical processes.

But researchers at Colorado State University (CSU) have developed a potential solution to the plastic recycling problem.

In an article published in Science today, they unveiled a new polymer with many of the same characteristics as plastic that can be more easily returned to its original molecules to be recycled, without the need for toxic chemicals or complicated lab processes, a CSU press release reported Thursday.

"The polymers can be chemically recycled and reused, in principle, infinitely," Eugene Chen, a CSU chemistry professor whose lab developed the material, said.

Polymers, of which plastics are one type, are made from chains of repeating molecules. The new polymer developed by Chen's lab shares important characteristics with plastic such as strength, durability, lightness and heat resistance.

The recent polymer builds on another developed by Chen's lab in 2015, which could only be made under commercially impractical cold conditions. It was also softer than plastic, with less heat resistance and molecular weight.

But Chen said the lessons learned from that polymer were essential to developing the newer model, which can be made without solvents and under room temperature conditions that could be more easily replicated by industry. It can also be easily broken down using a catalyst and returned to its original shape for reuse.

The polymer still needs more work before it will be available commercially. Chen and his team have received a grant from CSU ventures that they are using to develop an even cheaper, more efficient process for developing similar polymers, as well as exploring how they can be produced on a larger scale. But Chen thinks he and his team are headed in the right direction.

"It would be our dream to see this chemically recyclable polymer technology materialize in the marketplace," Chen said in the press release.

If Chen makes that dream come true, his work could aid governments and businesses as they work to reduce plastic pollution. Just a day before his paper was published, more than 40 UK businesses joined a UK Plastics Pact that aims, among other things, to source 30 percent of the UK's packaging from recyclable sources by 2025.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Researchers at Colorado State University have developed a potential solution to the plastic recycling problem. A new polymer with many of the same characteristics as plastic can be more easily returned to its original molecules, to be recycled without the need for toxic chemicals or complicated lab processes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One of the factors driving the plastic pollution crisis is that very little of it gets reused effectively-as of 2015, only 9 percent of all plastics ever made had been recycled, a 2017 Science Advances study found.

This is because, as ScienceNews explained, when plastics break down, they usually break down into molecules that can't be easily reshaped into plastics or other useful items without going through many different chemical processes.

But researchers at Colorado State University (CSU) have developed a potential solution to the plastic recycling problem.

In an article published in Science today, they unveiled a new polymer with many of the same characteristics as plastic that can be more easily returned to its original molecules to be recycled, without the need for toxic chemicals or complicated lab processes, a CSU press release reported Thursday.

"The polymers can be chemically recycled and reused, in principle, infinitely," Eugene Chen, a CSU chemistry professor whose lab developed the material, said.

Polymers, of which plastics are one type, are made from chains of repeating molecules. The new polymer developed by Chen's lab shares important characteristics with plastic such as strength, durability, lightness and heat resistance.

The recent polymer builds on another developed by Chen's lab in 2015, which could only be made under commercially impractical cold conditions. It was also softer than plastic, with less heat resistance and molecular weight.

But Chen said the lessons learned from that polymer were essential to developing the newer model, which can be made without solvents and under room temperature conditions that could be more easily replicated by industry. It can also be easily broken down using a catalyst and returned to its original shape for reuse.

The polymer still needs more work before it will be available commercially. Chen and his team have received a grant from CSU ventures that they are using to develop an even cheaper, more efficient process for developing similar polymers, as well as exploring how they can be produced on a larger scale. But Chen thinks he and his team are headed in the right direction.

"It would be our dream to see this chemically recyclable polymer technology materialize in the marketplace," Chen said in the press release.

If Chen makes that dream come true, his work could aid governments and businesses as they work to reduce plastic pollution. Just a day before his paper was published, more than 40 UK businesses joined a UK Plastics Pact that aims, among other things, to source 30 percent of the UK's packaging from recyclable sources by 2025.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Researchers at Colorado State University have developed a potential solution to the plastic recycling problem. A new polymer with many of the same characteristics as plastic can be more easily returned to its original molecules, to be recycled without the need for toxic chemicals or complicated lab processes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AMAZING things happened when 25 kids banded together and sued the government for not protecting the environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More than half of Borneo's orangutans have perished in the last 20 years; their habitats destroyed to make way for palm oil plantations. #RedApe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The federal government plans to use its G7 presidency to advance action on plastic pollution. And they've invited Canadians to join the conversation. On Earth Day, Minister McKenna launched an online public consultation, asking all of us what Canada should do to stop plastic pollution.

It's great to see federal interest in this pressing environmental issue. It's essential that all this talk leads to meaningful action.

Canada's Plastic Pollution Problem

Less than 11 per cent of plastics are recycled in Canada. That means the vast majority of plastics we use are dumped into our landfills, lakes, parks and oceans. And once they're there they destroy ecosystems and leach toxic chemicals.

Yes, we love our blue boxes, but they're not cutting it.

Things are not going to change unless government takes decisive action. Right now, making new plastic from fossil resources is cheap, the cost of collecting and recycling plastic is high, and dumping plastic into the environment is "free". Therefore, there's little incentive for businesses to change their packaging, or invest in innovative recycling systems and infrastructure.

If Canada is serious about ending plastic pollution, we need standardized, and legally enforceable rules from coast-to-coast-to-coast.

Towards a plastic-free Canada

Canada needs a federal plastics strategy that gets us to a plastic-free environment by 2025.

Until now, the federal government has mostly stayed out of waste policy. Provinces have written waste legislation, and municipalities have implemented it, and still the plastic garbage has piled up. But using its G7 presidency, Canada has the opportunity to set ambitious federal standards for reducing plastic use and increasing plastics recycling - and they should take it. It will take a major coordinated effort to achieve Canada's "zero plastic waste" goal.

If they are serious about dealing with plastic pollution, here's what they should commit to:

1. Banning all plastics that can't be recycled, or contain toxic chemicals. We're talking about things like black plastic, Styrofoam, and PVC packaging;

2. Making producers (like Coca-Cola, Pepsi and Nestlé) pay for- and be responsible for collecting and recycling all of the single-use plastics they put on the market; and

3. Stopping companies from using virgin fossil resources to make single-use plastic. There's no need to keep making new plastics when the world is literally filling up with old ones.

We can turn Canada's plastic tide, but we'll need to harness the power of people, businesses, and government to do it. That's where you come in.

Take Action

Tell Canada you want a plastic-free environment by signing our petition, and submitting your own ideas and suggestions using the federal government's online consultation form.

And in the meantime, do what you can to reduce your own plastic use by refusing plastic straws and bags, using a refillable water bottle, and avoiding products with excessive packaging.

Like what you read? Join our online community to be the first to hear about news like this!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Welcome to the plastic pollution party, Canada. Better late than never. - Environmental Defence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The federal government plans to use its G7 presidency to advance action on plastic pollution. And they've invited Canadians to join the conversation. On Earth Day, Minister McKenna launched an online public consultation, asking all of us what Canada should do to stop plastic pollution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Southern California man who built a sizable business out of recycling electronic waste is headed to federal prison for 15 months after a federal appeals court in Miami rejected his claim that the "restore discs" he made to extend computers' lives had no financial value, instead ruling that he had infringed on Microsoft Corp. to the tune of $700,000.

The appeals court upheld a federal district judge's ruling that the discs Eric Lundgren made to restore Microsoft operating systems had a value of $25 apiece, even though the software they contained could be downloaded free and the discs could only be used on computers that already had a valid Microsoft license. The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals initially granted Lundgren an emergency stay of his prison sentence, shortly before he was to surrender, but then affirmed his original 15-month sentence and $50,000 fine without hearing oral argument in a ruling issued April 11.

"This is a difficult sentencing," U.S. District Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley told him last year, "because I credit everything you are telling me. You are a very remarkable person."

But in 2012, U.S. Customs officers seized a shipment of discs and began investigating. The discs were never sold. Eventually, the Florida broker, Robert Wolff, called Lundgren and offered to buy the discs himself as part of a government sting, Lundgren said. Wolff sent Lundgren $3,400 and the conspiracy was cemented. Both were indicted on a charge of conspiracy to traffic in counterfeit goods and criminal copyright infringement. Wolff made a plea deal and received a sentence of six months of home arrest.

Lundgren pleaded guilty but argued that the value of his discs was zero, so there was no harm to anyone. Neither Microsoft nor any computer manufacturers sell restore discs. They supply them free with new computers, and make the software available for free downloading, for those who have paid for the software and received a license - typically a sticker with a "certificate of authenticity" number on it. Lundgren said that he was trying to make the discs available again for those who needed them, and that they could only be used on licensed computers.

Glenn Weadock, a former expert witness for the government in its antitrust case against Microsoft, was asked: "In your opinion, without a code, either product key or COA [certificate of authenticity], what is the value of these reinstallation discs?"

"Zero or near zero," Weadock said.

Why would anybody pay for one? Lundgren's lawyer asked.

"There is a convenience factor associated with them," Weadock said.

Still, Hurley decided that Lundgren's 28,000 restore discs had a value of $700,000, and that dollar amount qualified Lundgren for a 15-month term, along with a $50,000 fine. The judge said he disregarded Weadock's testimony. "I don't think anybody in that courtroom understood what a restore disc was," Lundgren said.

A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit deferred to Hurley in his judgment that Weadock was not credible, and that "while experts on both sides may have identified differences in functionality in the discs, [Hurley] did not clearly err in finding them substantially equivalent."

Lundgren said he wasn't sure when he would be surrendering. He said prosecutors in Miami told him he could have a couple of weeks to put his financial affairs in order, including plans for his company of more than 100 employees. "But I was told if I got loud in the media, they'd come pick me up," Lundgren said. "If you want to take my liberty, I'm going to get loud."

A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office in Miami declined to comment Monday.

"I am going to prison, and I've accepted it," Lundgren said Monday. "What I'm not OK with is people not understanding why I'm going to prison. Hopefully my story can shine some light on the e-waste epidemic we have in the United States, how wasteful we are. At what point do people stand up and say something? I didn't say something, I just did it."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Electronics-recycling innovator is going to prison for trying to extend computers' lives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A California man who built a business out of recycling electronic waste is headed to prison for 15 months after a federal appeals court rejected his claim that the "restore discs" he made to extend computers' lives had no financial value, instead ruling that he'd infringed Microsoft products.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ten years ago, most gadget buffs had a desktop, maybe a laptop and probably a cell phone. Today, we can add tablets, smartphones and a myriad of other technological advances to that list. While our tech keeps marching to the future, many of our ideas about how to recycle our gadgets are stuck in the past. Busting these myths helps protect the environment because the resources needed to make new tech currently reside in your old tech.

Myth #1: Obsolete electronics are worthless.
Actually, our everyday electronics contain valuable commodities such as gold, silver, copper and aluminum. Other materials, such as metals, plastics and glass, can be reused in new products. It's not safe or profitable to harvest these elements yourself, but Recycle My Electronics - an industry-led, not-for-profit program that operates the regulated recycling in our province - will make sure that end-of-life electronics are handled safely, securely and in a way that's environmentally sound

Myth #2: It's okay to toss electronics in with the household recycling.
The household recycling program is designed to process many kinds of recyclable materials, but not electronics. So where should you put your old devices? Recycle My Electronics has a handy searchable database of authorized collection locations across the country. Drop-offs are free and environmentally safe.

Myth #3: Unused electronics are often shipped to developing nations, where they become somebody else's problem.
The Recycle My Electronics program only works with recyclers who have been verified under the national Electronics Recycling Standard (ERS), which was designed by the electronics industry to ensure that end-of-life electronics are managed in a safe and environmentally sound manner. These partners are prohibited from exporting electronics or substances of concern to non-OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) nations. In addition, they require worker health and safety provisions and downstream accountability.

Myth #4: Products made from recycled materials aren't as good as those created from scratch.
Glass, silver, copper, aluminum, palladium and plastics can all be recycled and reused continuously without losing their properties. Using recycled materials recovered from electronics to manufacture new products reduces greenhouse gases and the amount of energy used to process raw materials. It keeps substances of concern like lead and mercury out of our ecosystem.

Myth #5: Recycling electronics can put your data at risk.
When your old laptop, phone or computer goes to a recycling facility, it is quickly pulverized to recover its precious metals and other recyclable materials. But to be safe, you should clear your device of any personal information before you drop off your end-of-life electronics. To learn how to wipe the data from your device, check the owner's manual or visit the manufacturer's website for instructions.
It's never been easier to recycle your end-of-life electronics. Visit recyclemyelectronics.ca, click on 'Drop-Off Locations' and enter your postal code to find a drop-off location near you.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Five things most people get wrong about recycling electronics | The Star

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ten years ago, most gadget buffs had a desktop, maybe a laptop and probably a cell phone. Today, we can add tablets, smartphones and a myriad of other technological advances to that list. While our tech keeps marching to the future, many of our ideas about how to recycle our gadgets are stuck in the past.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The millions of tons of plastic swirling around the world's oceans have garnered a lot of media attention recently. But plastic pollution arguably poses a bigger threat to the plants and animals - including humans - who are based on land.

Very little of the plastic we discard every day is recycled or incinerated in waste-to-energy facilities. Much of it ends up in landfills, where it may take up to 1,000 years to decompose, leaching potentially toxic substances into the soil and water.

Researchers in Germany are warning that the impact of microplastics in soils, sediments and freshwater could have a long-term negative effect on such ecosystems. They say terrestrial microplastic pollution is much higher than marine microplastic pollution - estimated at four to 23 times higher, depending on the environment.

On the left: Artificial turf football field with ground tyre rubber used for cushioning. On the right: Microplastics from the same field, washed away by rain, and found close to a stream, Kristiansand, Norway.
Photo bySoleincitta

The researchers concludethat, although little research has been carried out in this area, the results to date are concerning: fragments of plastic are present practically all over the world and can trigger many kinds of adverse effects.

The study estimates that one third of all plastic waste ends up in soils or freshwater. Most of this plastic disintegrates into particles smaller than five millimetres, known as microplastics, and these break down further into nanoparticles (less than 0.1 micrometre in size). The problem is that these particles are entering the food chain.
Sewage
Sewage is an important factor in the distribution of microplastics. In fact, between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of the plastic particles contained in sewage, such as from garment fibres, persist in the sludge, says the study. Sewage sludge is often applied to fields as fertilizer, meaning that several thousand tons of microplastics end up in our soils each year. Microplastics can even be found in tap water.

Moreover, the surfaces of tiny fragments of plastic may carry disease-causing organisms and act as a vector for diseases in the environment. Microplastics can also interact with soil fauna, affecting their health and soil functions. "Earthworms, for example, make their burrows differently when microplastics are present in the soil, affecting the earthworm's fitness and the soil condition," says an article in Science Daily about the research.
Toxic effects
Chlorinated plastic can release harmful chemicals into the surrounding soil, which can then seep into groundwater or other surrounding water sources, and also the ecosystem. This can cause a range of potentially harmful effects on the species that drink the water.

Shovel excavator spreading sewage sludge on a field

Generally speaking, when plastic particles break down, they gain new physical and chemical properties, increasing the risk that they will have a toxic effect on organisms. And the larger the number of potentially affected species and ecological functions, the more likely it is that toxic effects will occur.

Chemical effects are especially problematic at the decomposition stage. Additives such as phthalates and Bisphenol A (widely known as BPA) leach out of plastic particles. These additives are known for their hormonal effects and can disrupt the hormone system of vertebrates and invertebrates alike. In addition, nano-sized particles may cause inflammation, traverse cellular barriers, and even cross highly selective membranes such as the blood-brain barrier or the placenta. Within the cell, they can trigger changes in gene expression and biochemical reactions, among other things.

The long-term effects of these changes have not yet been sufficiently explored. "However, it has already been shown that when passing the blood-brain barrier nanoplastics have a behaviour-changing effect in fish," according to the Leibnitz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries.
How do microplastics get into our water?
One of the main sources is our clothing. Minuscule fibres of acrylic, nylon, spandex, and polyester are shed each time we wash our clothes and are carried off to wastewater treatment plants or discharged to the open environment.

According to a recent study cited by Water World, more than 700,000 microscopic plastic fibres could be released into the environment during each cycle of a washing machine. This has not yet been studied in the case of handwashing, which is more common in developing counties, but the effects could be significant there as well.

A study in 2016 commissioned by clothing company Patagonia and conducted by researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara, found that washing a single synthetic jacket just once released an average of 1.7 grams of microfibres.
Microbeads
Microbeads are solid plastic particles that typically range from 10 micrometers (0.00039 inches) up to one millimeter (0.039 inches).

Numerous countries around the world have introduced legislation to ban the manufacture of cosmetics and personal care products containing microbeads. Such laws have already been passed in Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

A Global Symposium on Soil Pollution will be held from 2-4 May at the Food and Agriculture Organization headquarters in Rome and is expected to be attended by 500 to 700 participants. Plastics and microplastics will be discussed under the category of "Chemicals of Emerging Concern". Other examples of such chemicals are hormones, endocrine disruptors and pharmaceuticals. UN Environment is one of several co-organizers of the Symposium.
#BeatPlasticPollution is the theme of World Environment Day 2018.
For further information: [email protected]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic planet: How tiny plastic particles are polluting our soil

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The millions of tons of plastic swirling around the world's oceans have garnered a lot of media attention recently. But plastic pollution arguably poses a bigger threat to the plants and animals - including humans - who are based on land. Very little of the plastic we discard every day is recycled or incinerated in waste-to-energy facilities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most of us wear synthetic fabrics like polyester every day. Our dress shirts, yoga pants, fleeces, and even underwear are all increasingly made of synthetic materials -- plastic, in fact.

But these synthetic fabrics have a dirty secret: when they're washed, they release tiny plastic strands called microfibers that flow down our drains, through water treatment plants, and out into our rivers, lakes and oceans by the trillions. These synthetic fibers are forming a plastic smog that is choking our oceans. They're even showing up in bottled water!

Last year, we released The Story of Microfibers, revealing that one of the biggest and most pernicious contributors to aquatic plastic pollution is washing our everyday clothing. Despite a flurry of activity by some companies, most clothing brands have failed to respond aggressively to this growing threat. Instead, they're trying to pass the buck by suggesting that we filter the water coming out of washing machines. But with 103 million washing machines in the U.S. alone, that's not a realistic solution.
Its time companies took responsibility for the pollution their products cause. That's why we've helped to introduce first-in-the-nation legislation in California this week to address plastic microfiber pollution.
Our bill requires clothing companies to attach a garment label informing consumers that laundering synthetic clothing in washing machines causes plastic fibers to shed. [If you live in California, click here to call your assemblymember to ask them to support AB 2379]

This bill is an important first step towards solving the microfibers problem. By forcing manufacturers to own up to the pollution their products cause, we're raising the stakes for them to find a lasting solution. And by passing this bill in California, we'll be launching a scalable solution - just like the microbeads ban our Community supported in 2015, which started as a state proposal before becoming federal law.

Unfortunately, industry groups like the California Fashion Association are opposing this common sense solution and fighting the public's right to know. Add your name to this petition to call on those companies to take responsibility for the pollution their products create. We will also ask these companies for specific commitments so that we can objectively gauge progress and engage in serious and constructive conversations aimed at ending microfiber pollution.

Add your name today. Together, let's tell the world's largest clothing brands: "Eliminate your products' microfiber impacts on the environment, right from the design of the clothing. Forget filters... it's time to commit to real Solutions!"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Microfiber Plastics Are Polluting Our Oceans: We Demand Action!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most of us wear synthetic fabrics like polyester every day. Our dress shirts, yoga pants, fleeces, and even underwear are all increasingly made of synthetic materials -- plastic, in fact. But these synthetic fabrics have a dirty secret: when they're washed, they release tiny plastic strands called microfibers that flow down our drains, through water treatment plants, and out into our rivers, lakes and oceans by the trillions.

# data[].attributes.headline
Child Labour Associated with cell phone manufacturing

# data[].attributes.subject
Child Labour Associated with cell phone manufacturing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Exposed: Child labour behind smart phone and electric car batteries Mark Dummett, Business & Human Rights Researcher at Amnesty International
Major electronics brands, including Apple, Samsung and Sony, are failing to do basic checks to ensure that cobalt mined by child labourers has not been used in their products, said Amnesty International and Afrewatch in a report published today.

The report, This is what we die for: Human rights abuses in the Democratic Republic of the Congo power the global trade in cobalt, traces the sale of cobalt, used in lithium-ion batteries, from mines where children as young as seven and adults work in perilous conditions.

"The glamourous shop displays and marketing of state of the art technologies are a stark contrast to the children carrying bags of rocks, and miners in narrow manmade tunnels risking permanent lung damage," said Mark Dummett, Business & Human Rights Researcher at Amnesty International.

"Millions of people enjoy the benefits of new technologies but rarely ask how they are made. It is high time the big brands took some responsibility for the mining of the raw materials that make their lucrative products."

The report documents how traders buy cobalt from areas where child labour is rife and sell it to Congo Dongfang Mining (CDM), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Chinese mineral giant Zhejiang Huayou Cobalt Ltd (Huayou Cobalt).

Amnesty International's investigation uses investor documents to show how Huayou Cobalt and its subsidiary CDM process the cobalt before selling it to three battery component manufacturers in China and South Korea. In turn, they sell to battery makers who claim to supply technology and car companies, including Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, Sony, Daimler and Volkswagen.

Amnesty International contacted 16 multinationals who were listed as customers of the battery manufacturers listed as sourcing processed ore from Huayou Cobalt. One company admitted the connection, while four were unable to say for certain whether they were buying cobalt from the DRC or Huayou Cobalt. Six said they were investigating the claims. Five denied sourcing cobalt from via Huayou Cobalt, though they are listed as customers in the company documents of battery manufacturers. Two multinationals denied sourcing cobalt from DRC.

Crucially, none provided enough details to independently verify where the cobalt in their products came from.

"It is a major paradox of the digital era that some of the world's richest, most innovative companies are able to market incredibly sophisticated devices without being required to show where they source raw materials for their components," said Emmanuel Umpula, Afrewatch (Africa Resources Watch) Executive Director.

"The abuses in mines remain out of sight and out of mind because in today's global marketplace consumers have no idea about the conditions at the mine, factory, and assembly line. We found that traders are buying cobalt without asking questions about how and where it was mined."
Fatal mines and child labour
The DRC produces at least 50% of the world's cobalt. One of the largest mineral processors in the country is Huayou Cobalt subsidiary CDM. Huayou Cobalt gets more than 40% of its cobalt from DRC.

Miners working in areas from which CDM buys cobalt face the risk of long-term health damage and a high risk of fatal accidents. At least 80 artisanal miners died underground in southern DRC between September 2014 and December 2015 alone. The true figure is unknown as many accidents go unrecorded and bodies are left buried in the rubble.

Amnesty International researchers also found that the vast majority of miners spend long hours every day working with cobalt without the most basic of protective equipment, such as gloves, work clothes or facemasks to protect them from lung or skin disease.

Children told Amnesty International they worked for up to 12 hours a day in the mines, carrying heavy loads to earn between one and two dollars a day. In 2014 approximately 40,000 children worked in mines across southern DRC, many of them mining cobalt, according to UNICEF.

Paul, a 14-year-old orphan, started mining at the age of 12. He told researchers that prolonged time underground made him constantly ill:

"I would spend 24 hours down in the tunnels. I arrived in the morning and would leave the following morning ... I had to relieve myself down in the tunnels ... My foster mother planned to send me to school, but my foster father was against it, he exploited me by making me work in the mine."

"The dangers to health and safety make mining one of the worst forms of child labour. Companies whose global profits total $125 billion cannot credibly claim that they are unable to check where key minerals in their productions come from," said Mark Dummett.

"Mining the basic materials that power an electric car or a smartphone should be a source of prosperity for miners in DRC. The reality is that it is a back-breaking life of misery for almost no money. Big brands have the power to change this."
Following the supply chain - corporate shame
Amnesty International and Afrewatch researchers spoke to 87 current and former cobalt miners, 17 of them children, from five mine sites in southern DRC in April and May 2015. They also interviewed 18 cobalt traders and followed vehicles of miners and traders as they carried cobalt ore from mines to markets where larger companies buy the ore. The largest of them is Huayou Cobalt's Congolese subsidiary CDM.

Huayou Cobalt supplies cobalt to three lithium-ion battery component manufacturers Ningbo Shanshan and Tianjin Bamo from China and L&F Materials from South Korea. These three battery component manufacturers bought more than US$90 million worth of cobalt from Huayou Cobalt in 2013.

Amnesty International then contacted 16 multinational consumer brands listed as direct or indirect customers of the three battery component manufacturers. None said they had been in touch with Huayou Cobalt or traced where the cobalt in their products had come from prior to Amnesty International's contact.

The report shows that companies along the cobalt supply chain are failing to address human rights risks arising in their supply chain.

Today there is no regulation of the global cobalt market. Cobalt does not fall under existing "conflict minerals" rules in the USA, which cover gold, coltan/tantalum, tin and tungsten mined in DRC.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"This is what we die for": Human rights abuses in the Democratic Republic of the Congo power the global trade in cobalt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Exposed: Child labour behind smart phone and electric car batteries Mark Dummett, Business & Human Rights Researcher at Amnesty International Major electronics brands, including Apple, Samsung and Sony, are failing to do basic checks to ensure that cobalt mined by child labourers has not been used in their products, said Amnesty International and Afrewatch in a report published today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The human costs of mineral management are harder to quantify, but often much steeper than the monetary ones. In the case of the Mitsubishi mine, a local public health official reports that there have been at least 11 deaths of blood poisoning, leukemia or brain cancer due to the radioactive waste since 1994 (Jegathesan 2012).