# data[].attributes.body
“Plastic has been found in more than 60% of all seabirds and in 100% of sea turtle species, that mistake plastic for food. And when animals ingest plastic, it can cause life-threatening problems, including reduced fitness, nutrient uptake and feeding efficiency-all vital for survival.”

# data[].attributes.body
The astounding amount of plastic accumulation in the ocean has resulted in a Great Pacific Garbage Patch that is three times the size of France and is estimated to contain 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic.

# data[].attributes.body
My proposed solution would be to eliminate the root of the problem first. The amount of plastic being dumped in the ocean should be strictly prohibited with steep fines in place for violators. At the point that there is little to no plastic entering the ocean, the people attempting to clean it should be able to make good progress.

# data[].attributes.body
Many volunteers and new inventions that have attempted to remove plastic from the ocean have not succeeded because the amount of plastic entering the ocean is is greatly surpassing the amount being taken out.

# data[].attributes.body
This issue is important to me because it is quickly growing into a crisis and not many people realize it. Plastic pollution will not resolve itself. Because it is not biodegradable, the only way the plastic can be eliminated from the ocean is by physically taking it out.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Plastic Pollution Problem - Not going away

# data[].attributes.subject
The Plastic Pollution Problem - Not going away

# data[].attributes.body
Because plastic is so durable, the EPA reports “every bit of plastic ever made still exists”.

# data[].attributes.body
Replacing single use-plastic is a good idea but will be needs to be done on much bigger scale. This could possiblyb be done through bans on single-use plastic especially for corporations.

# data[].attributes.body
Currently, some single-use plastics are being eliminated, but enough are. It will take a lot more single-use plastic being replaced with reusable objects to significantly reduce the amount of plastic entering the ocean.

# data[].attributes.body
The issue of single-use plastic is important to me because I realize I am part of that problem. As a single individual, I throw away a huge amount of plastic that was only meant for one use, such as straws and packaging.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Plastic Pollution Problem - Single-use Plastic

# data[].attributes.subject
The Plastic Pollution Problem - Single-use Plastic

# data[].attributes.body
“Single-use plastics have brought great convenience to people around the world, but they also make up a big part of the plastic waste that’s now choking our oceans.”

# data[].attributes.body
In order to completely eliminate the possibility of ingesting plastic in fish, they should be raised in a controlled plastic free environment until the ocean is free of most plastic. Fish from the ocean should not be able to be sold with the possibility of containing plastic.

# data[].attributes.body
Currently, most scientists believe that ingesting the small amount of plastic found in fish will not harm humans. Because of this belief, they are choosing to ignore this issue until plastics break down smaller and enter more parts of the fish.

# data[].attributes.body
Human consumption of plastic over time can become detrimental to health. I do not want my family and peers to become sick because of plastic microfibers and chemicals in fish they ingest.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Plastic Pollution Problem - Human Consumption

# data[].attributes.subject
The Plastic Pollution Problem - Human Consumption

# data[].attributes.body
“Many fish humans consume, include brown trout, Cisco, and perch, have at one time or another ingested plastic microfibers.”

# data[].attributes.body
Actions needs to be taken soon based on the findings from research operations. Based on the tiny miroplastics found in the GPGP, a net made to collect extremely small plastic pieces needs to be created and used.

# data[].attributes.body
Large research operations have recently been conducted within the past 5 years to understand how the plastic behaves in this patch to give insight into how to get rid of it. Nothing has been implimented yet because research is still being conducted.

# data[].attributes.body
If the plastic in the ocean continues to grow, it will eventually be completely covered in plastic as this great patch is showing. It is important to me that the ocean be clean so there are still nice beaches not covered in plastic for people to enjoy in 50 years.

# data[].attributes.body
Charities alone are unable to overcome the mass amount of plastic that needs cleaned out of the ocean so I believe the government will need to get involved. If a portion of tax dollars went to ocean cleanup, it would be much easier to accomplish.

# data[].attributes.body
Many charities have been created to fund Ocean Cleanup but are unable to keep up with the multiplying amount of plastic being added to oceans every day.

# data[].attributes.body
Plastic in our oceans is important to me because it is harming innocent marine wildlife.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This story is part of Planet or Plastic?-our multiyear effort to raise awareness about the global plastic waste crisis. Learn what you can do to reduce your own single-use plastics, and take your pledge.

Read this story and more in the June 2018 issue of National Geographic magazine.

If plastic had been invented when the Pilgrims sailed from Plymouth, England, to North America-and the Mayflower had been stocked with bottled water and plastic-wrapped snacks-their plastic trash would likely still be around, four centuries later.

If the Pilgrims had been like many people today and simply tossed their empty bottles and wrappers over the side, Atlantic waves and sunlight would have worn all that plastic into tiny bits. And those bits might still be floating around the world's oceans today, sponging up toxins to add to the ones already in them, waiting to be eaten by some hapless fish or oyster, and ultimately perhaps by one of us.

We should give thanks that the Pilgrims didn't have plastic, I thought recently as I rode a train to Plymouth along England's south coast. I was on my way to see a man who would help me make sense of the whole mess we've made with plastic, especially in the ocean.

Because plastic wasn't invented until the late 19th century, and production really only took off around 1950, we have a mere 9.2 billion tons of the stuff to deal with. Of that, more than 6.9 billion tons have become waste. And of that waste, a staggering 6.3 billion tons never made it to a recycling bin-a figure that stunned the scientists who crunched the numbers in 2017.

No one knows how much unrecycled plastic waste ends up in the ocean, Earth's last sink. In 2015, Jenna Jambeck, a University of Georgia engineering professor, caught everyone's attention with a rough estimate: between 5.3 million and 14 million tons each year just from coastal regions. Most of it isn't thrown off ships, she and her colleagues say, but is dumped carelessly on land or in rivers, mostly in Asia. It's then blown or washed into the sea. Imagine five plastic grocery bags stuffed with plastic trash, Jambeck says, sitting on every foot of coastline around the world-that would correspond to about 8.8 million tons, her middle-of-the-road estimate of what the ocean gets from us annually. It's unclear how long it will take for that plastic to completely biodegrade into its constituent molecules. Estimates range from 450 years to never.

Meanwhile, ocean plastic is estimated to kill millions of marine animals every year. Nearly 700 species, including endangered ones, are known to have been affected by it. Some are harmed visibly-strangled by abandoned fishing nets or discarded six-pack rings. Many more are probably harmed invisibly. Marine species of all sizes, from zooplankton to whales, now eat microplastics, the bits smaller than one-fifth of an inch across. On Hawaii's Big Island, on a beach that seemingly should have been pristine-no paved road leads to it-I walked ankle-deep through microplastics. They crunched like Rice Krispies under my feet. After that, I could understand why some people see ocean plastic as a looming catastrophe, worth mentioning in the same breath as climate change. At a global summit in Nairobi last December, the head of the United Nations Environment Programme spoke of an "ocean Armageddon."

And yet there's a key difference: Ocean plastic is not as complicated as climate change. There are no ocean trash deniers, at least so far. To do something about it, we don't have to remake our planet's entire energy system.

"This isn't a problem where we don't know what the solution is," says Ted Siegler, a Vermont resource economist who has spent more than 25 years working with developing nations on garbage. "We know how to pick up garbage. Anyone can do it. We know how to dispose of it. We know how to recycle." It's a matter of building the necessary institutions and systems, he says-ideally before the ocean turns, irretrievably and for centuries to come, into a thin soup of plastic.

In Plymouth, under the gray gloom of an English autumn, Richard Thompson waited in a yellow slicker outside Plymouth University's Coxside Marine Station, at the edge of the harbor. A lean man of 54, with a smooth pate rimmed with gray hair, Thompson was headed for an ordinary career as a marine ecologist in 1993-he was working on a Ph.D. on limpets and microalgae that grow on coastal rocks-when he participated in his first beach cleanup, on the Isle of Man. While other volunteers zoomed in on the plastic bottles and bags and nets, Thompson focused on the small stuff, the tiny particles that lay underfoot, ignored, at the high tide line. At first he wasn't even sure they were plastic. He had to consult forensic chemists to confirm it.

There was a real mystery to be solved back then, at least in academic circles: Scientists wondered why they weren't finding even more plastic in the sea. World production has increased exponentially-from 2.3 million tons in 1950, it grew to 162 million in 1993 and to 448 million by 2015-but the amount of plastic drifting on the ocean and washing up on beaches, alarming as it was, didn't seem to be rising as fast. "That begs the question: Where is it?" Thompson said. "We can't establish harm to the environment unless we know where it is."

In the years since his first beach cleanup, Thompson has helped provide the beginnings of an answer: The missing plastic is getting broken into pieces so small they're hard to see. In a 2004 paper, Thompson coined the term "microplastics" for these small bits, predicting-accurately, as it turned out-that they had "potential for large-scale accumulation" in the ocean.

When we met in Plymouth last fall, Thompson and two of his students had just completed a study that indicated it's not just waves and sunlight that break down plastic. In lab tests, they'd watched amphipods of the species Orchestia gammarellus -tiny shrimplike crustaceans that are common in European coastal waters-devour pieces of plastic bags and determined they could shred a single bag into 1.75 million microscopic fragments. The little creatures chewed through plastic especially fast, Thompson's team found, when it was coated with the microbial slime that is their normal food. They spat out or eventually excreted the plastic bits.

Microplastics have been found everywhere in the ocean that people have looked, from sediments on the deepest seafloor to ice floating in the Arctic-which, as it melts over the next decade, could release more than a trillion bits of plastic into the water, according to one estimate. On some beaches on the Big Island of Hawaii, as much as 15 percent of the sand is actually grains of microplastic. Kamilo Point Beach, the one I walked on, catches plastic from the North Pacific gyre, the trashiest of five swirling current systems that transport garbage around the ocean basins and concentrate it in great patches. At Kamilo Point the beach is piled with laundry baskets, bottles, and containers with labels in Chinese, Japanese, Korean, English, and occasionally, Russian. On Henderson Island, an uninhabited coral island in the South Pacific, researchers have found an astonishing volume of plastic from South America, Asia, New Zealand, Russia, and as far away as Scotland.

As Thompson and I talked about all this, a day boat called the Dolphin was carrying us through a light chop in the Sound, off Plymouth. Thompson reeled out a fine-mesh net called a manta trawl, usually used for studying plankton. We were close to the spot where, a few years earlier, other researchers had collected 504 fish of 10 species and given them to Thompson. Dissecting the fish, he was surprised to find microplastics in the guts of more than one-third of them. The finding made international headlines.

After we'd steamed along for a while, Thompson reeled the manta trawl back in. There was a smattering of colored plastic confetti at the bottom. Thompson himself doesn't worry much about microplastics in his fish and chips-there's little evidence yet that they pass from the gut of a fish into the flesh we actually eat. (See We Know Plastic Is Harming Marine Life. What About Us?) He worries more about the things that none of us can see-the chemicals added to plastics to give them desirable properties, such as malleability, and the even tinier nanoplastics that microplastics presumably degrade into. Those might pass into the tissues of fish and humans.

"We do know the concentrations of chemicals at the time of manufacture in some cases are very high," Thompson said. "We don't know how much additive is left in the plastic by the time it becomes bite-size to a fish.

"Nobody has found nanoparticles in the environment-they're below the level of detection for analytical equipment. People think they are out there. They have the potential to be sequestered in tissue, and that could be a game changer."

Thompson is careful not to get ahead of the science on his subject. He's far from an alarmist-but he's also convinced that plastic trash in the ocean is far more than an aesthetic problem. "I don't think we should be waiting for a key finding of whether or not fish are hazardous to eat," he said. "We have enough evidence to act."

How did we get here? When did the dark side of the miracle of plastic first show itself? It's a question that can be asked about many of the marvels of our technological world. Since helping the Allies win World War II-think of nylon parachutes or lightweight airplane parts-plastics have transformed all our lives as few other inventions have, mostly for the better. They've eased travel into space and revolutionized medicine. They lighten every car and jumbo jet today, saving fuel-and pollution. In the form of clingy, light-as-air wraps, they extend the life of fresh food. In airbags, incubators, helmets, or simply by delivering clean drinking water to poor people in those now demonized disposable bottles, plastics save lives daily.

In one of their early applications, they saved wildlife. In the mid-1800s, piano keys, billiard balls, combs, and all manner of trinkets were made of a scarce natural material: elephant ivory. With the elephant population at risk and ivory expensive and scarce, a billiards company in New York City offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who could come up with an alternative.

As Susan Freinkel tells the tale in her book, Plastic: A Toxic Love Story, an amateur inventor named John Wesley Hyatt took up the challenge. His new material, celluloid, was made of cellulose, the polymer found in all plants. Hyatt's company boasted that it would eliminate the need "to ransack the Earth in pursuit of substances which are constantly growing scarcer." Besides sparing at least some elephants, celluloid also helped change billiards from solely an aristocratic pastime to one that working people play in bars.

That's a trivial example of a profound revolution ushered in by plastic-an era of material abundance. The revolution accelerated in the early 20th century, once plastics began to be made from the same stuff that was giving us abundant, cheap energy: petroleum. Oil companies had waste gases like ethylene coming out the stacks of their refineries. Chemists discovered they could use those gases as building blocks, or monomers, to create all sorts of novel polymers-polyethylene terephthalate, for example, or PET-instead of working only with polymers that already existed in nature. A world of possibilities opened up. Anything and everything could be made of plastic, and so it was, because plastics were cheap.

They were so cheap, we began to make things we never intended to keep. In 1955 Life magazine celebrated the liberation of the American housewife from drudgery. Under the headline "Throwaway Living," a photograph showed a family flinging plates, cups, and cutlery into the air. The items would take 40 hours to clean, the text noted-"except that no housewife need bother." When did plastics start to show their dark side? You might say it was when the junk in that photo hit the ground.

Six decades later, roughly 40 percent of the now more than 448 million tons of plastic produced every year is disposable, much of it used as packaging intended to be discarded within minutes after purchase. Production has grown at such a breakneck pace that virtually half the plastic ever manufactured has been made in the past 15 years. Last year the Coca-Cola Company, perhaps the world's largest producer of plastic bottles, acknowledged for the first time just how many it makes: 128 billion a year. Nestlé, PepsiCo, and others also churn out torrents of bottles.

The growth of plastic production has far outstripped the ability of waste management to keep up: That's why the oceans are under assault. "It's not surprising that we broke the system," Jambeck says. "That kind of increase would break any system not prepared for it." In 2013 a group of scientists issued a new assessment of throwaway living. Writing in Nature magazine, they declared that disposable plastic should be classified, not as a housewife's friend, but as a hazardous material.

In recent years the surge in production has been driven largely by the expanded use of disposable plastic packaging in the growing economies of Asia-where garbage collection systems may be underdeveloped or nonexistent. In 2010, according to an estimate by Jambeck, half the world's mismanaged plastic waste was generated by just five Asian countries: China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka.

"Let's say you recycle 100 percent in all of North America and Europe," says Ramani Narayan, a chemical engineering professor at Michigan State University who also works in his native India. "You still would not make a dent on the plastics released into the oceans. If you want to do something about this, you have to go there, to these countries, and deal with the mismanaged waste."

The Pasig River once flowed majestically through downtown Manila, capital of the Philippines, and emptied into pristine Manila Bay. It was a treasured waterway and civic point of pride. It's now listed among the top 10 rivers in the world that convey plastic waste to the sea. As many as 72,000 tons flow downstream each year, mostly during the monsoon. In 1990 the Pasig was declared biologically dead.

The Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission, established in 1999, is working to clean up the river, with some signs of success. Jose Antonio Goitia, the commission's executive director, says he is optimistic that the Pasig could be restored someday, although he acknowledges he has no easy way of doing that. "Maybe the best thing to do is ban plastic bags," he says.

The remaining challenges are clearly visible every day. The river is fed by 51 tributaries, some of them overflowing with plastic waste from squatter settlements that cantilever precariously over creek banks. A tributary near Chinatown, where rickety shanties are wedged between modern buildings, is so choked with plastic debris you can walk across it, forgoing the footbridge. Manila Bay's beaches, once recreational respites for greater Manila's 13 million residents, are littered with garbage, much of it plastic. Last fall Break Free From Plastic, a coalition including Greenpeace and other groups, cleaned a beach on Freedom Island, which is advertised as an ecotourism district; volunteers picked up 54,260 pieces of plastic, from shoes to food containers. By the time I visited a few weeks later, the beach was littered again with bottles, wrappers, and shopping bags.

The scene in Manila is typical of large, overcrowded urban centers across Asia. The Philippines is a densely populated nation of 105 million people that is still struggling with the most basic public health issues, including waterborne diseases such as typhoid and bacterial diarrhea. It's no surprise that it has trouble managing the explosion of plastic garbage. Manila has a metropolitan garbage collection system that stretches across 17 separate local governments-a source of chaos and inefficiency. In 2004 the region was already running out of land to safely dump garbage. The shortage of landfill space, and thus the crisis, continues today.

A small part of the slack is taken up by Manila's informal recycling industry, which consists of thousands of waste pickers. Armando Siena, 34, is one of them. He and his wife, Angie, 31, have lived their entire lives surrounded by trash. They were born on Smokey Mountain, an internationally notorious dump that was officially closed in the 1990s. They now live with their three children near Manila's waterfront in a one-room flat lit by a single bulb, furnished with a pair of plastic chairs, and lacking plumbing, bedding, or refrigeration. The flat is in a garbage-filled slum named Aroma, next to another slum named Happyland.

Every day Siena rides a rickety bicycle beyond Aroma's boundaries, scanning the streets for recyclable rubbish that he can stuff into his sidecar. Plastic soup containers are high-value finds, paying 20 pesos (38 cents) a kilogram. Siena sorts and sells his load to a junk shop owned by his uncle, who trucks the waste to recycling plants on the outskirts of Manila.

Waste pickers like Siena are part of the solution, some activists argue; they just need a living wage. In the Baseco waterfront slum in Manila, a tiny recycling shop operated by the Plastic Bank of Vancouver, British Columbia, pays a premium for bottles and hard plastic collected by waste pickers. It then sells that plastic at a higher price to multinationals, which market their recycled products as socially responsible.

Siegler, the Vermont economist, has worked in enough countries and run enough numbers to be skeptical of such schemes. "There is not enough value in plastics to make that work," he says. "It's cheaper to fund a solid waste management system than to subsidize collecting plastic."

The waste that clogs Manila's beaches and waterways reinforces Siegler's point. Much of it consists of sachets-tear-off packets that once held a single serving of shampoo, toothpaste, coffee, condiments, or other products. They are sold by the millions to poor people like Siena and his family, who can't afford to buy more than one serving at a time. Sachets blow around Manila like leaves falling from trees. They're not recyclable, so no waste picker will retrieve them. Crispian Lao, a member of the National Solid Waste Management Commission, says, "This segment of packaging is growing, and it has become a real challenge for solid waste management."

When Greenpeace cleaned the Freedom Island beach, it posted a tally of the brand names of the sachets its volunteers had collected. Nestlé ranked first, Unilever second. Litterbugs aren't the only ones at fault, says Greenpeace's Abigail Aguilar: "We believe that the ones producing and promoting the use of single-use plastics have a major role in the whole problem." A Unilever spokeswoman in Manila told me the company is developing a recyclable sachet.

After Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappeared from radar screens in March 2014 while on its way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, the search for it extended from Indonesia to the southern Indian Ocean. It captivated a global audience for weeks. No sign of the wreckage appeared. On several occasions, when satellite images revealed collections of objects floating on the sea surface, hopes soared that they would turn out to be aircraft parts. They weren't. It was all trash-pieces of broken shipping containers, abandoned fishing gear, and of course, plastic shopping bags.

Kathleen Dohan, a scientist and the president of Earth and Space Research in Seattle, saw opportunity in the horror: The images from space were pushing a problem into view that had long been neglected. "This is the first time the whole world is watching," she told me at the time. "It's a good time for people to understand that our oceans are garbage dumps." Dohan sensed a tipping point in public awareness-and the events since suggest she may have been right.

The most heartening thing about the plastic waste problem is the recent explosion of attention to it, and even of serious, if scattered, efforts to address it. A partial list of the good news since 2014 would include, in no particular order: Kenya joined a growing list of nations that have banned plastic bags, imposing steep fines and jail time on violators. France said it would ban plastic plates and cups by 2020. Bans on plastic microbeads in cosmetics (they're exfoliants) take effect this year in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and four other countries. The industry is phasing them out.

Corporations are responding to public opinion. Coca-Cola, which also produces Dasani water, announced a goal to "collect and recycle the equivalent of" 100 percent of its packaging by 2030. It and other multinationals, including PepsiCo, Amcor, and Unilever, have pledged to convert to 100 percent reusable, recyclable, or compostable packaging by 2025. And Johnson & Johnson is switching from plastic back to paper stems on its cotton swabs.

Individuals are making a difference too. Ellen MacArthur, a British yachtswoman, has created a foundation to promote the vision of a "circular economy," in which all materials, including plastics, are designed to be reused or recycled, not dumped. Actor Adrian Grenier has lent his celebrity to the campaign against the plastic drinking straw. And Boyan Slat, 23, from the Netherlands, is charging ahead with his teenage vow to clean up the largest garbage patch in the North Pacific. His organization has raised more than $30 million to construct an ocean-sweeping machine that is still under development.

All of these measures help at some level-even beach cleanups, futile as they sometimes seem. A beach cleanup hooked Richard Thompson on the plastic problem a quarter century ago. But the real solution, he now thinks, is to stop plastic from entering the ocean in the first place-and then to rethink our whole approach to the amazing stuff. "We've done a lot of work making sure plastic does its job, but very little amount of work on what happens to that product at the end of its lifetime," he says. "I'm not saying plastics are the enemy, but there is a lot the industry can do to help solve the problem."

There are two fundamental ways industry can help, if it wants or is forced to. First, along with academic scientists such as Jambeck, it can design new plastics and new plastic products that are either biodegradable or more recyclable (see You Can Help Turn the Tide on Plastic. Here's How.). New materials and more recycling, along with simply avoiding unnecessary uses of the stuff, are the long-term solutions to the plastic waste problem. But the fastest way to make a big difference, Siegler says, is low tech. It's more garbage trucks and landfills.

"Everyone wants a sexy answer," he says. "The reality is, we need to just collect the trash. Most countries that I work in, you can't even get it off the street. We need garbage trucks and help institutionalizing the fact that this waste needs to be collected on a regular basis and landfilled, recycled, or burned so that it doesn't end up going all over the place."

That's the second way industry could help: It could pony up. Siegler has proposed a worldwide tax of a penny on every pound of plastic resin manufactured. The tax would raise roughly six billion dollars a year that could be used to finance garbage collection systems in developing nations. The idea never caught on. In the fall of 2017, though, a group of scientists revived the concept of a global fund. The group called for an international agreement patterned after the Paris climate accord.

At the Nairobi meeting in December, 193 nations, including the U.S., actually passed one. The United Nations Clean Seas agreement doesn't impose a tax on plastic. It's nonbinding and toothless. It's really just a declaration of a good intention-the intention to end ocean plastic pollution. In that way it's less like the Paris Agreement and more like the Rio de Janeiro treaty, in which the world pledged to combat dangerous climate change-back in 1992. Norway's environment minister, Vidar Helgesen, called this new agreement a strong first step.

Staff writer Laura Parker and photographer Randy Olson last worked together on a feature on the vanishing Ogallala aquifer, which was published in the August 2016 issue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
We Depend on Plastic. Now We're Drowning in It.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The miracle material has made modern life possible. But more than 40 percent of it is used just once, and it's choking our waterways.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic accumulating in our oceans and on our beaches has become a global crisis, with a direct and deadly effect on wildlife. The Center is working to stop plastic pollution at the source.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Javascript must be enabled for the correct page display

Skip to Content

Green Cities

EARTH DAY 2018 | END PLASTIC POLLUTION

Fact Sheet: Plastics in the Ocean

The billions upon billions of items of plastic waste choking our oceans, lakes, and rivers and piling up on land is more than unsightly and harmful to plants and wildlife.

The following 10 facts shed light on how plastic is proving dangerous to our planet, health, and wildlife. To learn more about the threat and impact of plastic pollution and to get tips to reduce your plastic consumption, download our Plastic Pollution Primer and Toolkit today!

FACT #1
About 8 million metric tons of plastic are thrown into the ocean annually[1]. Of those, 236,000 tons are microplastics[2] - tiny pieces of broken-down plastic smaller than your little fingernail

FACT #8
The likelihood of coral becoming diseased increases from 4% to 89% after coming in contact with marine plastic. It also damages the skin of coral, allowing infection[9]. Coral reefs are home to more than 25% of marine life.[10]

[1] Jambeck, J. R., et al. "Plastic Waste Inputs from Land into the Ocean." Science, vol. 347, no. 6223, 13 Feb. 2015, pp. 768-771., doi:10.1126/science.1260352.

[2] Erik van Sebille et al 2015 Environ. Res. Lett. 10 124006

[3] https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/

[4] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/10/every-minute-one-garbage-truck-of-plastic-is-dumped-into-our-oceans/

[5] https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/how-scientists-plan-to-clean-up-the-plastic-waste-threatening-marine-life-a6820276.html

[6] https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/the-new-plastics-economy-rethinking-the-future-of-plastics-catalysing-action

[7] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/15/plastics-found-in-stomachs-of-deepest-sea-creatures

[8] Plastic Pollution Primer and Action Toolkit, Earth Day Network, 2018

[9] Lamb, Joleah B., et al. "Plastic Waste Associated with Disease on Coral Reefs." Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 26 Jan. 2018, science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6374/460.
[10]https://coral.org/coral-reefs-101/coral-reef-ecology/coral-reef-biodiversity/ [12]http://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/how-plastic-from-our-clothing-is-ending-up-in-fish/
[11] https://www.theoceancleanup.com/updates/how-ocean-plastics-turn-into-a-dangerous-meal/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fact Sheet: Plastics in the Ocean | Earth Day

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EARTH DAY 2018 | END PLASTIC POLLUTION Fact Sheet: Plastics in the Ocean The billions upon billions of items of plastic waste choking our oceans, lakes, and rivers and piling up on land is more than unsightly and harmful to plants and wildlife. The following 10 facts shed light on how plastic is proving dangerous [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sign up for the latest news

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

Close popup

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

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

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

Tweet this

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

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

ESTIMATION OF SIZE

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

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

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

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

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

LOCATION

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

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

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

Learn more

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

Donate

At the time of sampling, there were more than 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic in the patch that weigh an estimated 100,000 tonnes. These figures are much higher than previous calculations.
TOTAL MASS AND COUNT

100'000 tonnes of plastic float in the GPGP, equivalent to over 740 Boeing 777's

The mass of the plastic in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (GPGP) was estimated to be approximately 100,000 tonnes, which is 4-16 times more than previous calculations. This weight is also equivalent to more than 740 Boeing 777s.

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

Tweet this

The center of the GPGP has the highest density and the further boundaries are the least dense.

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

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

Concentration

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

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

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

Vertical distribution

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

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

Persistency

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

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

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

Size classes

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

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

Tweet this

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

Categorization types

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

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

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

Why large debris matter

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

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

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

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

Impact on wildlife

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

84% of samples contained toxic chemicals

Studies have shown that about 900 species have encountered marine debris, and 92% of these interactions are with plastic. 17% of the species affected by plastic are on the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Red List of Threatened Species.

Toxic for Sea Surface Feeders

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

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

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

Impact on Humans and Society

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

Plastic pollution costs 13B dollars per year.

Affects the Human Foodchain

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

Affects the Economy

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

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

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

Research Expeditions

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

Tweet this

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

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

2015 - Multi-Level-Trawl Expedition

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

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

2015 - Mega Expedition

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

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

2016 - Aerial Expedition

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

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

Ocean Research Laboratory

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

Counting and Classifying

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

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

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

Understanding Physical Properties

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

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

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

Understanding Toxicity

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

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

Ocean Plastic Data Science

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

Turning Ocean Plastic into Data

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

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

Process Aerial Expedition Data

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

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

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

A Key to Convert Pixels into Kilograms

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

Merge all the Data into Comprehensive Computer Models

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

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

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

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

Learn more

Donate

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

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastics in the Ocean - Ocean Conservancy