SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Sulla
A recent study paints a sobering picture about the state of our oceans.
According to the paper, published last month in Environmental Science and Technology, rivers deposit up to 4 million metric tonnes of plastic into the sea -- and about 95 per cent of that comes from just 10 waterways.
Previous studies suggested about 67 per cent of plastic in the oceans came from 20 rivers. For this study, researchers out of the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research and the Weihenstephan-Triesdorf University of Applied Science used a larger data set to reach their findings, sampling from 79 sites along 57 rivers around the world.
Eight of the 10 rivers are in Asia. [...]
- Yangtze River, Yellow Sea, Asia
- Indus River, Arabian Sea, Asia
- Yellow River (Huang He), Yellow Sea, Asia
- Hai River, Yellow Sea, Asia
- Nile, Mediterranean Sea, Africa
- Meghna/Bramaputra/Ganges, Bay of Bengal, Asia
- Pearl River (Zhujiang), South China Sea, Asia
- Amur River (Heilong Jiang), Sea of Okhotsk, Asia
- Niger River, Gulf of Guinea, Africa
- Mekong River, South China Sea, Asia
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
A Recent Study Show 95% of Plastic in the Sea Comes From Just 10 Rivers
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 58 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
The last time I saw him he was walking down Lover's Lane holding his own hand.
-- Fred Allen
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Virindi on Friday November 10 2017, @09:45PM (37 children)
And yet, environmental treaties always give China a pass.
They're "developing"!! We can't hold them to any standard!
Is it any surprise that China's economy is booming while Europe and North America are stagnant? We have to pay for environmental protection* (with boatloads of regulations) and they don't.
*Yes the situation is the same in other areas of regulation as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @09:49PM (12 children)
China once said about pollution "The USA started it, we don't care"
(Score: 2, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday November 10 2017, @09:59PM (11 children)
So all this trash is coming from nations of filthy subhumans? Color my sweet patootie surprised!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @10:13PM (7 children)
Hey troll, the problem was actually started by western offshoring to specifically evade environmental regulations and get cheap labor.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @10:38PM (6 children)
We've regulated to the point that businesses just went elsewhere.
We could have kept medium-strict regulations and they would have mattered, but no, we insisted on strict regulations. The only regulations that currently apply are weak ones in foreign countries. We've effectively gone from medium-strict to weak.
It's disturbing to realize that we could reduce pollution by weakening our regulations.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @10:49PM (5 children)
That was not the problem, the real problem was that other countries had lax regulations. The only disturbing part is that we allow sociopaths to run industries.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday November 10 2017, @11:23PM
Sociopath may therefore be another word for "shareholder" as much as for CEO.
Profit/dividend is everything: customers, the environment, the employees be damned!
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 11 2017, @12:31AM (2 children)
We control our own regulations. Unless you propose to invade China, we don't control Chinese regulations. The same goes for India and Africa, the other places mentioned for this pollution.
We can choose moderate regulation, or we can effectively choose weak regulation by making ourselves uncompetitive. When we try to choose strong regulation, we just end up with pollution and jobs being produced elsewhere. Business mostly will not do this work in places with strong regulation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 11 2017, @04:21AM
And this is the tragedy of the commons that makes me listen to nationalists every now and then.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday November 11 2017, @05:40PM
We control our own regulations.
Yes, we do. We could use those regulations to ban the practice of outsourcing all our pollution.
Of course, this is all begging the question anyway. The only people getting a pass on global pollution treaties these days is the US.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 11 2017, @06:18AM
I know! We could allow non-sociopaths to run industries too! Another problem solved by the internet.
(Score: 2, Informative) by choose another one on Friday November 10 2017, @11:06PM (1 child)
Yeah, weird isn't it, the nations of filthy subhumans ask China to make all their plastic shite cheaply, then send they the trash (er sorry the "recycling") back to China and then blame China for the pollution problem.
Those nations would get real upset if China cottoned on and tried to do something like, oh I dunno let's say "ban all imports of shit for recycling", probably accuse them of not playing fair in trade or something...
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Saturday November 11 2017, @12:53AM
Been asleep for a few years?
Way back in 2013 China started cutting off inbound shipments of recycled plastics.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/05/09/chinas-crackdown-on-trash-could-make-it-harder-for-u-s-cities-to-recycle/ [washingtonpost.com]
This year China decided to end all imports of solid waste.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-07-20/china-s-war-on-foreign-garbage [bloomberg.com]
But guess what... They have to import more oil and cut more forests to make up. See above article)
The stuff in China's rivers is put there by China's consumers, NOT by western recyclers.
The recycled stuff came pre-sorted, separated, bailed, bundled, and mostly clean. The stuff pickup up at curbside in china is way more expensive to use.
Probably the best and most complete treatment of the subject:
http://factsanddetails.com/china/cat10/sub66/item1111.html [factsanddetails.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 11 2017, @10:44PM
Still doubling down with the stupid. Better take another toke off the bong and give it a rest.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @10:00PM
You think environmentalists are rooted in reality? Their idea of nature is growing their own tomatoes in their 5 story walk-up.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @10:04PM (12 children)
Then how about you go work in China? Don't like the $16k/year booming jobs? How about the pollution levels so you can't see other side of street?
It's pretty sad when someone compares "booming China" while missing the absolute quality of life difference between North America and China. In America, you work at McDonald's or Walmart and it's a shit job, generally. While same working conditions in China would be marvellous in comparison (on average). I know people in China living apart from their families for entire year, 12 hour days just so they can make $20k/yr. If you wish to sell your life for literally $20k per year and miss your kids growing up, well, then you can have that great booming.
So no idea. Maybe people have too much time on their hands and bitch how China is "stealing their jubs". Next, you'll be complaining how all the "immigrants are stealing your jubs" while forgetting to mention it's same immigrant cleaning the toilets for minimum wage overnight at the local hotel. Want that job too?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Kilo110 on Friday November 10 2017, @10:07PM
I saw this lovely article earlier today. https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/off-the-charts-pollution-in-delhi-creates-gas-chamber-and-health-emergency/ [arstechnica.com]
I'd rather have a stagnant economy than live in that hell hole.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Virindi on Friday November 10 2017, @10:20PM
The thing is, there is just one planet. Their pollution doesn't just affect them, but us as well.
And I never said they were "stealing our jubs". Read what I wrote again, it's like you replied to a post that said something totally different.
Maybe I am more interested in them meeting the same standards as us, than in lowering our standard to theirs?
Most of the difference in economy is based on the RELATIVE rather than absolute cost of doing business.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Friday November 10 2017, @10:26PM
Well, maybe working in China [youtube.com] isn't the best idea.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @10:44PM (7 children)
I want a native-born English-speaking US citizen cleaning the toilets for minimum wage overnight at the local hotel.
That is exactly how it used to be. Wages for these jobs would go up naturally, without government mandate. I'd like to see nearly all Americans living in self-supported families. I'd like to see starter jobs available for teenagers again, instead of being grabbed up by people who hate American culture.
(Score: 4, Informative) by NewNic on Friday November 10 2017, @11:16PM (6 children)
Perhaps you should ask Donald Trump why more native-born people are not working in hospitality? [soylentnews.org]
Oh, and your attitude is racist. It's fine to ask for US citizens, but native-born: that's clearly racist and would be illegal if you were the employer.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 11 2017, @12:44AM (4 children)
It does us no good for Trump properties to be unusual. They would be the only ones hiring purely Americans, they would become uncompetitive, and they would go out of business. The competition, with lots of non-American workers, would just fill the void. To fix the problem, he needs to get the law changed and/or do something with regulations. He'll have succeeded when his own resorts find it economically better to hire only Americans.
You don't understand what it means to be "racist". There are natural-born English-speaking American citizens of every race.
Some employers can legally discriminate. I work for one. We make stuff like missiles. Also this applies to acting, because otherwise you couldn't tell a white guy that he can't star as Martin Luther King.
The fact that most employers can't discriminate based on national origin is a tremendous security problem. Have you ever thought about how it is that international theft of trade secrets occurs? Our law is exactly backwards. We should prohibit all people with foreign associations from taking jobs that would provide access to things like network ports on a LAN with corporate secrets. We also need to prioritize jobs for the only people we have a duty to care for, which is our own population.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Saturday November 11 2017, @01:03AM (3 children)
And there are English-speaking foreign-born citizens. There are probably a lot of foreign born citizens who speak better English than you do.
But let's be realistic, since you already stated that you want English-speakers, asking for natural-born as an additional qualification means that you really don't want anyone with brown skin. You don't have to explicitly spell out your preferences for people to recognize that you are racist.
We are talking about cleaners here, for all practical purposes, they don't even need to speak English.
You might want to read this page, because it's not so simple:
https://www.clearancejobsblog.com/can-a-foreign-born-citizen-get-a-security-clearance/ [clearancejobsblog.com]
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 11 2017, @01:33AM (2 children)
Suppose there are several brown people who want the job. Nobody else has applied. All have the same ethnicity.
We have an illegal, an H1-B holder, a greencard holder, a naturalized citizen, and a natural-born citizen.
Why can I not rank them in that order, from worst (illegal) to best (natural-born citizen) and hire accordingly? This is 100% proper, aside needing to call ICE to deport the illegal. Americans go first.
BTW, you have proven yourself to be a racist. The fact that you think a brown person is foreign-born makes you a racist.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NewNic on Saturday November 11 2017, @02:06AM (1 child)
No, that's not legal in most circumstances. The fact that you keep denying this basic fact shows you are utterly clueless.
Yes, you can prioritize citizens over H1-Bs, I don't know the rules on green card holders, but prioritizing foreign-born vs. natural-born citizens is illegal in most cases.
Let me suggest that you read Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 11 2017, @03:04AM
I already (implicitly) agreed that distinguishing based on national origin is illegal. I'm asking why you think it is improper, because it isn't. We need to fix our law. Don't bother with the circular argument of "because it's law" because there are some fine laws in this world.
It's pretty simple: we need to take care of Americans first. Most other countries do this for their citizens.
I forgot at least one: For the naturalized citizens, prioritize those who have given up their old citizenship over those who retain it via dual-citizenship. (not that dual-citizenship should be legal) Maybe also prefer people who have served in the military.
If a law is unethical, should you follow it? Maybe. Maybe you should quietly find a way to do the right thing, choosing the most American person you can find. We have a duty to help our fellow Americans.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 11 2017, @01:00AM
There is a reason that the wealthy liberals all hire Mexican (etc.) housekeepers. Before the flood of Mexicans, these jobs were almost always done by black people. Why do you hire Mexicans instead of blacks? Could it be that you are scared of having black people in your house?
Unemployment is a serious problem for black people in America. These are native-born citizens, so they deserve the first crack at any jobs there might be. By not hiring them first, you show by your actions that you hate black people.
Your words mean nothing. We can see your actions.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 11 2017, @06:22AM
Ok. Now that you have mentioned this difference, so what? China is still booming and their quality of life was much worse in the not so distant past.
Well, the world isn't perfect. Non-starving kids than you don't see very much are better than starving kids that you see all the time.
(Score: 4, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Friday November 10 2017, @10:53PM (2 children)
A lot of those rivers belong to China. Six of them, is it six? I think it's six. Although maybe, probably, some of them join together. Don't some of them join up? The pollution here in China, as you know, is HORRIBLE. I don't blame China. After all, who can blame a country for polluting while it builds its economy for the benefit of its citizens? China's economy is growing amazingly, so there's a lot of pollution that comes with that. And believe me, our economy in the USA is going to grow amazingly too. So we need to repeal a lot of the burdensome regulations. The regulatory burden has been killing our economy. That's going to change, folks. President Xi tells me a lot, a lot of the pollution in China doesn't come from China. It comes from Mongolia. Horrible, horrible pollution in Mongolia and the wind blows it over here. To cause big problems for China. 🇺🇸🇨🇳
(Score: 2, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Saturday November 11 2017, @02:17AM
Technically all rivers join together, eventually...
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 11 2017, @09:41AM
Actually the one river that falls in Bay of Bengal also runs through China.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday November 10 2017, @11:00PM
Chinese plastic, American plastic, EU plastic, Japan plastic, UK plastic [soylentnews.org], all going into Yantze.
I detect a whiff, just a whiff, of hypocrisy here; until recently the Westernized countries were just happy to pay less for garbage disposal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 11 2017, @02:30AM
How does throwing plastic into a river help economic growth?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 11 2017, @04:01AM
We outsourced our pollution to them. Why do you think they get the pass...
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday November 11 2017, @05:41PM (3 children)
And yet, environmental treaties always give China a pass.
You're a couple years out of date on that one.
The U.S. is now the only country not part of Paris climate agreement after Syria signs on [usatoday.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Saturday November 11 2017, @06:00PM
But then again, you would never get the agreement of any developing world countries on these treaties, if they actually had to do anything. They have higher priorities such as reducing the poverty of their citizens which would be harmed by a credible climate mitigation treaty.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday November 11 2017, @09:15PM
That's #FakeNews. I wish it was true, it's not true. Unfortunately, we're still in the Paris accord, it's part of the mess that President Obama left for me. He got us into it, I'm going to get us a better deal, or get us out. The US will withdraw from the Paris climate accord, but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers. We're getting out, but we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that's fair. A deal that puts America First. If we can, that's great. And if we can't, that's fine. #MAGA 🇺🇸
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @12:41AM
AND THEY *STILL* get a pass in that one. Of course they signed up for it. They get a pass for it and other countries are shackled down by it. They would be fools NOT to sign it. The Chinese are fierce competitors. Do not think they did it because it was the right thing to do. The US was going to foot the bill for most of it. We are already well on our way for doing it by ourselves already. Until China takes it seriously no amount of treaties or shame will change them.
Do not let shame be your motivation for if something is good or bad for you. You need to do things for the right reasons. Just because all of your friends jumped off that bridge does not mean you should too. Or maybe your parents never taught you that lesson?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Friday November 10 2017, @10:12PM (3 children)
Considering that plastics isn't the only human byproduct massively flowing down those rivers, You have to applaud the researchers for approaching them to make their measurements.
The more dams they build, the less the rainy seasons can flush all that stuff into the sea, and the more toxic those rivers get.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Friday November 10 2017, @11:13PM (2 children)
You wish. Humans aren't yet such masters of nature to stop a huge rain pour to overflow the dams.
Sure, I don't expect a perfect solution but, unless you collect whatever the dams caught and immobilize it, the first serious rainy season [odt.co.nz] will just dump concentrated waste into the sea [asiancorrespondent.com] (prev links are photos).
This last photo is on Yangtze, from this FA, from June 2016 [asiancorrespondent.com]
I suspect is actually cheaper to prevent the garbage get into those rivers in the first place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by MostCynical on Saturday November 11 2017, @12:02AM (1 child)
McKinsey say $5billion, somunless environmental cost "costs" people more than that, in direct, out-of-pocket expense, your "cheaper" option will be *technically* true, but *effectively* ignored, except for soe hand-wringing when studies like this come out.
Here is a long read:
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%20functions/sustainability%20and%20resource%20productivity/our%20insights/saving%20the%20ocean%20from%20plastic%20waste/stemming%20the%20tide%20full%20report.ashx [mckinsey.com]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday November 11 2017, @02:46AM
$5B for the top 5 plastic polluting countries. Perspective, shall we?
OECD total GDP 2016: $50T+ [oecd.org] - $5B is 0.01%
US defence budget 2016: $500B [washingtonpost.com]
Australia's budget allocated for buying F-35: $24B [smh.com.au]
DuPont - gross profit 2016: $10.13B [amigobulls.com]
Formosa plastic group - income before tax 2016: $10.338B [fpg.com.tw]
Note: before anyone is tempted to waste straws - the examples I picked do not imply anything. Think of them as "LoC units" or the like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by beckett on Friday November 10 2017, @10:36PM (7 children)
this paper makes me somewhat optimistic; perhaps we could address plastic escapement from the 10-20 worst rivers on a regional or global level and dramatically decrease the amount of plastics going into the ocean. We now can better address the primary sources of this plastic waste knowing a significant contribution to plastic pollution can me mitigated by further work with a relative handful of rivers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday November 10 2017, @11:18PM (4 children)
Too little to late. It's easier/cheaper to collect this plastic before it gets into the river.
Note that both of the solution don't address the question: "Then, what?"
In fact, this is the root of the problem - if you can answer to "What do you do with the plastic once you collect it, no matter when/from where?", then you have a solution which will cause the plastic pollution problem to go away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 11 2017, @12:50AM
You can change the culture (no more dumping!) of a billion people who live in an area of ten million square miles, or you can build a single large facility to deal with the problem.
There is no question that cleaning the output of a huge river would be costly, but perhaps it is still cheaper and easier than the alternative. You'll never get full compliance from a billion poor people who really don't give a damn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 11 2017, @02:41AM (2 children)
Incinerate it.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday November 11 2017, @02:58AM
Not all plastic burn.
Many plastics burn releasing toxic fumes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Saturday November 11 2017, @02:06PM
But modern people have developed a phobia about fire. There are younger people who have never lit or managed a fire in their life. Myself, I burn an average of about 1 cwt of stuff* every week. i'd rather do that than have the council (local authority) collect it as they have become so fussy about what they will and will not take that I cannot be bothered and I burn what is burnable.
* Mostly vegetation. The paper stuff helps get it going. Also old clothes, boots etc
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @11:23PM
Great idea. Thing is, bribing the necessary party officials will cost a lot. The government will then do one project for propaganda purposes and hide the rest behind a sisal fence.
Such is China.
(Score: 2) by EETech1 on Sunday November 12 2017, @01:11PM
https://youtu.be/8PavA4rUypE [youtu.be]
(Score: 4, Informative) by realDonaldTrump on Friday November 10 2017, @11:25PM
I know CERTAIN people (nerds, who I love) like to look at the science pages to these stories. My science guy says the science page for this one is pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.7b02368 [acs.org]. Enjoy!
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Saturday November 11 2017, @02:13AM
These are rookie numbers. We need to pump these numbers up.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 11 2017, @05:04AM (1 child)
You can list 8 out of 10 but you can’t list 10 out of 10 what the fuck is your problem?? If you’re going to make a news story about pollution list everybody involved fuck stick ...
(Score: 2) by splodus on Saturday November 11 2017, @01:01PM
There were ten in the list when I looked?
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Saturday November 11 2017, @01:21PM (2 children)
Well, perhaps. But what significance has that?
There are discussions here on why Asian practices lead to such pollution, and I think that's perhaps not the point...
According to World Population Review [worldpopulationreview.com], Asia has over 60% of the world's population. That's a pretty hefty figure--Asia alone has more people than the rest of the world combined. It might simply follow that the overwhelming majority of polluting rivers flow from the overwhelming majority of the population.
Of course, practices within the countries contributing can make a difference plus or minus, and all of us as humans have the responsibility to conserve (and not excessively pollute) our environment*.
-----
*this does not mean we should be tree hugging anti-development nutjobs. Trees grow back. That's literally the dumbest aspect of "environmental conservation" to embrace.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Saturday November 11 2017, @02:09PM
Not if the place they grew is concreted over for humans to live on. Even if it is not, trees can be, and are, chopped down far qucker than they can grow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @12:46AM
95% of the worlds wealth is held by the top 1% of the worlds population. That does not make it right.
60% of the world is generating 95% of the pollution they are finding means there is a problem. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that it is a very small number of people doing it too (way less than the 60%). You are making sweeping generalizations. The rest of the world took its nasty practices and outsourced them, to china. China is just starting to wake up to that fact. That fact is 'dont shit where you eat'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 12 2017, @07:10PM
thanks for the article. i was just wondering about this recently.