Plastic pollution underestimated, say scientists

There's more plastic polluting the world's oceans than previously thought, according to a new study. Earlier studies failed to include the role of wind.

AP Photo/Rajesh Nirgude/ File
Fishing boats stand anchored as a young girl from a nearby slum rummages through a garbage littered beach in Bombay, India. Plastic pollution in the world's oceans has been underestimated, say scientists.

Tiny, confetti-sized pieces of plastic litter the world's oceans, and it's not a pretty picture for marine life. 

But before scientists can assess the damage caused by plastic pollution, they need to determine how much of this junk is out there.

A new study indicates that past estimates of marine plastic waste have been too low. Previous studies did not include the effects of wind on plastic particles in the water.

“By factoring in the wind, which is fundamentally important to the physical behavior, you’re increasing the rigor of the science and doing something that has a major impact on the data,” Giora Proskurowski, an oceanographer at the University of Washington and one of the new study's authors, said in a press release.

Proskurowski and his team collected samples at several depths ranging from the surface to 100 feet down. They combined this data with wind measurements to develop a mathematical model that allows them to more accurately estimate plastic waste totals.

The team concluded that there is, on average, about two and a half times more plastic waste in the oceans than originally thought. And in very windy conditions, plastic estimates could be lowballed by as much as a factor of 27.  

Proskurowski plans to further improve the model by studying other factors that influence the movement of plastic pieces in the ocean including, drag, turbulence, and wave height.

He hopes his efforts to improve the accuracy of plastic waste estimates will inform people and potentially empower to do something about it. "On this topic, what science needs to be geared toward is building confidence that scientists have solid numbers and that policy makers aren't making judgments based on CNN reports."

The study was published this month in Geophysical Research Letters.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.