There are 21,000 pieces of plastic in the ocean for each person on Earth
News article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/03/08/ocean-plastics-pollution-study/
Scientific Paper: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0281596#pone.0281596.ref006
The article I’ve chosen to write about is “There are 21,000 pieces of plastic in the ocean for each person on Earth”, written in the Washington Post in March of 2023 by Michael Burnbaum. The focus of this article is on the rapidly increasing numbers of plastics and microplastics found in the ocean, as well as the spread of plastics to other regions of the earth. The study that this article draws its data from, “A growing plastic smog, now estimated to be over 170 trillion plastic particles afloat in the world’s oceans—Urgent solutions required,” was also published in March of 2023, and as the name implies, this scientific article identifies a trend of increasing plastic content of the ocean and seeks to address it.
The Washington Post article is fairly faithful to the study on which it is based, essentially highlighting the major findings of the study through quotes from its author, Marcus Eriksen, as well as briefly explaining the methodology of the study in a way that is more palatable to a general audience. The major points brought up were that the number of plastic particles in the ocean has been increasing for the last 15 years at a significant rate, and that during that time we have reached unprecedented levels of ocean plastic - 2.4 million tons. The article explains that plastic particles in the ocean can be degraded down to smaller pieces, and once they are under 5 micrometers they are known as microplastics. Plastics and microplastics that humans dispose of enter rivers, sewers, etc., and find their way to the ocean in great numbers. High levels of these microplastics pose a health risk to sea life when consumed, and the article also mentions that these microplastics are not just in the ocean, but are pretty much everywhere on earth, “as well as in the human bloodstream.” The article ends by briefly mentioning that a plastics treaty is being negotiated currently, with the goal being to finish by 2024. After doing some of my own research on the Plastics Treaty, it seems to be a UN treaty to create binding laws and reduce plastic waste, namely from packaging which makes up 40% of the total plastic waste.
The scientific article has a much more extensive description of the study’s methodology, including using plastic count data from 11,777 stations, some dating back to 1950, to track the plastic content in the OSL (ocean surface layer). These stations were all assigned to their own respective basins of the ocean, which include the North and South Atlantic basins, the North and South Pacific basins, the Indian Basin, and the Mediterranean Basin. This data was then used to create a model, such that results could be determined that would control for differences in sampling procedure, differences in location of stations (basins), and differences in wind activity, which mix and submerge plastics below the OSL.
The results of this model were that a major increase in ocean plastic began around 2004 and has continued for the last 15 years. The authors state that the most reliable data is from 1990 and onward because the majority of the samples were taken in that time period. There is some discussion at the end of the article as to what these trends might indicate/what may have caused them. The level of plastics in the period from 1990-2004 is trendless if not even going down slightly, and the authors posit that this may have been a result of a series of legislations during that time period to reduce plastic waste, one such example being the 1991 “operation clean sweep”, which focused on reducing plastic waste in factories. The authors also theorize that the extreme rise in ocean plastic in the early 2000s could be due to the globalization of plastic products around that time leading to more plastic waste around the world, which eventually reaches the oceans. The article concludes by saying that without policy changes, the rate of plastics entering the ocean will more than double from 2016 to 2040.
Overall I would rate the Washington Post article as a 7/10. It does a decent job of breaking down the scientific article into something more easily digestible for the general population. The addition of quotes from the lead author of the study, Marcus Eriksen, was a good touch and helped reassure that the article accurately portrays the findings of the study. It does, however, misconstrue some of the information in the scientific article. At one point the Washington Post article says that only 10 percent of all the plastic in existence has been recycled. The study itself says that recycling rates have historically been low, but that particular claim and number are nowhere to be found, and nor is a source given for that statement. Other than that I would say the article does not take many liberties with exaggerating or minimizing the data from the study, but rather presents it fairly straight up without much slant. I was actually surprised that the scientific article seemed to be more opinionated than the news article, which you don’t see very often. Whereas the scientific article advocates strongly for change in policy in a section at the end, the Washington Post article merely mentions that negotiations are occurring now for legislation, and does so without really stressing its own viewpoint.
I appreciate this review of the news article! I agree that the news article did a decent job at making the scientific paper more digestible for a more general audience. I would honestly go even further to say they did a great job at representing the science. To me, it felt almost like a plain language version of the paper, giving the audience the pertinent information from the study and the basic methods. It seemed like the only parts that were left out were only necessary for a scientist which is what the scientific article is for. I agree with your assessment about the policy portion of the paper. It was brought up with much more urgency in the scientific paper. I wonder if the less opinionated stance in the news article was in an attempt to not lose any potential readers due to a perceived slant. Lastly, I did find that 10% number interesting as well. I looked at the citation for when recycling was brought up and that paper mentioned ~15-20% of plastic getting recycled, so the author did not get it from there. However, a quick Google search asking about how much plastic gets recycled yields the 10% figure as the top result. It would've been nice if the author cited where they located that percentage as it was the main factual discrepancy from the paper that I saw as well.
ReplyDeleteI think your description of the news article as a plain language version of the scientific paper hits the nail right on the head. Very well said. The article does do a very adequate job of relaying the significant points findings of the scientific paper without getting lost in the details. You could be right about the paper trying not to lose readers by being too biased one way or another, but part of me thinks that the bias in these sorts of articles is often what generates views. In any case very interesting to see an article stray from either sensationalizing or minimizing their subject matter to suit their goals.
DeleteThank you for sharing this important topic with us which mentions the development of biodegradable and environmentally friendly alternatives to traditional plastics may provide a sustainable solution. I am very much interested to know how can we make sure that all the plastic we use doesn't end up harming our environment, and instead, gets reused or recycled properly?
ReplyDeleteI agree with your assessment. I found it engaging how the author of the news article managed to convey the methods that the researchers used in a succinct way. Speaking of the research paper, I found it refreshing that the authors did not only talk about their scientific findings, but also discussed the implications of said findings in environmental policing. It was also nice to see the research paper acknowledge its data collection limitations. This brings me to something I wish the news article focused on more: that concentrating in the North Atlantic and North Pacific brings a certain bias to recent trends when trends in other parts of the world may be different. In particular, I wonder if the challenges of modeling plastic in the South Atlantic or Indian Oceans makes it difficult to convey the urgency to policy makers.
ReplyDeleteYes although the scientific paper talks quite a bit about how the model they create is supposed to account for sampling biases such as this, I agree the news article could do with addressing it a bit more. I think that's a good thought about whether the lack of data from certain ocean basins impacts the way that policy makers look at these types of studies. I wonder if the average policy maker has the scientific background to really engage critically with a paper like this instead of just taking it on faith that the projections coming from the researchers model are accurate given the studies limitations.
DeleteI thought that your review of the article was a good assessment of it! The Washington Post article was well cited, and I felt like it referenced the claims that the scientific article made with data to back it up. The figures that they chose to include in the Washington Post article were the clearest ones from the scientific journal and are palatable for the intended audience. The quotes from the study, as well as separate quotes from the first author, do a good job of asserting the angle of the article.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your assessment of the news article. I really think this is a very important issue to be talking about, so I'm glad that it was highlighted here. However, I also agree with you that it was surprising that the news article did not seem to push for change in policy as much as the scientific article did. This matter feels very serious and urgent to me, so I wish they emphasized that a bit more still or went into more detail about what is being done.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I find it refreshing that the Washington Post article doesn't give much of their own slant, I agree that it would have been beneficial if they had stressed the importance of the issue and the need for action. I also wish they had talked more about the effects of this ocean plastic on our planet and human health.
DeleteThe review of the prevalence of plastic pollution was very intriguing, thank you for covering it! Both the news article and scientific paper cover the developing UN talks regarding management of the crisis, but what I found particularly interesting was specifically the New Global Economic Commitment. This proposal relies upon private sector self regulation. I am curious about the historical success of environmental initiatives reliant on such methods.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of private sector self regulation making a significant impact seems at first like wishful thinking, but in the scientific paper the researchers actually give quite a bit of credit to similar initiatives in the late 80s and early 90s to reduce plastic waste. We actually see this decrease in plastics during that time in the researcher's figure derived from their model. Although national regulations are the goal and are ultimately more likely to be effective, perhaps some of these programs via self regulation could make a serious difference.
DeleteI agree with a lot of your assessment. The article really did a good job of going over the paper for non-scientific minds. I found the Washington Monument unit very funny. I did find it interesting how they linked articles that were relevant all throughout the article, but they only linked articles by themselves. I scrolled through the comments and some people added helpful links to other articles and news sources that the article could have also considered. Also, I feel like the article could have given a bit of info for concerned people on how they can reduce their plastic use or how they can advocate for plastic control in their governments/community.
ReplyDeleteI also thought the Washington Monument analogy was a funny and engaging way to talk about the weight of plastic in the ocean. That's a good catch about the linked articles being largely from the Washington Post, it's sort of a hidden way to redirect clicks back to their website via their other articles instead of linking actual research or scientific papers.
DeleteI agree with your take on this article. The article was well-written and summed up most of the important points from the scientific paper. As far as the news articles we have seen in this class, this article did pretty well. It definitely also portrayed the data in a way where that is more digestible for non-scientific readers. The fact that they provided data points that couldn't be found in the scientific paper is slightly concerning. I would definitely want to see where they got that from before judging any further. At least the data point was just an exact of a generally correction generalization provided by the paper.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely calls in to question the validity of the author when they start using data without a source. I really would have preferred them to include a link to that fact, although another commenter said they were able to easily find it with a google search.
DeleteThis metric is both striking and disturbing! I think this provides a good shock factor as 21,000 pieces of plastic per person is a lot easier for a general audience to visualize than 170 trillion plastic particles, so I think that was a good move on the author's part. Nonetheless, that's a huge number and I think in addition to legislation, significant action must be taken toward remediation. I wonder if plastic-eating microorganisms could be introduced and used on a mass scale to clean up a significant percentage of the microplastics. That "10% of plastic being recycled" number would be really interesting as well, but I agree that without a reference or source to support that number, it's hard to believe.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of plastic eating microorganisms is an interesting one, if it would work/wouldn't have any implications on the ecosystem it seems like an environmentally friendly way to dispose of these plastics. Regardless, I agree that something needs to be done policy wise to regulate plastic waste, ideally international regulations put in place sooner rather than later.
DeleteI completely agree with your take on this article, The author of the Washington Post article stayed very true to the scientific article and summed up the information from the news article in a very clear and concise way that everyday people can understand and digest. I also agree with you that it really sucks and was surprised that the news article did not to push for policy change as much as the scientific article did. This is a very important issue that is much more straight forward than a lot of climate change issues and i think its really good that mainstream media is talking about it in this sense and raising the alarm. Do you have any idea why an organization such as the Washington post wouldn't give a direction on solutions to this problem, i feel like they are a very opinionated and vocal paper.
ReplyDeleteI agree that one would suspect the Washington Post to talk more on what can be done about this issue or perhaps advocate for certain actions for readers. This is certainly not an unbiased organization, and for an issue like this that as you say is very straightforward, I have to agree that it really seems like the time for them to take more of a stance to try and enact some change. The only reason I can really guess that they didn't take a more direct stance is because they perhaps were afraid of alienating readers who did not agree with their side, so they decided to be more neutral instead.
Delete