Boyan Slat was 19 years old when he started this project. He raised over $2 mio. for this project and worked with his university to make it happen. I think he's a great role model for young people. We need more young people like him who try to find solutions for the pressing problems of the 21st century.
There are some people who dismiss the Millennials, but it's clear to see that many of them want to have a positive impact and prefer a meaningful life over hedonism.
I hope the project works out, but even if it won't work, the signal he's sending is very empowering.
Still need to implement effective waste management systems at its source, but progress is progress.
> Roughly eight million tons of plastic enters the ocean every year. That’s according to a 2015 report, which also identified where the bulk of this trash originates. At the top of the list: China, the Philippines, and Indonesia.
Do we need to address waste at the source? Sources are diffuse, innumerable, and spread among different jurisdictions with different levels of commitment to environmental stewardship. I'm skeptical of our ability to stem pollutants at the source.
There's a certain attraction to centralized cleanup efforts substituting for this near-impossible task of enforcing source standards worldwide. While it's theoretically less efficient to pollute and then clean it up, this model may have the advantage of actually working.
They should do this in rivers, near the end before it goes in the oceans or seas. Getting partnerships with local and national governments to do this would be easier than asking for charity.
This made me think of the trash often visible on a river shores because it is caught by tree branches.
I wonder if beavers dams can be used for that to ?
There are a lot of comments in this thread shitting on this project for not doing their cleanup at the rivers, but failing to realize that that reason we've identified those rivers as the source of ocean plastic is because of The Ocean Cleanup project's paper in Nature Communications:
It's a little more thought out than you give them credit. Imagine a pair of lawnchairs made from "ocean cleanup plastic", the idea is that people would pay a large premium for this. It's like a brand that saves the world.
Worse, they will be paying to recycle (dispose of) it. Right now there are major issues and limitations in the processing of even the generally clean/sorted and re-usable plastics from residential collection. Some recycling facilities are being forced to simply dispose of even these materials as they would any other waste. (https://phys.org/news/2018-07-trash-piles-china-door-recycli...)
What they are collecting is partially broken down by ocean salts and UV light, and has absorbed contaminants (a lot of these plastics are actually from fishing equipment, but the post-consumer component largely enters the ocean via some exceptionally polluted river systems). These are going to be small and unmarked plastic pieces, you would need spectrographic analysis on each piece to determine the type of plastic before it could be recycled.
Sometimes people are motivated are pay a premium if they feel the cause is good (it can be marketed on the product). In this case, how much would the difference be?
It seems like a lot of comments are debating the relative merits of which solution will work, whether this is the right solution, pointing out this doesn’t address the entire problem et al.
What about AND?
work on reducing plastic waste AND try to get it out of the water. Deploy this solution, try it AND iterate on it. Do this AND the next idea AND the next. Keep trying things until you find the right solution.
It seems to me that this project does a lot more good than harm, even if it doesn’t work, it paves the way for solutions that might.
The amount of naysaying and nitpicking here is depressing. Is it perfect? No. Does it address every problem? No. Is it a start? Yes.
How many times has the right solution been the first thing someone tried? Rarely. But you keep trying stuff until you find something that works.
At least this guy is DOING something rather than endlessly debating how to fix it.
It’s easy to be an armchair engineer saying you could dream up 10 better solutions. Well great, go do it then.
Props to this kid and his organization for taking action on a problem to try and do some good in the world.
Not to mention that this project brings additional attention to the problem. The more attention there is the more likely it is that politicians will take up the matter and strive for a political solution to the source problem.
And even if that doesn't happen, getting rid of even a small amount of pollutants from the ocean can't be a bad thing, can it?
The Forbes page wants me to accept their advertising cookies. When i click "no thanks" and select the "only required cookies" and hit apply the "preferences submission process" either jaks at ~90% or if it goes through then the site renders a white page. Anyone else experiencing the same?
This is a bad article (as if being a listicle didn't give that away). Number 6 is "it's far more efficient, cheaper, and safer to keep the plastic out of the ocean in the first place", which is like saying that the best way to clean dog poop off of your carpet is to not have a dog.
It's too late for that, investing in clean-up in _addition to_ prevention HAS to be a top priority for us. In fact, this is in the form of BECCS is the very basis of the Paris Climate Accords. Investing in prevention won't undo the damage that's been done, and a lot of environmental groups who only promote prevention (like those cited in your article) are doing more harm than good.
It seems that there's a key point of contention. That link claims:
> But the vast majority of plastic in the ocean is made up of particles one centimeter and smaller, remnants of larger pieces broken up by ultraviolet light, the corrosive effects of seawater, and physical abuse from wave action and marine creatures.
But the posted article claims instead:
> "Research shows the majority of plastic by mass is currently in the larger debris," as noted on The Ocean Cleanup website. "By removing the plastic while most of it is still large, we prevent it from breaking down into dangerous microplastics" that can absorb toxic substances and travel up the food chain.
So which is it?
And even if the claim that "the majority of plastic by mass is currently in the larger debris" is wrong, because they didn't sample deeply enough, doesn't the argument that "removing the plastic while most of it is still large, we prevent it from breaking down into dangerous microplastics" remain valid?
The risk of structural failures generating more debris, and problems with anti-fouling treatments, seem manageable through good maintenance. Or better design.
But then, what to do with the debris collected? Recycling per se does seem hopeless. I mean, we aren't even recycling much regular plastic waste, because it's mixed and contaminated. But maybe just crack it down to simple hydrocarbons, and make sure to capture the metals and halogens.
These are all good points, but considering that humans are already ingesting microplastics found in seafood and rice, at least someone is trying to do something about the problem. Beach cleanup does not help solve this.
It may already be too late due to the incredible amount of microplastics already in the Earth's major bodies of water and the fact that science doesn't know how much it will impact the ecosystem or create/exacerbate human medical problems.
Doesn't plastic, especially white shopping-bag plastic, reflect more solar radiation than open ocean? Wouldn't covering a large portion of the earth with white plastic actually lower global temperatures? I saw a video where an open water reservoir was covered with floating plastic balls to reduce evaporation. Maybe a large plastic island would help fight global warming.
In theory, yes. But it would also destroy all ocean life, with perhaps the very tiny exception of the ecosystems around deep-ocean thermal vents.
But, as another post has explained that this isn't what the ocean-plastics are. They would be better described as a thin soup, or cloud, of tiny plastic particles dispersed over hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of ocean, down to depths of up to 100m.
[+] [-] mockingbirdy|7 years ago|reply
There are some people who dismiss the Millennials, but it's clear to see that many of them want to have a positive impact and prefer a meaningful life over hedonism.
I hope the project works out, but even if it won't work, the signal he's sending is very empowering.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|7 years ago|reply
> Roughly eight million tons of plastic enters the ocean every year. That’s according to a 2015 report, which also identified where the bulk of this trash originates. At the top of the list: China, the Philippines, and Indonesia.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/04/explore-...
[+] [-] quotemstr|7 years ago|reply
There's a certain attraction to centralized cleanup efforts substituting for this near-impossible task of enforcing source standards worldwide. While it's theoretically less efficient to pollute and then clean it up, this model may have the advantage of actually working.
[+] [-] rottenjc|7 years ago|reply
This made me think of the trash often visible on a river shores because it is caught by tree branches.
I wonder if beavers dams can be used for that to ?
[+] [-] eddyg|7 years ago|reply
http://baltimorewaterfront.com/healthy-harbor/water-wheel/
[+] [-] Mizza|7 years ago|reply
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15611
[+] [-] dwighttk|7 years ago|reply
That's not going to work. The proceeds from recycling the plastic aren't even going to pay for recycling the plastic.
[+] [-] neals|7 years ago|reply
I don't think that such a bad idea actually.
[+] [-] mreome|7 years ago|reply
What they are collecting is partially broken down by ocean salts and UV light, and has absorbed contaminants (a lot of these plastics are actually from fishing equipment, but the post-consumer component largely enters the ocean via some exceptionally polluted river systems). These are going to be small and unmarked plastic pieces, you would need spectrographic analysis on each piece to determine the type of plastic before it could be recycled.
[+] [-] skybrian|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taysic|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clay_the_ripper|7 years ago|reply
What about AND?
work on reducing plastic waste AND try to get it out of the water. Deploy this solution, try it AND iterate on it. Do this AND the next idea AND the next. Keep trying things until you find the right solution.
It seems to me that this project does a lot more good than harm, even if it doesn’t work, it paves the way for solutions that might.
The amount of naysaying and nitpicking here is depressing. Is it perfect? No. Does it address every problem? No. Is it a start? Yes.
How many times has the right solution been the first thing someone tried? Rarely. But you keep trying stuff until you find something that works.
At least this guy is DOING something rather than endlessly debating how to fix it.
It’s easy to be an armchair engineer saying you could dream up 10 better solutions. Well great, go do it then.
Props to this kid and his organization for taking action on a problem to try and do some good in the world.
[+] [-] Maxion|7 years ago|reply
And even if that doesn't happen, getting rid of even a small amount of pollutants from the ocean can't be a bad thing, can it?
[+] [-] roberto|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrlinx|7 years ago|reply
https://www.theoceancleanup.com/updates/a-peculiar-survey/
https://www.theoceancleanup.com/updates/environmental-impact...
[+] [-] ensiferum|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0xbs|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] henrikberggren|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ummonk|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mizza|7 years ago|reply
It's too late for that, investing in clean-up in _addition to_ prevention HAS to be a top priority for us. In fact, this is in the form of BECCS is the very basis of the Paris Climate Accords. Investing in prevention won't undo the damage that's been done, and a lot of environmental groups who only promote prevention (like those cited in your article) are doing more harm than good.
[+] [-] mirimir|7 years ago|reply
> But the vast majority of plastic in the ocean is made up of particles one centimeter and smaller, remnants of larger pieces broken up by ultraviolet light, the corrosive effects of seawater, and physical abuse from wave action and marine creatures.
But the posted article claims instead:
> "Research shows the majority of plastic by mass is currently in the larger debris," as noted on The Ocean Cleanup website. "By removing the plastic while most of it is still large, we prevent it from breaking down into dangerous microplastics" that can absorb toxic substances and travel up the food chain.
So which is it?
And even if the claim that "the majority of plastic by mass is currently in the larger debris" is wrong, because they didn't sample deeply enough, doesn't the argument that "removing the plastic while most of it is still large, we prevent it from breaking down into dangerous microplastics" remain valid?
The risk of structural failures generating more debris, and problems with anti-fouling treatments, seem manageable through good maintenance. Or better design.
But then, what to do with the debris collected? Recycling per se does seem hopeless. I mean, we aren't even recycling much regular plastic waste, because it's mixed and contaminated. But maybe just crack it down to simple hydrocarbons, and make sure to capture the metals and halogens.
[+] [-] rizzom5000|7 years ago|reply
It may already be too late due to the incredible amount of microplastics already in the Earth's major bodies of water and the fact that science doesn't know how much it will impact the ecosystem or create/exacerbate human medical problems.
[+] [-] stephengillie|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] newnewpdro|7 years ago|reply
Develop a lifeform that lives in the sea and feeds on plastic, introduce it to the oceans.
[+] [-] michelb|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tonyedgecombe|7 years ago|reply
If it just fell to the bottom of the ocean and was buried under sediment we probably wouldn't care that much.
[+] [-] robbiep|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notnot|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whatshisface|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mreome|7 years ago|reply
But, as another post has explained that this isn't what the ocean-plastics are. They would be better described as a thin soup, or cloud, of tiny plastic particles dispersed over hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of ocean, down to depths of up to 100m.
[+] [-] always_good|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] singularity2001|7 years ago|reply