Plastic Soup

Intellectual property

All of a sudden the plastic soup has become fashionable. No self-respecting newspaper, magazine, or broadcaster has ignored the plastic waste problem.

I think that’s great, and it gives me more and more confidence that Victor Hugo was right when he said: “There is no army as powerful as the idea for which the time has come.”

But why, oh, why are there people who use such a global problem for their own personal benefit? A working group is currently being created, lead by Rudolph Eilander, the young architect who has received a grant to put into practice, his idea on cleaning the Pacific Ocean. I wrote about him in my book and in this blog. A number of important people have joined the working group—coming from DSM, the Dutch Polymer Institute, AKG Polymers, the European Patent Office and including our one and only astronaut: Wubbo Ockels.

Nobody with any knowledge of the situation of the plastic waste problem in the Pacific.

And what do you think was agreed upon? … That the ideas originating from this think tank will be the “intellectual property” of the parties involved.

Reading this made me feel sick.

What is this all about, guys? That we find a solution for this problem together, or that you profit from it yourselves?

If you really want to confront the problem, you need to consider experts from all areas. Also, and especially, people who know what they are talking about when it comes to the plastic waste problem in the Pacific Ocean.

But what I am really afraid of is that this is not about finding solutions for the problem.

The working group established that the plastic soup endangers fish and bird life and damages the image of plastic for a good reason.

I can’t get away from the impression that this is the reason why the real experts aren’t involved in this consultation.

This group doesn’t want to know what the real problems are at all:

- that there isn’t 60 million tons of floating plastic that can be dredged up. But that the largest part of the plastic has disintegrated into minuscule particles—microplastic that has become part of the water column and that can’t be filtered out.

- that this microplastic is not only a great danger for marine plant and animal life, but also for us humans. The danger is the toxins in the original plastic and the toxins that attach themselves to the plastic in the sea.

- that the greatest part of the problem is a result in the way plastic is produced today (using toxins).

This working group is a smoke screen sympathetically produced by parties who, if they really want to change something, should start changing themselves.

Moreover, they have set this up in such a way that should they come up with a good idea, others will have to pay for it.

Are you not surprised why I am feeling so sick?

Some math …

You might get the impression that we in the Netherlands are dealing well with our waste. Relatively little waste ends up on the street (and thus eventually in the environment), and the waste we neatly discard in trash receptacles largely disappears into incinerators.

Good riddance to waste.

But is this really the case?

Even though political parties and environmental organizations feel very strongly about the emission of carbon and the disastrous effects green house gases have on our environment, I have never noticed them to criticize the production and the processing of synthetics.

Even though …

For the production of 1 kilo of plastic, 2 kilos of oil is needed.

Plainly put … of those two kilos, one kilo is used to make plastic out of the other kilo. This one kilo needed to generate the energy to produce the plastic yields 3 kilos of carbon dioxide.

Fortunately the other kilo is still contained in the plastic itself, and thus can be stored for a longer period by means of reuse and recycling.

However …

In the Netherlands, no less than 1.2 million tons of plastic waste are collected annually; 80% of which ends up being incinerated. As soon as you start burning plastic, carbon dioxide is released from the oil contained in the plastic.

Thus in the Netherlands, 80% of 1.2 million tons (equivalent to 960 million kilos) of oil is wasted annually. And two times (for the production and incineration) 2.88 billion (equivalent to 5.76 billion kilos) of carbon dioxide is released.

A number such as 5.76 billion is difficult to imagine, but it might be similar to the carbon emissions from a Hummer Automatic Luxury (the most polluting SUV with an emission of 412 g/km) being driven 14 billion kilometers—in other words about 350,000 Hummers circumnavigating the globe!

Every kilo of plastic that we recycle instead of burning, yields a reduction in emissions of 8.7 kilos of carbon dioxide. To recycle plastic, you need only 0.1 kilos of oil, instead of the two kilos needed to produce new plastic. Also, in so doing, you do not incinerate any plastic.

Merely a drop in the ocean?

Back to the math … globally, 60 million tons of plastic waste is produced annually. Only 6% of this is being recycled.

This means that annually, 94% of 60 million tons (equivalent to 56.4 billion kilos) of oil is being “thrown away”, and 338.4 billion kilos of carbon dioxide is being released.

Shouldn’t we assume some responsibility—as an example for others?

If you consider that the Netherlands is the largest carbon polluter per square kilometer in the entire world (with 4,294 tons CO2/km2—over seven times more than the United States and China, and almost fourteen times more than India), then it seems to me that we have something to atone for.

By the way, the next time you accept a convenient plastic bag at the store, remember that five of those bags already account for a carbon emission of 1 kilo …

A little correction

It’s been a while since I blogged. Not because I haven’t had anything to say … everyday I’m uncovering new positive and negative facts about plastic. On the one hand I’m amazed at all the initiatives that already exist in terms of waste reduction, reuse, and recycling. Then on the other hand, I’m amazed at the downside of our plastic production and consumption. In other words there is plenty enough material to write quite a number of blog entries.

In fact, it’s the attention overkill for Plastic Soup that has kept me from writing. Take last Thursday … first, a Belgian radio consumer program calls me for a live interview, then the Dutch daily nrc.next requests information for a front-page article on pollution in the North Sea, and finally the Belgian daily Het Laaste Nieuws calls because they heard me on the radio and want to dedicate an extensive article to toxins used in various kinds of plastic.

I’m pleased with the amount of attention the subject receives, but at the same time there is a risk that my statements are being taken out of context, or are being wrongfully interpreted. For example, this week in HUMO (a Belgian magazine), the caption to a photo from an otherwise excellent interview, read that I said that a baby who drinks from a polycarbonate bottle ingests the equivalent of a couple of contraceptive pills a day. I didn’t put it like that … and in the interview itself it was noted in a much more balanced way.

What I did say was that I have read a report which demonstrated that babies and young children who get their liquid and solid food from polycarbonate bottles, cups, and cans, ingests UP TO 14.5 micrograms of Bisphenol a per day. Bisphenol a is a pseudo-estrogen similar to the active pseudo-estrogen in a contraceptive pill (which contains 20 micrograms). When you compare the body weight of an adult woman with that of a baby, you could say that a baby ingests UP TO a couple of contraceptive pills a day.

Although this might sound defensive, I am not withdrawing a single word of what I have said in whichever interview so far.

I base my opinion on reports I’ve read, and on the accounts respectable experts give me. Of course, my opinion has been disputed. There are mainly two arguments which the experts (attempt to) sweep from the table.

The first argument was presented on the Radio Kassa program by the otherwise very charming and correct RIVM (Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu—National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) toxicologist, Van Leeuwen.

In regards to my claim on the toxicity of Bisphenol a in baby bottles, he stated that this agent exits the body when we urinate and has no harmful effect whatsoever on our health.. He confirmed that the agent is damaging to the environment and to animal life in particular (but for humans, the agent is not a problem). He was so convinced about this that he even offered his assistance if I should ever institute a campaign against Bisphenol a on those grounds.

Honestly, I can’t imagine that this agent is harmful to the environment, but not to us. Also, I have read reports indicating that this agent has been found in the human bloodstream, including fetuses. And that wouldn’t have an effect on health? I’m sorry, but employing common sense, I just can’t accept that.

The second argument being used to deny any side-effect of all toxic agents in plastic is the fact that the toxins (since their toxicity is not disputed) exist in such small amounts that they are therefore not harmful to humans.

I’m flabbergasted by such a statement. How can a scientist—a physician make such a claim? Only medical science experiments continuously with the effects of extremely small amounts of certain substances.

It was Nobel Prize winner, Schatz, who proved non-linear poisoning—indeed a toxin is rendered less harmful when diluted, but when you continue to dilute it, the effects become more severe. The receptors responsible for hormonal regulation in our bodies are extremely sensitive. And a lot of the toxins in plastic (such as various softeners in PVC and the above mentioned Bisphenol a) affect this hormonal regulation along with all the consequences.

What amazes me the most is the certainty with which scientists claim toxins in plastic are safe for us.

Firstly, to date, we still hardly know precisely which toxins are used in plastic and what their effects (to put it prudently) might be on our health.

Secondly, PARTICULARLY in the scientific world where shared knowledge changes so quickly, it is important to be careful when it comes to certain assessments when there is so much contrary evidence (as in the case of the questions surrounding plastic).

Personally, I chose to be on the safe side. I follow the reports that I read, along with my own sense, but also I am not fooled by horror stories.

Above all, I try to convince everybody that plastic can be safe, that it can be produced without toxins, and without being more expensive.

Honestly, when toxins are not really necessary, why on Earth use them? Whether they are harmful to us or not?

Not for the fainthearted

The topic of the toxicity of plastic has been discussed on various radio broadcasts. And this did not go by unnoticed. I received a lot of questions about which types of plastic are OK to use and which are not.

Charles Moore, the discoverer of the plastic soup, gave me the following tip … Nowadays, on most plastic packaging and products you can find a number in a triangle made up of little arrows—this indicates the type of plastic used. Only numbers 2 and 5 can be used safely. And in particular, avoid numbers 3, 6, and 7.

During a meeting of ACT Global, it was agreed to include on their website, a list containing all the different types of plastic and their consequences on human health.

I found a table on the Internet, and I forwarded it to ACT. Soon afterwards, I received a response … In the opinion of ACT, the table looked “very terrifying” and they preferred the “less hard line approach.”

Still I believe we should not avoid the hard reality. Furthermore, after studying the various reports I encountered, there were even far more serious consequences than those listed in the table. For those wanting to be aware of this information, click on the link below to see the uncensored table. I have added the related number (as mentioned above) to the plastic in concern. Those not wanting to know should stop reading here.

Table – Plastic and health

The website where this table can be found also presents the following tips:

Wherever possible, find alternatives for plastic products. A few suggestions:

•    Buy food in glass or cans: avoid polycarbonate (containing Bisphenol A) drinking bottles.

•    Avoid heating food that is in plastic containers; and avoid storing greasy food in plastic trays or foil.

•    Don’t give plastic pacifiers, teething rings, and toys to young children.

•    Use clothing, bed linen, and furniture made out of natural materials.

•    Avoid all products made from PVC and polystyrene.

I am in full agreement with these suggestions …

PS: After all, I have been invited to come to Radio Kassa on Thursday. And they will call on other toxicologists. I am curious as to what will happen, and will keep you posted!

Lees deze tekst in het Nederlands

Expert on the air

As I wrote earlier, I was interviewed by Radio Kassa about a number of things, including the detrimental effects of Bisphenol A in baby bottles.

I received a phone call today … In ten day’s time, a toxicologist will be on the radio to comment on my allegations. His stance is that this is all nonsense. I was asked to comment after he had his say—by telephone, since my offer to come to the studio was refused—I agreed; but I sent the following email to the editor:

Dear Dieuwertje,

Many thanks for the invitation to comment on Rolaf van Leeuwen’s remarks made on Thursday May 7th. Although he has not yet made his point, I understand from your comments that he will claim my concerns to be unfounded—that Bisphenol A (BPA) is not that harmful, and that the levels at which children are exposed to it (through drinking from baby bottles containing BPA) does not endanger their health in any way.

I am a writer and have been immersed in the subject for a number of months. I base my opinion on my own commonsense and on the reports I have seen with my own eyes.

However, there is the concern that experts like Mr. Van Leeuwen can brush me aside as someone trying to ferment a disturbance in order to drum up more attention for the book. I think the problem deserves more than that.

I believe that Radio Kassa would be well-advised to perform worthy of a consumer advocacy program and seek the opinion of another toxicologist who does believe that Bisphenol A is harmful to human health (in the amounts to which we are exposed to it today) and to thus challenge Mr. Van Leeuwen.

In challenging Mr. Van Leeuwen, I can only put forward the facts that I have encountered during my own research:

−    Professor Frederick Vom Saal has shown that 93% of the independent surveys on Bisphenol A prove precisely how harmful it is (204 surveys). On the other hand, 100% of the surveys commissioned by the chemical industry claim it is safe (14 surveys).

−    The European Union based its opinion on research financed by the chemical industry, even when they once again stretched the limiting value of BPA. While on the other hand, 150 reports demonstrated its harmful effects.

−    Countries such as Canada and Japan have already banned baby bottles containing Bisphenol A. Canada has also put BPA on the list of banned chemical substances. More and more states in the US have attempted to enforce bans on BPA.

−    BPA is an estrogen-imitator (as is ethinylestradiol for example). The latter is used in contraceptives. A daily dose of 20 μg in women will guarantee a failure to achieve pregnancy. Measurements have shown that small children take in up to 14.7 μg of Bisphenol A a day due to “leaking” polycarbonate products such as baby bottles. In this way, boys as well as girls, are on the pill so-to-speak … with all its consequences. These “small amounts” can indeed accrue; causing damage.

−    Imagine Mr. Van Leeuwen to be right and the 7% of scientists who have shown that BPA is not that damaging are also not wrong … The question still remains: why do we continue to use a “not so damaging” substance in baby products (or any product), when there are harmless alternatives available?

I hope that you intend to encourage a serious discussion. This exceptionally important subject demands it. But you can only serve it adequately when you allow debate by equal partners: facing  each other, and both in the studio.

This does not mean I don’t stand behind my opinion and that I would not put forward the case if you chose to make a one-sided opinion heard.

I remain disappointed that I have not been invited to come to the studio when I could at least be face-to-face with Mr. Van Leeuwen while talking to him.

I would appreciate it if you could please bring this issue up in your next editorial meeting.

Looking forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Jesse Goossens

I’ll keep you posted!

Lees deze tekst in het Nederlands

There’s nothing wrong…

I was interviewed about Plastic Soup on Kassa Radio (a consumer advocacy program). There, among other things, I had the opportunity to explain how plastic contains toxins such as Bisphenol A in polycarbonate (the transparent plastic used in baby bottles) and phthalates (found in materials like PVC).

This broadcast really caused quite a reaction … Especially about the fact that after I read the reports on Bisphenol A , I threw away all of the baby’s bottles and started a quest for BPA-free bottles. Listeners wanting to ask for advice managed to find me via the editorial staff or my website. For instance, someone asked:

Hello Jesse,

I heard about the plastic soup for the first time yesterday during the interview on Radio 1. After searching the Web, my interest and my fears were aroused.

I want to quickly send out an email to all my contacts to make people more aware, or at least to urge them to look this up.

I have a daughter myself—almost 4 months old—and I read some worrying messages about baby bottles. If you have time, can you shed some light on the following response?

He attached the response from Difrax (a manufacturer of baby bottles which contain Bisphenol A):

Why is Bisphenol A used in baby bottles?

Baby bottles are made from polycarbonate. They can be reused and are designed to resist breaking and heating from scalding, dish washing or re-heating in a microwave oven or bottle warmer. Polycarbonate is processed for use in medical appliances, paper, cardboard cartons and food packaging (mineral and soda bottles, etc.).

Why is there such a fuss about Bisphenol A?

In large quantities, Bisphenol A is a substance which is suspected to cause disruption in hormonal regulation.

To what extent is the use of Bisphenol A legally limited?

Because Bisphenol A can be harmful to humans, the European Union has instigated a maximum limit on the migration of Bisphenol A from synthetic packaging to food stuff.

In real terms this means that from the packaging a maximum of 0.6 milligrams of Bisphenol A is permitted per 1 kilogram of food stuff. (Source: Voedsel en Waren Autoriteit [VWA], the Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority).

Is Bisphenol A harmful to children’s health?

NO, there is absolutely no reason for concern:

−    International scientific research has shown that baby bottles made from polycarbonate (in accordance with the present standards) are safe for children.

The alternative, glass baby bottles, are, on the other hand, a direct danger for injuries from glass fractures and splinters.

−    When Bisphenol A is released via migration (only under unusual circumstances … thus not by microwave heating, dish washing, or scalding), then it is broken down within a day in the body and consequently not absorbed by human tissue.

Difrax’s response by Vivienne van Eijkelenborg, Managing Director:

“Difrax have been a forerunner in the field of knowledge and learning about baby products since our foundation 40 years ago. Safety of our products comes first. Difrax takes the role it plays in society very seriously. We have therefore developed a policy regarding our company AND our suppliers based on the BSCI system which guarantees the quality of our products. For baby products we comply with the European (CEN [Comité Européen de Normalisation], European Committee for Standardization) and national (NEN [Nederlandse Normalisatie instituut], Dutch Institute of Standards and Standardization) safety standards.

As a member of the CEN commission I am well-informed about European and national developments in this field. The fuss around Bisphenol A “hype” in 2002 resulted in broad international research into the safety of this substance in relation to food stuff. Researchers have shown that under present international standards this substance does not adversely affect children. Thank goodness strict guidelines for baby products exist. I can say with a clear conscience that all our baby products meet present standards. As a result of all the fuss, CEN even established a special limit for Bisphenol A in drinking utensils for children; and this standard is 20 times higher than the current standard (which we ALSO comply with).

I think it is unjust that neophytes in the market seize this situation to frighten consumers and persuade them to buy their products which are “allegedly” Bisphenol-free and therefore safe. They market their products by explicitly referring to the standards which we naturally ALSO comply with. The consumer can and should expect the same from us. In my opinion, this serious form of fear-marketing is not honorable. Instead, we want to approach the consumer in an honest and open manner and not by circulating myths among the public. Difrax does not want to maximize its turnover at any cost. Honesty and quality in word and product matter as well. We believe that children’s well-being always comes first. Our responsibility to society is also reflected in our support for Goede Doelen voor Kinderen (Dutch organization: Charitable Organizations for Children).”

My answer was:

Dear …

Thank you very much for your email.

Difrax’s response did not surprise me at all.

The principle problem with the information on Bisphenol A is that various reports are being circulated. The chemical industry issues reports that claim that Bisphenol A in polycarbonate does not, in any way, harm human health. However, independent surveys argue for something completely different. Ninety-three percent of the independent surveys claim that Bisphenol A is exceptionally harmful, and, among other things, is responsible for distorted brain development, hyperactivity and aggression, disrupted sexual development in boys, an increase in the risk of breast, cervical and prostrate cancers, obesity in women, and an increase in the chance of miscarriages.

Personally, I am inclined to trust independent surveys more than surveys that have been issued by parties who have something to gain.

Difrax shields itself behind guidelines implemented by the European Union, but I am afraid that these guidelines do not amount to much. As early as last February, an article was published in the German magazine, Raum und Zeit, which pointed out that the European Union chose to base its opinion on a study financed by the chemical industry to once again increase the limiting value of Bisphenol A. Meanwhile, 150 studies can be referenced against this proving the harmful effects of this substance.

Polycarbonate already leaks Bisphenol A at room temperature. The moment warm liquid is poured into polycarbonate (such as baby’s milk), the plastic releases even more Bisphenol A. The same is true for microwave heat.

It took quite a while before I found bottles which were free of Bisphenol A. The brand, Nuby (available on the Internet), offers a series of BPA-free bottles and drinking cups. I am using these now.

I hope this is of some help to you.

Yours sincerely,

Jesse Goossens
(author of Plastic Soup)

For convenience sake, I ignored the contradictions in the Difrax email.

How harmless can a substance be for which strict guidelines have had to be imposed?

Lees deze tekst in het Nederlands

Fifteen minutes of fame

De Lemniscaatkrant (The Lemniscaat Newspaper) asked me to write a column about Plastic Soup. I wrote the following:

Andy Warhol said: “In the future everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes.” I used to dream that one day when I was a great writer (having written a brilliant young adult novel) I would experience those fifteen minutes of fame. I never would have thought that a book on plastic waste would put me in the limelight. And for even longer than fifteen minutes!

Five months ago, I was assigned to write a book on the plastic soup—the gigantic amount of floating plastic in the Pacific Ocean. I thought all that plastic must surely be unpleasant, but we’ll just clean it up. I was wrong …

Plastic—that fantastic wonder material that you find everywhere: in your iPod and computer, wrapped around your newspaper, magazine, and the food you eat, in your television set, your Wii and your Nintendo—it is not as harmless as it looks.

To begin with, the advantage of plastic is at the same time a disadvantage when it ends up in the wrong place—it does not decompose, it only breaks down into very small particles. In sea water, these small particles resemble food to fish and other marine life; which end up eating the particles.

Also, many types of plastic have another curious property: they attract toxins (such as pesticides, insecticides and incombustible particles found in fuels) that have been discharged into the water.

And, finally, chemical agents are added to all kinds of plastic so as to make them more flexible, or to make them hard, to add color, or to make them fire-resistant. These agents are highly toxic, not only for fish or the environment, but also for us.

This revelation didn’t exactly lift my spirits. On the contrary, it made me angry. Fortunately, however, I discovered that things can be done differently … All plastic can be produced free of toxins. For all toxic agents, there are non-toxic alternatives which, in most cases, are even cheaper. Now we only need to convince the plastics industry to understand that we don’t want toxins in our plastic. And you can help in achieving this.

A large part of the plastic waste problem is caused by disposable plastic. From now on, if you refuse to accept plastic bags, but use your own instead, you’re already helping to reduce the amount of waste. In the same way, when you bring a cup to school, you avoid having to use a plastic cup each time.

But in particular, think about what you buy. Nowadays, you will find a little symbol on plastic products: a triangle consisting of arrows with a number in the middle. The number indicates the type of plastic. When you avoid numbers 3 (PVC), 6 (polystyrene), and 7 (other plastic, such as polycarbonate)—the most toxic forms of plastic—and leave them on the shelves, you are letting the plastics industry know that you don’t want them.

As long as they last, I will use my minutes of fame on TV, radio, newspapers and magazines to spread this message: We can make difference. We can do better. Let’s start doing it then.

Or to quote Barack Obama: “Let’s go change the world!”

Lees deze tekst in het Nederlands

Running score

The time given me to submerge myself in the Plastic Soup was too short to be able to study all aspects of it—all the problems that come with plastic waste, and all the available solutions. Not even a whole life would be enough to do that … Therefore, I don’t see this moment as the end of the project, but as a mid-term, half-time score. Everything I have written so far can be seen as a first exploration. In my blog, I will continue reporting what did not make it into the book.

During my quest, I successively got dispirited, and became enthusiastic and inspired. I became dispirited because of the facts—how bad the pollution already is in our oceans and seas, on the Earth, and amongst animals and ourselves. When I started the book, I still thought that although there’s a load of plastic in the sea; it’s just a question of cleaning it up. But then I discovered that the plastic soup, for the large part, consists of microplastic—plastic particles that are hardly visible to the naked eye. And finally, I realized that the greatest problem isn’t the plastic itself, but the toxins that are processed in it, and the toxins that attach to the plastic in the sea, all of which have inflicted a great deal of damage to our environment and health on land and in the seas. But just when I thought that we would never find a way out of this, I became convinced, after the discussions, that together we could solve the problems. If we could bring together all the people I interviewed, we can make the world cleaner and transform plastic—a true wonder material.

At this point in the investigation, in order to recap, I want to list all the points. ACT assumes that each ‘Inconvenient Truth’ can be matched to a ‘Convenient Truth’ (a solution that is already available or that is still to be developed).

I will list the ‘Inconvenient Truths’ I encountered during my travels and then place the ‘Convenient Truths’ against them.

Those who can, and should work on the ‘Convenient Truths’ are the consumers, scientists, business community and industry. I also see a role for the government. Although personally, I am not a big supporter of too much legislation, a few rules have to be implemented and adhered to in order for something to change. Certain people and companies with money and power who have nothing to gain from change, can still be an obstruction.

Table - Inconvenient vs. Convenient Truths

In brief, there is still a lot to do … But luckily a lot can be done. And there are more and more people that want to participate!

I also want to take this opportunity to thank a few people that have been important to the realization of the book and the blog.

Firstly, Maria Westerbos who through her passionate enthusiasm welded the whole act together and instilled confidence in me to get involved in the Plastic Soup.

Dave Cooper and Vincent Janssen Steenberg were indispensable for the project. They almost simultaneously translated my blog-entries and interviews and while writing, provided me with comments, ideas and enough music to compile a Plastic Soup soundtrack.

Of course I am very grateful to all who participated in the interviews in this book and who had to put up with my barrage of questions.

Frances de Jong was, as always, steady as a rock providing all my texts with much needed corrections at break-neck speed.

Marc Suvaal made it my most beautiful book so far—it’s always a great pleasure to work together with him.

And finally, I would like to mention the publisher, who has written this book just as well as I did, and the baby—because I want to make the world a better place for her.

Let’s go change the world!

Lees deze tekst in het Nederlands

An acid sea

I received an email from the translator. The subject by which it arrived in my in box did not bode very well: “Some more depressing news …”

The email contained a link to the BBC news website.

An article was posted there under the title “Acid oceans ‘need urgent action’“.

What was the issue? Sea water has a certain natural acidity—specific pH levels. Scientists have discovered that the pH levels of the oceans are changing a hundred times quicker than they would naturally. When pH levels decrease, water becomes more acid, so the entire ecosystem is put in danger. Not only does this mean that large coral reefs will disappear, but also that the fish catch will change (the food supply of millions, will, as a result, be at stake).

The decrease of pH levels might well have been caused by man. The oceans appear to be absorbing half of the carbon dioxide (CO2 ) that we emit daily. CO2 is transformed into carbonic acid in sea water; the result of which is that the oceans become acidic.

Plastic was not mentioned in the BBC article.

Plastic—even bioplastic—decomposes in CO2. According to the United Nations, in 2006, 46,000 plastic particles were floating in every square mile of the seas … I don’t think I need to spell out what the conclusion is.

A new climate summit will be held in December 2009. Hopefully then this problem will be addressed. Although this summit will only be concerned with the acidification of the oceans, hopefully then they will also face the consequences of plastic in the oceans.

A study has been carried out in Ireland to look at what the effects are on CO2 emissions if we stopped producing plastic bags. The conclusion? Some 31,000 fewer tons of CO2 would be emitted—the same amount that your automobile would release if you drove it 3,600 times around the world. And that doesn’t even account for the amount of CO2 that is released when the plastic starts to decompose.

The population in the Netherlands is 4.4 times larger than in Ireland. And there are 82 times more Americans than Irish.

Need I say more? Acid oceans need URGENT ACTION!

Lees deze tekst in het Nederlands.

Money, Money, Money

In discussions about war and disputes, the publisher always says: “When you want to know what’s really going on—look for who has something to gain.”

Profit. That appeared to be the operative word in discussions with Jacques Joosten, managing director of DPI (which is according to their own website, “… the leading organization in Europe for pre-competitive polymer R&D”)

We discussed research into alternative raw materials for plastic. DPI spends much of its attention on this research, like many other global organizations, but “there aren’t any winners yet.”

He can understand the plastics industry’s resistance to a ban or deposit on plastic bags: “They will not let business be taken away from them.”

On the issue of toxic substances being used in plastic (and which ultimately damage health), he says: “Very often there are alternatives, but they are more expensive.” Furthermore: “Our economy works that way: he who has the lowest price wins. The consumer makes that decision.”

He also had his doubts as to whether the government should play a role in the areas of recycling, restriction of disposable plastic, or the regulation of toxic substances used in plastic. “You have to be very careful about the effects this will have internationally,” and “… how you will burden the plastics industry.”

In my words: “Why should we produce responsible products? Why should we be concerned about the health of our fellow man and a cleaner environment? We produce our products in the least expensive way; to make the largest profit possible. Apparently it makes no difference to the public, otherwise they would not buy our products.”

My favorite Loesje poster reads: “It was so dark that I saw bright spots everywhere.”

This rings true every time, even now.

Because while the petrochemical and plastics industry is affected by the crisis—so that thousands lose their jobs—great opportunities come to the fore. Bring these folks together with their unique knowledge and allow them to think of a solution—safe plastic, a good recycling system, alternatives to disposable plastic.

Later, when we are out of the dark, the world will be a lot greener.

Lees deze tekst in het Nederlands.