He called me because she had one last wish. She wanted everybody attending the cremation to bring along just one flower, and to make a donation that would help in dealing with the plastic soup. I was, and still am, at a loss for words.

The Netherlands Plastic Soup Foundation is being established as I write this. Universities, research institutes, environmental organizations as well as the plastics industry are joining forces to work on a solution.

Roelie will be the first contributor.

She should have been here.

I had dinner this week with three engineers. It turned out that two of them were closely involved in a subject that is currently being heavily debated—the storage of CO2 (also known as CCS—Carbon, Capture, and Storage).

‘That will mean big business for the plastics industry,’ one of the engineers remarked. He noticed me raise my eyebrows and added: ‘Miles of pipeline, gigantic storage tanks 80 meters in diameter—all made of plastic.’

Is there any research being conducted on the exchange of chemicals contained in the plastic and the CO2 that is being stored under high pressure? It is now clear that when wine is bottled in plastic, it is affected by the chemicals in the plastic to such a degree that one can taste the difference within six months. When that is the case, surely there will be a chemical reaction between the plastic and the CO2?

The engineer looked at me in surprise. No. According to him this issue is not being investigated.

Currently, the European Union is expediting the introduction of a bill that will allow CO2 storage under the North Sea. Can you imagine that? As we slowly but surely understand that plastic waste has a devastating effect on our oceans, what do we do? We lay down plastic pipelines to pump CO2 into empty oil fields without really understanding what the outcome of this might be.

Will the plastic remain intact (considering the pressure at greater sea depths); and what are the possible effects of the CO2 from within the pipelines? What type of plastic is going to be used? Doesn’t it release chemicals itself?

So many questions that are not even considered …

Why is money even invested in this project? The energy problem is only exacerbated, since in order to store CO2 a factory needs 22-42% more fuel than usual. When a power plant stores its own CO2, the cost of energy increases by 42% to 81%. In addition, the capital expenditure of such a plant will increase from 44% to 87%.

One of the Dutch political parties—D66, who have a chance to be part of a coalition—wants the government to help finance the development of storage techniques. While the same party says it wants to cut costs. This does not come as a surprise to me … the chairman of this party’s Permanente Programmacommissie (Permanent Program Commission) is the former vice-president of Shell Russia, Senior Legal Counsel at Shell International, director of the legal department at Shell Pernis, and corporate lawyer for Shell International.

They also want to construct storage for Shell under Barendrecht, Zuid-Holland (a municipality with a population of some 46,000 people). Research has shown that this is the most logical location. That ‘there is no risk of exceeding the legal standards. For some limited issues exceeding the guidelines of the so-called group risk, it has been reported that they can be managed by additional measures. This overrunning will only occur in the pipeline near Shell Pernis.’
…

People are too easily prone to say that CO2 is harmless. ‘It’s in the air we breathe.’ is the most frequently heard argument in support of its harmlessness.

Forget it.

In normal circumstances the density of CO2 is 1.5 times higher than that of air. It displaces the oxygen in air. I quote the WMO’s (World Meteorological Organization) and UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concerning CCS:

‘At normal conditions, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is 0.037%, a non-toxic amount. Most people with normal cardiovascular, pulmonary-respiratory and neurological functions can tolerate exposure of up to 0.5-1.5% CO2 for one to several hours without harm.

Higher concentrations or exposures of longer duration are hazardous—either by reducing the concentration of oxygen in the air to below the 16% level required to sustain human life, or by entering the body, especially the bloodstream, and/or altering the amount of air taken in during breathing […]

Longer exposure, even to less than 1% concentration, may significantly affect health. Noticeable effects occur above this level, particularly changes in respiration and blood pH level that can lead to increased heart rate, discomfort, nausea and unconsciousness […]

Acute exposure to CO2 concentrations at or above 3% may significantly affect the health of the general population. Hearing loss and visual disturbances occur above 3% CO2 . Healthy young adults exposed to more than 3% CO2 during exercise experience adverse symptoms, including laboured breathing, headache, impaired vision and mental confusion. CO2 acts as an asphyxiant in the range 7-10% and can be fatal at this concentration; at concentrations above 20%, death can occur in 20 to 30 minutes […]

Health risks to the population could therefore occur if a release of CO2 were to produce:
• relatively low ambient concentrations of CO2 for prolonged periods;
• or intermediate concentrations of CO2 in relatively anoxic environments;
• or high concentrations of CO2.’

Or, as one of the engineers commented during our dinner: ‘Well you don’t want a CO2 cloud passing over the town. We all suffocate in that scenario.’ Adding… ‘But the chance that something goes awry is negligible.’

The same was said for the Titanic.

You can also follow me on Twitter @plasticjesse.

Lees deze tekst in het Nederlands.

The World Wildlife Fund held a closed meeting about the plastic soup. There were about twenty-five of us. In attendance were representatives from the plastics industry, scientists, Dutch and European government officials, and people representing environmental NGOs and various funds.

I cannot mention names, since we all promised to comply with the Chatham House Rules … whereby we are free to discuss what the meeting was about and what was said, but not by whom. This allowed everyone to speak freely.

It was a promising meeting. People brainstormed and progressive plans were put forward to put an end to the plastic pollution of the oceans. Finally each party promised to have something done within a set time frame. I am convinced that this meeting will contribute to a quicker, broader awareness of the problem—something that is necessary in order to bring about real change. Everyone also agreed that the necessary changes must take place simultaneously on all fronts: from the plastic industry to retailers, consumers and government. That’s the only way to fight this rapidly growing problem.

During the course of the meeting, something completely blew me away …

Somebody commented: ‘What difference does it make that fish eat plastic? Nobody here eats fish entrails.’

It would appear that no one present—not even the scientists—were aware that when an animal (fish, bird, marine animal) consumes plastic, the toxins that have attached themselves to the plastic (DDT, PCB, insecticides, pesticides, etc.) as well as the additives from the plastic itself, are absorbed by the fatty tissue of the animal.

And even worse still … that years before, research revealed that when we consume fish, these chemicals accumulate in us. Not just the POPs (insecticides, pesticides, PCBs, DDT, etc.) but also the additives from the plastic itself (such as softeners and flame retardants).

This has already had gruesome consequences in Marin county in California. A woman who lives there told me that in the last couple of years the number of breast cancer fatalities has risen at an alarming rate. Thousands of women are ill. The cause? Their diet. It is rather hip to eat sushi—something these women have done in abundance. Chemicals attached to plastic have entered their bodies by eating this food. This contributes to the development of breast cancer.

Upon explaining to the person who thought plastic in the sea could not harm us, he responded: ‘Why don’t they just fry the fish? That should solve the problem. It is like mad cow disease—that too was caused by raw meat.’
…

I rest my case.

After the meeting, I was approached by a man who told me that I went too far in claiming that by eating fish people take in harmful substances attached to and processed in plastic.

I went too far? I’m not making up stories. I’m citing a report. Does that mean I’m going too far?

Let’s agree on one thing … I continue writing and talking about the facts I collect from reports and from conversations to experts.

You decide what you want to read or hear.

Then if you think I am going too far, you can always walk off and go fry a fish.

You can also follow me on Twitter @plasticjesse.

Lees deze tekst in het Nederlands.

My ninety year old mother-in-law fell and broke her hip.

As I walked through the hospital hallways, I saw bags of liquid, intravenous tubes, and other transparent stuff laying on a table. I asked myself whether this hospital incinerates it’s own waste.

Why?

Twelve years ago, back in 1998, it was revealed that hospitals are an important source of air pollution. For example, hospitals that incinerate their own waste are responsible for a large share of dioxin emissions. This toxin is released when burning PVC (the plastic from which much medical equipment is made).

You’d think that hospitals would take action as soon as these reports were published. But no. Paul Simon was right in the song “The Boxer” when he sang: ‘Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.’

The result?

So now the air in areas where hospitals incinerate their own waste is so polluted that people are getting ill. For example, in areas where hospitals burn PVC, the incidence of childhood cancer is rising.

Slowly but surely people are taking notice. In the US, the HMO, Kaiser Permanente hospitals decided to start using non-toxic plastics in their medical material this year. However, critics have remarked that when it comes to medical material, there is no good alternative for PVC. And what is the case? … Those alternatives do exist. They are just as good and just as expensive as PVC; and in many cases even cheaper.

Meanwhile, in India, incinerating medical waste has been banned.

How bad must the situation in Europe and the United States get before everyone starts switching to non-toxic materials?

And how is my mother-in-law you might ask?

In the pink, thank you. She got fitted with a new, polyethylene hip within 24 hours. She will probably be able to walk better now than she did before the fall. Long live plastic!

You can also follow me on Twitter @plasticjesse.

Lees deze tekst in het Nederlands.

I gave a lecture today at DSM Resins in Zwolle.

As usual to illustrate one of the simplest ways everyone could reduce plastics pollution, I mentioned using your own re-usable coffee cup instead of using disposable plastic cups all the time.

When question time followed, this issue was raised: Do you really help save the environment by using your own coffee cup? Doesn’t the cup have to be washed each time you use it? What about the impact on the environment of producing the coffee cup itself and of having to let the faucet run each time it is used—isn’t that a bigger impact than the light-weight disposable cups?

My response was that by using your own coffee cup and a little hot water to keep it clean, no chemicals end up in the environment. In my opinion, this sufficiently answered the question. I was informed that I was bypassing the CO2 problem too easily. There are enough studies reporting that you are better off using disposable cups.

I intended to get to the bottom of all this.

It is indeed a fact that producing and washing a re-usable mug uses much more energy than producing and using a disposable cup.

You have to use a ceramic mug no less than 1,006 times before it becomes more energy efficient than a Styrofoam cup … a re-usable plastic mug 450 times; and a glass mug 393 times. Say you drink three cups of coffee (or tea) a day; a ceramic mug will take close to a year to become energy efficient … a plastic mug about five months; and a glass mug just over four months.

When you compare re-usable cups to disposable paper cups the ceramic cup is the most economical because it is used 39 times (in just over a month); the plastic cup 17 times (in six days); and the glass cup 15 times (in 5 days).

All the studies I have discovered, so far, show more or less the same calculations.

But what struck me is that nothing is said about limiting environmental damage by the use of re-usable as opposed to disposable cups.

Not a single report considered how many trees were felled for all those paper cups, nor which chemicals were used to bleach them (over 90% of disposable cups are produced from paper bleached with chloride).

The inside of paper cups are coated with a polyethylene laminate to prevent leaking. Thus the paper is non-recyclable. Also, as soon as the cups start to decompose, methane is released.

Polyethylene (PET) is one of the least polluting types of plastic. It could have contained phthalates (which disrupt hormonal regulation) and antimonium (a carcinogen). PET is also made from oil. Thus with every cup you throw away, you are throwing away a small amount of a limited resource.

To put it mildly, disposable plastic cups are not entirely harmless to the environment. They consist largely of polystyrene (the ocean’s worst plastic pollutant, according to Charles Moore). As mentioned earlier, PET and polypropylene are also used to make plastic cups. Both of these are good recyclables; however very little is ever recycled. And again, with each cup discarded, a small amount of oil is lost forever.

I would like to see a report in which all these factors are considered: resources extracted from the Earth and chemicals that end up in the environment. I am willing to bet that on a scale between re-usable mugs and disposable cups the balance leans more towards re-usable mugs.

Personally, I am not going to wait for such a report. When you’re hooked on coffee (and tea) as I am, your mug will become energy efficient in no time.

You can also follow me on Twitter @plasticjesse.

Lees deze tekst in het Nederlands.

‘Oranje boven!’ (‘Orange forever!’) sings the toddler when we walk her home from school. She gets so excited seeing all the orange decorations adorning the houses, shops and pubs in the anticipation to the soccer World Cup.

I’m a little less enthusiastic. What I see are miles of PVC flags, ribbons and balloons. Serpentine sprays full of softeners and flame retardants. Wigs, makarapa, boas, vuvuzelas, bumper stickers … you name it.

The supermarkets too are zeroing-in on the orange craze. Albert Heijn has got PV plush Beesies, Super de Boer is handing out polyester Bungels. Spar is handing out polystyrene Sparkys and C1000 has got ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) VoetbalGOGOs – and if that’s not enough everything’s wrapped in plastic. Millions and millions of plastic items … All equally cute … All equally cheap … One more polluting than the other..

Because let’s face it—let’s hope it takes a while before the Dutch team gets to the final—at best this will all be over within a month, or at worst within two weeks and then all this junk will just end up in the trash can. Only a miniscule fraction will be recycled. Most of it will be burnt releasing all sorts of chemicals. And some of it will end up on streets, in parks, in fields, in waterways and in the sea.

Still I’m not just being pessimistic … since during the World Cup, the Dutch team (as well as the Brazilian, South Korean, Portuguese, Australian, New Zealander, Serbian and Slovenian teams) will be wearing Nike shirts made out of recycled PET bottles. If the teams do this, maybe their supporters will follow as well.

Soon we’ll all be singing at the top of our voices: ‘Laat de leeuw niet in z’n hempie staan’ (literally: ‘Don’t leave the Dutch lion standing in his undies’, or ‘Don’t make the lion look a fool’). But I’m quietly thinking … if the undies were made out of recycled material, the lion would not need to feel the fool.

May the greenest team win!

You can also follow me on Twitter @plasticjesse.

Lees deze tekst in het Nederlands.

Where should I begin?

By saying sorry for being off the air for so long?
By announcing I gave birth to a beautiful daughter?
Or how about with all the new developments over these last months regarding the plastic soup—both the positive as well as the negative?

No, I’ll start with the announcement that the Publisher and I have decided it is time for Plastic Soup 2.

Eighteen months ago I walked into a project the results of which I could never foresee. I was both naïve as well as ignorant. Since then the consequences of plastic pollution on humankind and the environment have become world news. Everyday I receive news reports and articles—from the United Nations to the plastics industry. And my in-box is overflowing as a result of emails on new initiatives: NGOs, environmental organizations, regional, national, and even international governments as well as the plastics industry itself are all looking for solutions.

In other words it’s time for an update. Follow this blog for the most shocking discoveries, the most hopeful projects, to hear the conversations I have, share the meetings I attend, and to hear the lectures I give … but also to keep up with the preparations for the new book. Because on April 22nd 2011 I will launch my new book: Plastic Soup, now even hotter!

You can also follow me on Twitter @plasticjesse.

Lees deze tekst in het Nederlands.

As many as 87,000 … and out of all these, we only know the effects on human health of a very small number. And that’s scary …

What surprises me is that every time I talk to people who should know better—high-ranking officials from VROM (the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment)—it is put forward that “ … there’s no need to worry, we can depend on REACH.”

REACH is a European project implemented in 2007. It stands for Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals. The aim is to test 14,000 chemicals by 2018 for their effects on humans and the environment.

However …

Thanks to strong lobbying by the chemical industry, REACH does not apply to polymers (in other words, plastics).

Much against the concurrence of the chemical industry, in July of this year the European Court of Justice decided that monomers (from which polymers can be formed) must adhere to REACH guidelines.

But even when REACH does fully cover polymers, we will still have a number of problems to deal with:

− REACH only tests 14,000 chemicals. All types of plastic contain at least six times as many chemicals.

− In addition, it has been revealed that the REACH targets are unattainable. According to the latest estimates, Europe can only test fifty to sixty chemical compounds per year. This calculates out to at least 1,400 years before all chemicals contained in plastics can be tested.

− And currently there is a lot of fuss about too many laboratory animals being used for research. Not only the direct effects on health are being tested, but also the effects on our offspring. This requires one or more generations of lab animals for each chemical compound. Thus some are arguing against this “next-generation research”.

Excuse me?

I am not a supporter of animal testing; the lack of “next-generation research” leaves a bad taste in my mouth. In this instance, the emotions of animal-lovers and members of the Partij voor de Dieren (Animal rights party) are being played upon in order to prevent much-needed research.

Am I supposed to be assured in the knowledge that a substance, that is harmless to me, might still harm any future children and grandchildren?

Exactly what are we doing here?

I know of a much cheaper, faster and more efficient solution.

Stop REACH.

Find a non-toxic alternative for each chemical substance which has unknown effects on our health and the environment. Numerous alternatives are already known. Currently these are still unused due to the fact that trade in these toxic substances is so lucrative.

Invest all the money currently earmarked for REACH towards research and production of non-toxic alternatives.

At present, each REACH test costs €700,000. Calculate how much it will cost for 14,000 (or even 87,000) tests.

I bet it will be much cheaper.

Lees deze tekst in het Nederlands

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?

Lees deze tekst in het Nederlands

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 …

Lees deze tekst in het Nederlands