Mangroves: The Natural Defence for Coastlines

Figure 1 - A map highlighting the distribution of mangrove forests (in black) throughout the globe (Romañach, 2017)

Across the intertidal zone are a collection of mangrove forests located along the coastlines of equatorial countries (figure 1), the largest being The Sundarbans in Bangladesh covering a total of 140,000 ha. These forests are often referred to as 'the roots of the sea' due to the complex aerial root system that spend the majority of the time above sea level enabling the plant to survive in the anaerobic soil, making these ecosystems tolerant to a hypersaline environment. With 40% of mangrove species labelled threatened by the IUCN, these coastal areas could be at greater risk of coastal erosion, storm surges and sea level rise. It is important these issues are understood to aid conservation of global coastlines as well as these beautiful unique habitats.

Figure 2 - A photograph showing the dense root systems of mangrove forests that reduce erosion 

Erosion is defined as “the process of eroding or being eroded by wind, water, or other natural agents”  and the complex, uneven aerial root system (figure 2) of mangroves reduces erosion of the shore. Mangroves have reportedly reduced the height waves up to 66% and slow the flow of seawater as the vegetation acts as a buffer between the land and sea. This enables 70-80% of incoming sediment to settle resulting, increasing biomass. This helps to increase the fertility in these harsh environments, increasing biodiversity, as mangrove soils have a high nutrient content. This gradual accumulation of biomass, over a long-time period, allows peat to form which is a long-term carbon sink helping to reduce carbon in the atmosphere. The dense roots bind soil particles together meaning an increase in mangrove trees means that less soil particles will become dislodged by incoming waves. This reduces the risk of flooding and damage to infrastructure in coastal communities. This risk increased in Guyana as after the removal of mangroves, coastal erosion increased 3 m annually.

The dense vegetation helps to reduce the impact of hurricanes and tsunamis inland by reducing the force of the storm surge. Figure 3 shows a storm surge is a large increase in sea water due to extreme weather, that often carries debris, that causes damage to infrastructure and flooding. The complex structure of mangrove forests increases the frictional resistance resulting in a drop in the force of the storm surge and slowing the flow rate of the wave. Storm surges are the biggest cause of damage during storms affecting causing large scale damage to properties, roads, biodiversity and coastal erosion. Studies have reported that mangroves can reduce the amplitude of a storm surge by 6 to 10 cm/km resulting in a decline in inland flooding and may fewer individuals at risk. However, the force from the waves can damage the mangroves often resulting in uprooting and damaging trunks so the health of mangrove forests should be monitored to ensure future storm surges have a reduced impact.

Figure 3 - A graphic showing the large increase in wave size during a storm surge 

Not only do mangroves provide a habitat to endangered species, including the Bengal tiger, but there are also major benefits to the human population as they reduce the risk to coastal settlements. Despite these major benefits, deforestation of these unique habitats is still on the rise due to the growth in aquaculture and the high value of mangrove wood potentially putting coastlines at risk.

Bibliography

• Gracia, A., Rangel-Buitrago, N., Oakley, J., & Williams, A. (2017). Use of ecosystems in coastal erosion management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 156, 277-289. Retrieved October 12th, 2018, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569117301588#bib42
• ICUN. (2010, April 8th). Mangrove forests in worldwide decline. Retrieved from ICUN Threatened List: http://www.iucnredlist.org/news/mangrove-forests-in-worldwide-decline
• Leggett, M. (2011, April 5th). Carbon grasped by Mangrove roots vastly underestimated. Retrieved October 12th, 2018, from Earth Times: http://www.earthtimes.org/conservation/carbon-grasped-mangrove-roots-vastly-underestimated/662/
• NOAA. (2018, June 25th). What is storm surge? Retrieved October 12th, 2018, from National Ocean Service: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/stormsurge-stormtide.html
• Oxford University. (2010). Oxford Dictionary of English (Third ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved October 10th, 2018
• Romañach, S. (2017). Conservation and restoration of mangroves: Global status, perspectives, and prognosis. Ocean & Coastal Management, 154, 72-82. Retrieved October 11th, 2018, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569117301710#fig
• Sivasothi, N. (2001). How plants cope in the mangroves. Retrieved October 11th, 2018, from Guide to the Mangroves of Singapore: http://mangrove.nus.edu.sg/guidebooks/text/1043.htm
• Spalding, M., Mclvor, A., & Tonneijck, F. (2014). Mangroves for coastal defence. Cambridge: The Nature Conservancy. Retrieved October 11th, 2018, from https://www.nature.org/media/oceansandcoasts/mangroves-for-coastal-defence.pdf
• United Nations. (2017). The Sundarbans. Retrieved October 11th, 2018, from UNESCO: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/798

The Danger of the Fishing Industry

Overfishing is defined as “the taking of fish species which exceeds its reproductive capacity” and as a result, we could have fishless oceans by 2048. Overfishing is a result of the mismanagement of fish stocks which leads to fishing above the maximum sustainable yield which is what lead to the collapse of the Newfoundland cod stocks in 1992. Reports show that between 90-100 million tons of fish are caught annually but with a growing population and consequently a higher demand for fish, overfishing is on the rise which could lead to grave environmental impacts.

One of these impacts is bycatch, or the removal or non-target species, due to unsustainable fishing methods such as demersal trawling.At least 40% of global catch is estimated to be bycatch and has been linked to a decline in population of large marine species, including the hammerhead shark. Leatherback turtles are likely to become extinct in the next 5 – 30 years with the main cause being pacific long line fisheries, designed to catch tuna. However, a large proportion of bycatch is believed to be unreported as it is discarded overboard to avoid fines once the vessel reaches shore which can stop effective conservation and designations in the areas in greatest need of protection. Bycatch has a major impact on marine ecosystems and will increase as the fishing industry grows.

Unsustainable fishing methods are also a major cause of habitat destruction, the most damaging being deep-sea trawling (figure 1) that tears up the sea bed which kills a range for species including coral and sea grass. This can also have an indirect effect as the disturbance of the sea bed causes a decline in photosynthesis by the removal or green sea plants and suspended particles, created by trawling, cause oxygen levels to fall making areas of the ocean uninhabitable to certain marine species. Trawling has been linked to the destruction of 30-50% of the coral along the Norwegian continental shelf and was the main reason for the Røst reef becoming a no take zone in 2002 with other nations protecting habitats on the sea bed.

Abandoned fishing nets has created the issue of ghost fishing which is when marine organisms become trapped in unused fishing gear. Not only does this account for 10% of marine debris, but each net can catch anywhere between 30-40 individuals included the Leatherback turtle. A positive feedback mechanism is also created as trapped organisms can act as bait for the apex predators, including rare shark species that can put them at greater risk.

Figure 2 - A list of the most and least sustainable fish to buy (activation.com)

Consumers have the ability to reduce these impacts by buying sustainable fish or cutting fish from their diet altogether. If consumers wish to buy fish they should purchase from the MCS sustainable fish list (some of which can be seen in figure 2) and look for the MSC logo on the packaging. Overall the fishing industry is unsustainable and this needs to change to protect the oceans. Personally, I feel the only 'sustainable method' is to stop fishing as there are many scientific studies showing we don't actually need to eat fish. If fish populations are going to recover, we need to stop eating them.

Bibliography

Activation. (2016). Fish: The Farmed v. Wild Debate, from activation.com. Retrieved October 1 2018. https://www.activationproducts.com/blog/farmed-fish-wild-fish-debate/

Australian Government. (2018). Trawling. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from Australian Fisheries Management Authority: https://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries-management/methods-and-gear/trawling

Buhl-Mortensen, P., & Buhl-Mortensen. (2018, Febuary 27). Impacts of Bottom Trawling and Litter on the Seabed in Norwegian Waters. Frontiers in Marine Science. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00042/full

FAO. (2012). WORLD REVIEW OF FISHERIES. New York: United Nations. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2727e/i2727e01.pdf

Kemp, D. (1998). The Environment Dictionary. London: Routledge. Retrieved October 1, 2018

Mason, F. (2002). The Newfoundland Cod Stock Collapse: A Review and Analysis of Social Factors. Electronic Green Journal, 1(17).

NOAA. (2009, October 19). Deep Water Corals. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: https://web.archive.org/web/20100221152237/http://coris.noaa.gov/about/deep/#fossa

Roach, J. (2002, November 2). Seafood May Be Gone by 2048, Study Says. Retrieved from National Geographic: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2006/11/seafood-biodiversity/

United Nations. (2009, May 6). Ghost nets hurting marine environment. Retrieved from FAO: http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/19353/icode/

WWF. (2010). Factsheet: Bycatch. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from panda.org: http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/bycatch_factsheet.pdf

The Impacts of Sailing

http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Sailing_(sport)

The boating and sailing industry has been growing over recent years with many of us participating as a way to connect with oceans and nature. This growth has aloud us to go scuba diving and snorkelling in areas that otherwise wouldn't be accessible as well as take part in a seemingly fun team sport with boat races even being included in the Olympics. However, with out oceans and the creature that call them home being in great danger, this got me thinking if this recreational activity could have a grave environmental impact.

In recent years there has been evidence to suggest that boats have caused a decline in dissolved oxygen, stunting the growth of sea plants that in turn affect the entire food chain. The propellers  and rudders bring up sediment from the sea bed which reduces the turbidity (i.e. it stops sunlight from reaching the seabed). This reduces the amount of photosynthesis that can occur and reduces the amount of oxygen available meaning that habitat cannot sustain larger fish populations, especially in shallow waters. With nutrients also being brought to the surface, large amounts of boats have also been linked to algal blooms which also reduce the turbidity but, in some cases, produce products that are toxic to both marine and terrestrial organisms. Safe to say that the reduced turbidity caused by high speed boats has a major impact on marine life and is something that can be easily avoided if we anchor these boats further out, away from shallow waters with less chance of the motors touching the sediment.

Another major impact is the potential for fuels to spill and leak into the surrounding environment. We have all seen those photos of sea birds drenched in oil and boats have the potential do do this on a much smaller scale, particularly if the boat is driven and managed poorly. When the boat is stationary, there is significant potential for small amount of partially burnt fuel to leak into the surrounding area. Smaller fuel particles are more likely to be ingested by marine life therefore there is great risk for bio accumulation up the food chain. Needless to say these chemicals are toxic to marine life. These chemical can also affect both the biotic and abiotic conditions of the habitat, making them less habitable for the species that live there. One potential change is pH and if it were to increase in acidity (or decline in pH) could mean damage to crustaceans with the acidic water dissolving shells and other carbonaceous structures including corals.

Although sailing can increase tourism and GDP, there is also the physical damage done to habitats. Sailing and other marine activities produce large amount of litter that end up in the ocean which included nets, ropes and plastic bags. With 43% of all boat activity being recreational sailing in Australia alone, it it fair to say that the majority of the waste from boats come from the sailing industry. Marine debris poses a huge threat to wildlife with organisms becoming trapped in discarded nets as well as smothering coral and other sea plants. Not to mention the fact that some organisms mistake plastic for food with sea turtles in particular mistaking plastic bags for jelly fish. The boats themselves have also done physical damage to marine environments with boat anchors being the biggest offender. Anchors can damage the sea bed but uprooting plants, disturbing bottom feeders and destroying coral.

The main solution to this would be to designate protection areas with no or limited access to areas with high biodiversity. However evidence suggests that this requires greater regulation with 43% of sailing boats in Australia ignoring the Marine Protection Areas. I'm not saying we should stop ailing as it is a way for us to grown closer to our marine environment and fall in love with the beautiful marine wildlife. I am however suggesting we act responsibly by staying within designated zones, ensure the boat is maintained to a high standard and stop treating the ocean as our personal landfill.

Resources -

• Environmental Protection, The Environmental Impacts of Boating, May 2017, https://eponline.com/articles/2017/03/27/the-environmental-impacts-of-boating.aspx 
• Brynes. T, Science Direct, 2016, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652615002413#kwrds001

How Does Plastic Travel in the Ocean

Map of ocean currents - (Pidwirny, 2006)

In 2017, scientists estimated that there was roughly 100 million tons of plastic in our oceans, with this figure constantly on the rise. The plastics are constantly circulating the globe via ocean currents which is the movement of sea water between locations, in a similar way to a conveyor belt, that are generated by a range of forces that change regionally including wind speed and force as well temperature difference. This has led to large accumulations, particularly of microplastic, specific areas of the ocean with the most well-known being the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. All the mentioned factors (plus many more) mean that rubbish from my university in Plymouth could end up polluting the Great Barrier Reef.

Ocean currents are defined as “a horizontal flow of water through the ocean” (according to the freedictionary.com) that redistributes heat from the sun through the globe. The movements that generate the currents are often seasonal and affected by a range of factors including:
• Differences in temperature
• Wind direction and speed
• Gravitational pull from moon and sun
• Rise and fall of the tides
• Salinity
• Atmospheric pressure

The global system of ocean currents has an important role within a range of ecosystems as well as the global climate. Ocean currents carry heat from tropical regions and transports and redistributes this heat away from the equator to warm coastal areas, making land more habitable and increasing soil fertility. They also have an impact on the weather as warmer water has a higher rate of evaporation, resulting in heavier rainfall in tropical regions which allows the tropical rainforests to have the heavy rainfall and humidity it is known for. This is what gives these rainforests the fertile soil that allows the beautiful tropical plants to grow. Currents also increase the biodiversity in the photic zone (or the top layer of the ocean) as upwelling occurs that bring nutrients to the surface. This allows phytoplankton to grow and increase in population that increase oxygen levels and provide more food for the primary consumers in the food chain. Needless to say this has a knock on effect and affects higher trophic levels within the ecosystem.

The global transport of plastics via ocean currents has created ‘rubbish hotspots’ such as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Despite public belief, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is not a large mound of debris in the middle of the pacific like the name suggests and it is not even visible by satellite. The other name the Pacific Trash Vortex describes the area much better as it is a gyre containing high concentrations of marine litter and chemicals that circulate the North Pacific Ocean. With 1.9 million pieces of microplastic per square mile, the risk to the ecosystem in this area is huge and as 70% of all litter in the ocean sink to the floor the unseen impacts may be even greater than expected. The North Pacific Gyre keeps the debris circulating the North Pacific Ocean and creates convergence zones that are the natural gathering points within the ocean current system. In the case of the North Pacific, the two largest convergence zones are the western Garbage Patch and the eastern Garbage Patch (shown below). The constant movement of the gyre means that the microplastic and other marine debris remains trapped within the North Pacific ecosystem, amplifying the damage even more.

A map showing the North Pacific Garbage patch, (NOAA - Response and Restoration, 2013)

As the amount of plastic within our oceans continues to rise, we could be seeing more gatherings of plastics like the pacific garbage patch as it is transported globally and deposited by ocean currents. This has a huge impact on biodiversity in these areas and have been ingested by species, particularly seas turtles, as well as entangling others. With 17% or all threatened marine species being affected by plastic in our oceans, we need to be more aware that plastic does travel within our oceans and dropping a plastic bottle on your local beach could impact the Great Barrier Reef or be ingested by the endangered Leatherback turtle. 

References -

• Krieger, A. (2016, Febuary 7). What will it take to get plastics out of the ocean? Vox: https://www.vox.com/2016/2/7/10928788/ocean-plastic-pollution-solutions
• National Geographic. (2014, September 19). Great Pacific Garbage Patch.  https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/
• NOAA - Response and Restoration. (2013, Febuary 7th). How Big Is the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch"? Science vs. Myth. Office of Response and Restoration: https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/about/media/how-big-great-pacific-garbage-patch-science-vs-myth.html
• Pidwirny, M. (2006). Surface and Subsurface Ocean Currents: Ocean Current Map. Retrieved from Fundamentals of Physical Geography: http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8q_1.html
• Sea Turtle Conservancy. (2017). Information About Sea Turtles: Threats from Marine Debris. Sea Turtle Conservancy: https://conserveturtles.org/information-sea-turtles-threats-marine-debris/

Dear Hollywood, Stop Making Us Afraid of Sharks

Photo of a Great White Shark
Photo from https://wall.alphacoders.com/by_sub_category.php?id=206047&name=Great+White+Shark+Wallpapers

I love sharks. I think they're some of the most beautiful and interesting species in our oceans which is the main reason I want to study them for my dissertation. My dream is to be able to travel to Australia and study the Great White and work on conserving them. However, this seems to be an unpopular opinion with 39% of adults in the UK saying they HATE sharks, with just under half of these justifying their answer with the argument that they attack humans. Granted the slightly scary appearance, particularly the large teeth, can scare some but could the main reason be the fact they often come off a vicious monsters in blockbuster films such as The Shallows. These films are designed to scare us and keep us on the edge of our seats and as a result they have been mad out to these giant human killers that isn't really the case. I feel the majority of selachophobia, or a fear of sharks, has been brought about by the growing genre of shark attack films.

Firstly, I am not saying that shark attacks do not occur because they do and beach goers in shark waters should be cautious. Everyone is aware of the tragic case of surfer Bethany Hamilton who had her arm bitten off in 2003 by a tiger shark. However, despite what Hollywood will have us believe, the danger from dying as a result of a shark attack is far smaller than we may initially think. Did you know you have a 1 in 3,748,067 chance of dying by shark attack? To put this into perspective, the risk of dying of heart disease is 1 in 5 and dying as a result of a car accident is 1 in 84. Even your chance of drowning is 1 in 1,134 making the ocean itself far more dangerous than the scariest creatures in them. In fact there are on average 4 sharks related deaths a year which is 16 less than deaths caused by cows (both in the USA). Another false fact seemingly portrayed is that we're a tasty snack for sharks, particularly Great Whites but if they bite us, they tend to spit us out because our bones are too dense for their slow digestive systems. In fact the only reason they bite us (in the very few cases that there actually are of shark bites) is out of curiosity. Although all sharks are carnivores, roughly 70-80% of their diet is made up of small fish making the chance of being bitten by a shark very slim. With over 465 known species, very few even pose a threat to humans and even the largest species (the Whale Shark) are actually filter feeders meaning they feed in a similar way to most whales with a diet mainly made from plankton. They also range in size the smallest being the Pygmy shark at 7-inches long suggesting the Hollywood image that shark are giant hunters lurking along our coastlines may be inaccurate.

Comparision of the size of different shark species.
Photo from https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/511299363927109368/

As a matter of fact, we need sharks. Firstly, sharks contribute to ecotourism that help boost local and national economies. In Fiji alone, 78% of all visiting divers participate in some form of shark diving which created US$5.9 million in taxes in 2010. In fact, the shark-diving industry in Fiji is valued at US$42.2 million annually. This isn't taking into account the 'economic multipliers' that benefit the local economies including accommodation for tourists as well as tourists spending money in local businesses. In fact in Ganbaai (South Africa)50% of all local business sales are related in some way to Great White Sharks. Sharks also play a very important role within the ecosystem as they keep the food webs in balance by maintaining healthy fish populations. Sharks are often the top predators and are often referred to as keystone species as the health of the ecosystem can be estimated by monitoring the shark population. Without the sharks, the prey populations (i.e. small fish) would get too big causing overgrazing of the sea plants therefore reducing the amount of oxygen available. Not to mention this limits the damage to coral reefs from large fish populations. Believe it or not, they can actually limit or stop the spread of disease as they are more likely to prey on the weak, sick and older fish meaning they stop outbreaks and a declining population. Did you also know that sharks have helped to design wet suits? Biomimetics is using a natural structure (or an organism) in science and engineering so shark skins were studied to create the aerodynamic style of wet suits. These are just three ways sharks actually benefit us and the planet. I could write lists and lists about all the ways we need sharks but it would take forever to read and also that;s a lot of effort to write.

So why are we so afraid of sharks if they don't actually pose a huge threat to us, in fact it has been proven they benefit us. Personally I feel that they are turned into villains by the film industry. As money is the priority for this industry (well actually most industries) scary things sell so any predator is at risk of being displayed inaccurately with little scientific evidence. Could this be increasing the amount of shark hunting? That however is up for debate. 

Resources - 

• Charlotte Chivers, Why are we so afraid of sharks?, One Poll, November 2015, http://www.onepoll.com/why-are-we-so-afraid-of-sharks/
• Elizabeth Palermo, Why are people so afraid of sharks? Live Science, July 2016, https://www.livescience.com/51579-fear-of-sharks-psychology.html
• Elaina Zachos, Why are we so afraid of sharks? There's a scientific explanation., National Geographic, January 2018, https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/01/sharks-attack-fear-science-psychology-spd/ 
• WildAid, Ecotourism: Dollars and Sense, Shark Savers, 2012, http://www.sharksavers.org/en/education/the-value-of-sharks/sharks-and-ecotourism/
• WildAid, Shark's Role In The Oceans, Shark Savers, 2009, http://www.sharksavers.org/en/education/the-value-of-sharks/sharks-role-in-the-ocean/

Ghost Fishing: The unseen problem in our oceans

photograph of ghost gear on the sea bed -
https://www.ecosia.org/images?q=ghost+fishing#id=5D43E26A116A7D8952B16078B4095F728572BE87

With the growing human impact on our oceans being widely mentioned in the media (thanks Blue Planet) things like using plastic straws have fallen out of fashion with the general public being more conscious of our impact on marine life. Although I am so happy about the interest in our oceans, plastic straws only make up a small percentage of plastic waste and most of it is waste from the fishing industry. This got me thinking about ghost fishing, a subject I studied during college, that has such a huge negative impact but is barely spoken about in the media in an attempt to raise awareness of this growing problem.

So what is 'ghost fishing'? It's when old fishing equipment that is no longer in use has been abandoned in our oceans and still traps fish and other marine animals including the beloved sea turtle. This creates a positive feedback mechanism as the trapped fish act as bait for larger fish, capturing and endangering a greater number of marine species. The abandoned equipment also causes alterations to the sea floor, damaging the sea bed and the habitat for species including sea stars and crabs.

The abandoned 'ghost gear' accounts for 10% of all marine litter (which is a lot higher than plastic straws) and entangles, on average, 11 whales annually in West Coast America alone so imagine how many become injured or die globally because of this abandoned equipment. With an estimated 640,000 tonnes of fishing nets (not including lobster traps and other fishing gear) polluting our oceans we are putting a huge number of rare species at risk unnecessarily. With a single net entangling between 30-40 marine animals, these have a severe impact on the ecosystem as they have been known to entangle a huge range of species from sharks and whales to sea stars and small fish. Another environmental issue is the damage to habitat. Heavy equipment ,such as crab and lobster traps, sink to the bottom and disturb the sea bed and can be responsible for dredging as well as smothering organisms that live on the sea bed including sea grasses and crabs. Coral reefs are at great risk as ocean currents carry heavy traps that can destroy the coral habitat.

Currently there are several programmes an initiatives globally that aim to tackle and reduce this problem including the Global Ghost Gear Initiative (GGGI), which DEFRA is participating in, that aims to improve the health of our marine ecosystems by removing discarded fishing gear. One thing they do is collect evidence and information including how much equipment has been collected and it is mapped to work out any trends and possible impacts to biodiversity by locating any hotspots. They also aim to define and enforce polices, including management of gear on board to ensure that no equipment is lost at seas particularly in stormy weather.  These are just a few simple ways this initiative is helping this growing issue and with participation from governments, NGO's and the private sector the GGGI will continue to develop further and hopefully achieve the aim of cleaner oceans. One example of a participating organisation is KIMO international which run the GGGI Solution Project in Scotland which is responsible for removing 50 tonnes of ghost gear from Scottish coastlines.

Ghost fishing has become much more regulated by governments who are aiming to punish those responsible but in my view much more can be done to tackle this growing issue starting with public awareness. Let's focus less on plastic straws and more on larger marine debris that has a much larger, and more fatal impact.


Resources -

•  Global Ghost Gear Initiative, Governance Bodies, NOAA, 2017, https://www.ghostgear.org/sites/default/files/attachments/gggi_governance_bodies.pdf 
• Global Ghost Gear Inititaive, NOAA, 2017, https://www.ghostgear.org/
•  Hannah Gould, Hidden problem of 'ghost gear': the abandoned fishing nets clogging up oceans, The Guardian, 10th September 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/sep/10/fishing-industry-vows-to-tackle-wildlife-deaths-from-ghost-gear
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Impact of "Ghost Fishing" via Derelict Fishing Gear, NOAA Marine Debris Programme Report, 2015, https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/publications-files/Ghostfishing_DFG.pdf
• FAO, Ghost nets hurting marine environment, United Nations, 2009, http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/19353/icode/

Should We Tax Plastic?

Recently the UK government has introduced a new 'Sugar Tax' which means that high sugar drinks have become a higher taxed item. The main goal is to entourage companies to reduce the sugar content of drinks to lower the price as part of a healthy living initiative. This got me think if a similar approach should be applied to single use plastics, specifically packaging. If you visit a supermarket everything is covered in single use plastic that just isn't necessary. I remember getting new toys a child and how difficult it was to remove the unnecessary plastic. My poor parents on Christmas must have cut themselves numerous times.Walking around the supermarket makes me think what actually needs it and the items with less plastic or are biodegradable are often more expensive. Shouldn't it be the other way around? With supermarkets creating over 800,000 tonnes of plastic a year I feel the government should be doing more to reduce waste production.

Image from The Gaurdian

Although the general public should be encouraged to reduce waste, companies should be targeted more in my opinion. My idea is that once a product has passed a certain amount of plastic (so over what is deemed necessary) they should be taxed to cover disposal and the environmental cost. This will make single use plastic items more expensive to consumers which in turn will also encourage consumers to seek alternatives for plastic. This could also result in large TNC's to invest in alternatives that are biodegradable and potentially tackle the ever growing micro plastic problem as there will be less plastic breaking down in our oceans. Did you know that 80% of plastic debris in the oceans come from land? The breakdown of these items create micro plastic fragments which are easily ingested by fish, particularly those lower in the food chain. This also causes chemicals to be released into the natural environment, such as BPA, many of which are toxic to living organisms.

 Not only will a plastic tax make fish populations healthier, but it will reduce the amount of plastic we, as the human population, ingest. We ingest a range of plastics that enter our bodies through contaminated food and water. One plastic we ingest is Polyvinylchloride (#3PVC), a key chemical in plastic food packaging, that has actually been linked to an increased rate of cancer and birth defects. With over a third of all seafood caught in the UK containing plastic, those with a high fish diet have the highest rate of ingestion. One study has shown that those with a high shellfish diet consume up to 11,000 plastic fragments.

We can't also forget that less plastic used for useless, and quite frankly stupid, packaging will reduce our oil consumption which is especially important as we are in danger of reaching 'peak oil'. With 8% of global oil use being manufacturing plastics, it would encourage better management and distribution of our shrinking petroleum reserves as well as reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.

Overall, I feel the TNC's should be held more responsible for their unsustainble use of plastics to reduce the amount of toxic plastic that we throw away and the only way to do this is with a financial incentive because we all know that is the only way to ensure this. I feel a plastic tax will make the plastic alternatives cheaper and therefore more widely used.

Further Reading

• ICIS, Plastics and their impact on human health, http://iciscenter.org/plastics-and-their-impacts-on-human-health/ 
• Teach the Earth, Plastics in the Ocean Affecting Human Health, https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/plastics.html
• The Gaurdian, From sea to plate: how plastic got into our fish, https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/feb/14/sea-to-plate-plastic-got-into-fish