The study by biologists from the Centre for Ecology and Conservation on Exeter’s Penryn Campus found that plastics in the ocean can release chemicals that cause deformities in sea urchin larvae.

Read More

Researchers examined the contents of the stomach, intestines, cloaca and bladder of stranded or captured turtles collected from the Indian Ocean off Western Australia and the Pacific Ocean off Eastern Australia.

One turtle found in the Indian Ocean contained 343 pieces of plastic while another in the Pacific Ocean contained 144.

The proportion of turtles that had ingested plastic was much higher in the Pacific Ocean than in the Indian Ocean.

Read More about the Study

The State of the World’s Sea Turtles

As environmentally conscious teens, they started removing golf balls from the water, one by one. By the time Alex contacted me, they had retrieved over 10,000 golf balls – more than half a ton.

Alex, her friends and her father paddled, dove, heaved and hauled. By mid-2018 the results were startling: They had collected nearly 40,000 golf balls from three sites near coastal golf courses: Cypress Point, Pebble Beach and the Carmel River Mouth. And following Alex’s encouragement, Pebble Beach employees started to retrieve golf balls from beaches next to their course, amassing more than 10,000 additional balls.

Modern golf balls are made of a polyurethane elastomer shell and a synthetic rubber core. Manufacturers add zinc oxide, zinc acrylate and benzoyl peroxide to the solid core for flexibility and durability. These substances are also acutely toxic to marine life.

When golf balls are hit into the ocean, they immediately sink to the bottom. No ill effects on local wildlife have been documented to date from exposure to golf balls. But as the balls degrade and fragment at sea, they may leach chemicals and microplastics into the water or sediments. Moreover, if the balls break into small fragments, fish, birds or other animals could ingest them.

Read More

The Fishing for Energy partnership works to address this problem in two ways: by providing commercial fishermen with no-cost opportunities to dispose of derelict and retired fishing gear, and by offering grant support for direct removal and assessment efforts.

Through March 2016, the Fishing for Energy partnership has provided removal services at 48 ports in 10 states, collecting over 3 million pounds of fishing gear. Gear collected at the ports is first sorted at Schnitzer Steel Industries for metals recycling, and the remaining non-recyclable material is converted into energy at Covanta Energy locations.

Fishing for Energy

Plastic bags are terrible for the environment; they choke wildlife, add to the demand for oil, don’t break down in landfills, and they’re not easy to recycle.  They clog waterways and are dangerous to marine animals.  So why do we still use them?  An estimated 500 billion to 1 trillion plastic bags are used world-wide every year.

It is reported that 1 billion single-use plastic bags are distributed free of charge every day.  Less than 1% of those bags find their way into the water, but that is still hundreds of millions of bags float out to sea  every year.  Sea turtles have become the poster animal for the impact of plastic in the ocean.  The floating bags are often mistaken for jellyfish, a common food for the sea turtles who have lived one this year for the past 100 million years.  Now, all seven species of sea turtles are in danger of extinction.

Unfortunately the problem is not just plastic bags however, it is all plastics.  Water bottles, cups, utensils, straws; all of these inexpensive single use plastic items never fully biodegrade – they break down into smaller and smaller pieces but never completely disappear.  These small pieces of plastic float around in the ocean indefinitely and are swallowed up (mistaken as food) by birds, fish, whales, sea turtles, mollusks, and crustaceans.

There is hope: This year alone the Boston suburb of Brookline banned the use of plastic bags by retail stores larger than 2,500 square feet.  Mountain View, California and Portland, Oregon both banned single use plastic bags; Menlo Park, California has banned polystyrene containers and is currently working on a bag ban.  Delhi, India is taking a huge stand against plastics.  No person can manufacture, import, store, sell, or transport any kind of bag in the city; a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison plus a fine could await violators.

Even without a bag ban, you can make a big difference by not using plastic bags.  One person can make a difference – 6 bags each week is 24 each month or 288 each year.  Challenge ten of

your friends – 2880 bags, your neighborhood – 57,600, your small community – 864,000.  You can also take a stance on the bigger plastic issue by avoiding plastic-bottles beverages, buy products with minimal or reusable packing, use your own coffee mug when getting coffee, enjoy your beverage without a straw, ask the deli or meat department to wrap your items in paper, or use real silverware at parties rather than plastic.

5 Gyres mission is to end plastic pollution.  Find out more and take the plastic promise on their website.

The reef supports a wide diversity of life including many endangered species, some of which are unique to the Great Barrier Reef.  More than 1,500 fish species call the reef home, including the clownfish like Nemo from the Disney movie, Finding Nemo.  There are six species of sea turtles, 30 species of dolphins, porpoises, and whales; including the humpback whale.  There are species of sea grass, coral, birds, sea snakes, mollusk, sea horses and frogs   that all call the Great Barrier Reef home.

Tropical cyclones, which can produce extremely powerful winds and torrential rain, can also produce high waves and storm surges which can damage the Great Barrier Reef.  However, most of the environmental threats to the reef are manmade.  Pollution, shipping accidents, oil spills, and climate change have all resulted in the loss of more than two-thirds of the reefs coral since 1985.

Pollution and declining water quality are a couple of key threats faced by the Great Barrier Reef.  In 2009 a pesticide monitoring program collected samples at eleven sites; at least two pesticides were detected at every site.  Diuron, atrazine, and metolachlor exceeded Australian and New Zealand water quality guidelines at eight sites.

Over 90% of this pollution comes from farm runoff which is caused by over grazing, excessive fertilizer and pesticide use.  The runoff problem is exacerbated by the loss of coastal wetlands which are necessary to act as filters for the toxins and to help trap the sediment.  The declines in water quality and pesticide pollution have made the reef less resilient to climate change.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was created in 1975 to help manage the reef in a sustainable manner.  Their goal is reduce non-point sources of pollution and it specifically targets nutrients, pesticides and sediment that make their way into the reef due to agricultural activities.  The Center for Biological Diversity is also hoping to protect the reef; they filed a petition with the National Marine Fisheries Service to protect clownfish under the Endangered Species Act.

While there is no evidence that the clownfish population is in decline, the concern is the deteriorating health of the coral reefs.  A critical element of the Endangered Species Act is protecting species’ natural habitats as opposed to merely protecting the population.  The loss of the clownfish’s habitat is a long-term threat to the species which has prompted environmentalists to begin seeking protection now.

The Great Barrier Reef is Australia’s best documented case of contamination of an ecosystem by pesticides.  The Australian government put in place a three-month moratorium on diuron.  The ban covered the season, which began in December, when soil run-off is at its greatest.  Spraying has resumed, but with restrictions; spraying is not allowed if about two inches of rain is expected within three days of application or if the land has a slope greater than 3%.  Some believe it is a good start to saving the Great Barrier Reef while others feel it is too little of an effort.