Threat of marine plastic pollution in Australia
Submission 23
The threat of marine plastic pollution in Australia and Australian waters, with particular reference to:
a.
the review of current research and scientific understanding of plastic pollution in the marine
environment;
Government must significantly increase funds for proper scientific research in marine plastic pollution. An
up-to-date thorough research report on the volume of marine plastic pollution is needed by a reputable
body such as CSIRO.
The true impact of plastic is difficult to assess due to its ubiquity. Organisations such as Clean Up Australia
and Greenpeace are able to outline broad plastic waste statistics that affect our marine life. However, due to
the difficulties in assessing the effects of the litter volume, (as opposed to the litter items), our knowledge
on the true harm is unknown. For example, plastic bottles and cans are a large part of the litter volume and
may therefore be more hazardous than litter statistics suggest. Additional dangers must be recognised
through the small parts of bottle parts (such as the tamper evident band) that can be found ingested or
hazardously wrapped around sea mammals. While Clean Up Australia statistics assert that plastics account
for 30% of major rubbish found (http://www.cleanup.org.au/PDF/au/2014-new-south-wales.pdf), one may
only make an educated guess as to how much ends up in the waters, what the true damage is to marine life,
and further, what volume of plastic causes the danger to marine life. Research must extend, through
government funding, to better assess what damage is caused by the volume of plastic as opposed to simply
litter statistics found on land.
Further, data must be collected that is broad and far-reaching. Plastic litter is known to be found in highly
remote areas, which establishes its ubiquitous effects (http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/what-we-
do/oceans/Stop-Trashing-Australia/). Research must therefore mirror the prevalent effects of plastic on our
marine life, and extend far.
Research must also consider the need to implement a change in cultural behaviour towards littering. Whilst
campaigns such as “Don’t be a Tosser” appropriately target the behavioural aspect of littering, there is little
mention of the far-reaching effects on our sea life. Education must be bolstered to ensure that people
understand the effects of their behaviour. There are many images of mangled and stunted sea animals
available that demonstrate the destructive effects of plastic (http://www.boredpanda.com/environmentalpollution/). Additional research in this area should include alternatives to the use of plastic and how these
can be implemented in the wider public space. ‘The throwaway society’ must be acknowledged, our waste
and our “plastic wrapped world” (http://www.ted.com/talks/capt_charles_moore_on_the_seas_of_plastic)
must undergo a change to accept the detriment of non-reusable materials.
Further, research must extend to a solution based-response which then must be implemented. Whilst a call
for submissions demonstrates an appropriate level of involvement with knowledgeable bodies and
communities, Government must also include significant research into international approaches of
understanding plastic pollution. From understanding the details of effects, we will be in the best position to
consider the most effective approaches to reducing the harm that plastic pollution poses to our marine life.
More research must also be prepared in terms of where the large sources of plastic waste come from, and a
collation of which industries are most involved in the production of single-use plastic. These industries must
be targeted by new policy measures that restrict their plastic output and environmental damage.
Threat of marine plastic pollution in Australia
Submission 23
b.
sources of marine plastic pollution;
As mentioned above, the issue with assessing the true impact of marine plastic pollution is that the volume
of hazardous material does not equate to the number. Therefore it is challenging to realise the most
detrimental sources of marine plastic pollution. However, it is known that plastic is a globally destructive
material for our waterways. Marine Conservation suggests that marine plastic pollution is easily transferrable
from land to sea. As they state: “It blows in from bins and garbage dumps, or flows through stormwater
drains into our waterways and eventually the sea” (http://www.marineconservation.org.au/pages/plastic-
pollution.html). They have also stated that at Sydney beaches, for example 90% of marine debris is plastic,
including bottles, caps and straws. While Sydney beaches are heavily populated areas, and therefore hot
spots for litter, this gives a snapshot of the kind of threats our marine life faces. Beaches present a particular
problem as dens of litter, with up to 80% of rubbish that ends up in the ocean coming from either beaches or
stormwater drains (with most of this being plastic)
(http://www.marineconservation.org.au/data/pdf/PlasticsAreForeverCyclePoster.pdf). Littering is a highly
problematic issue for our marine life, and our excessive use of plastic is a driving factor in this. The below
poster sums up the detriment of plastic on our waters, as a non-biodegradable hazard that irrevocably
damages our sea life:
http://www.marineconservation.org.au/pages/plastic-pollution-posters.html
The effects of microplastics are particularly concerning in terms of their hostile effects on marine life. As
Science Daily confirms, “many plankton organisms are unable to separate plastic particles from their natural
Threat of marine plastic pollution in Australia
Submission 23
food and they therefore also ingest plastic”
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131203091457.htm). It is important to note, that this
article also affirms that the vast majority of these microplastics originate from consumer goods. This
consequence of our consumer culture must be addressed head-on, through the collaboration of
government, corporations and consumers to effectively change our current consumption methods.
c.
the impacts of marine plastic pollution, including impacts on species and ecosystems, fisheries, small
business, and human health;
Marine plastic pollution is responsible for some of the most horrific and disturbing images of human-caused
atrocities to other species. Australia’s excessive use of plastic (including bottles, packaging, bags and other
goods for consumption) is damaging the lives of many marine animals, and along with it, their ecosystems
and environment.
A recently released article asserts that if current patterns of marine pollution continue, “99% of the world’s
seabirds will be ingesting plastic by 2050”
(http://www.marineconservation.org.au/data/pdf/PlasticsAreForeverCyclePoster.pdf). This is a devastating
statistic that shows how serious and prevalent this issue is, and how our local actions whether they be in
small towns or large cities effect sea life everywhere. Further, the article states that the southern edges of
Australia was one of the highest risks, globally, for large birds to ingest debris. This is a deplorable title for
Australia to hold, and it is a national embarrassment that we are amongst the worst emitters of marine
pollution for large birds.
Plastic can devastate the lives of marine species, through the poison from ingesting plastic, getting trapped
in plastic or distorting their shape entirely through entanglement, as seen in the picture of the turtle below:
(http://www.boredpanda.com/tortoise-trapped-in-plastic/)
Threat of marine plastic pollution in Australia
Submission 23
That our thoughtless human consumption of plastic could have such devastating effects is grueling to
imagine, however it remains a plight on our culture of repeat consumption and the ignorance of our actions.
The CSIRO has reported that on a global scale, one third of turtles have likely ingested plastic debris
(http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAAahUKEwjP2N7
YnunHAhVn3KYKHerLDjQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csiro.au%2F~%2Fmedia%2FOnA%2FFiles%2FMarineDebris
4ppFactsheet-
DOC.docx&usg=AFQjCNEBvx8NNPzFUiUCVqEBHuBNgY7j6A&sig2=qArB_x64qpCGIOa6aqEdDg&bvm=bv.102
022582,d.dGY). As an example of what was found in the stomach of a sea bird: “We found toothbrushes, doll
arms, cigarette lighters, the little ties on the bottoms of balloons – pretty much anything that can fir inside a
seabird, we’ve found inside a seabird” (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-01/scientists-warn-almostall-seabirds-will-ingest-plastic-by-2050/6738862). Sea animals often mistake plastic items that have
ended up in or near water for food, which can cause death from inability to digest, or a distressing
experience choking on plastic (http://www.ntepa.nt.gov.au/waste-pollution/plastic-bag-
ban/enviroimpacts). Further, our plastic rubbish is increasing dramatically, and requires 500 years to
degrade (http://theconversation.com/marine-debris-biodiversity-impacts-and-potential-solutions-2131).
In other words, it is having an unprecedented effect on our marine life and ecosystems, and most
distressingly, will continue to due to the permanency of plastic. The number of species effected by plastic
has been listed by the CSIRO. It is not by any means an exhausted list, however, it includes seabirds, turtles,
crocodiles, dolphins, whales, dugongs, sharks, rays, fish and crabs. It effects the entire sea population, and
if not directly, then indirectly through the marine food web which passes through the permanence of
microplastics.
While the consequences for the marine ecosystem are evidently far-reaching and drastic, humans are not
excluded from these effects. Microplastics are known to enter into the food web through being ingested by
zooplankton, which many marine species depend on for food. When ingested, this plastic produces toxins
that are released into the food chain and passed through species that ingest the initial source
(http://theconversation.com/marine-debris-biodiversity-impacts-and-potential-solutions-2131). This
means that when humans consume fish and marine life, we are also consuming the same toxins that were
ingested by the fish. This is a widespread health epidemic that is caused by plastic pollution, and we must
address it and acknowledge it as an emergency to prevent further damage. Public and health authorities
must act not only for marine life welfare but ultimately, for our own.
d.
Measures and resourcing for mitigation; and
Good policies must be implemented by governments to try to mitigate the disastrous impact that plastic is
having on our marine life. This involves a collaborative approach between corporations, businesses,
organisations and communities. In order to address the ubiquitous use of plastic, everybody at all levels
must be involved. Government must facilitate this through consultation, research, funding and revised policy
that prioritises the need to drastically reduce our national dependence on plastic. Below, I will list measures
that are needed to move in the direction towards achieving a marine ecosystem untainted by human plastics.
To begin with, Government must not pander to or be intimidated by vested interests, such as the
international brand of Coca Cola. The beverage industry has a huge stake in the use of plastic and
government must not allow itself to be bullied by their claws to survive. Companies must adapt to find new
approaches that work in conjunction with good environmental policy and law, which should work to
drastically minimise Australia’s consumption of plastic. Positive schemes such as recycling refund schemes
are being stymied by the fierce campaigning and pressure by Coca Cola, who are threatened by their own
survival under such schemes (http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/what-we-do/oceans/Stop-TrashingAustralia/). To achieve change, we cannot allow ourselves to be ruled by the interests of multinational
corporations. These are precisely the large-scale perpetrators of plastic pollution that we must denounce,
and push them into finding other methods.
Threat of marine plastic pollution in Australia
Submission 23
If we consider the use of recycling refund schemes, or container deposit schemes, we can begin to see
opportunities to make a dent in the current rates of plastic pollution. For example, in South Australia, people
may return their plastic bottles or containers and receive 10c back from the purchase. The impact of this has
been drastic: 81% of their bottles are recycled, which doubles the rate of other states
(http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/what-we-do/oceans/Stop-Trashing-Australia/). Further, this
article affirms a Clean Up Australia statistic, that the community service sector will earn around $70 million
annually to adopt the container recycling schemes nationally. Between13-14 million drinking bottles are
bought by Australian every year; 7 billion of which end up as waste and of course, a significant part of this in
our ocean. The beverage industry speaks for its own survival, not that of others, and must not be given a
chance to control this very dire situation. Further, deposits should be available nationally on all cans, bottles
and cartons. This benefits the consumer and encourages environmental action.
Government must pass law to only allow plastic bags to be used when fully biodegradable. This would have
significant results on many levels, but particularly on the consumption industries (food, and shopping
industries). Initiatives such as those done by companies such as Target to place a cost on plastic bags are
positive. However the move against plastic bags must be implemented by policy to achieve the level of
change needed on marine pollution.
Government could also support cafes and restaurants in their use of compostable cups and containers,
perhaps in funding or through supplying the resources needed to make such a transition. Further, education
on excessive use of plastic may be useful in assisting staff to understand such a transition and to follow such
a movement. Cafes and restaurants should also offer reusable bottles and cups. For this to occur, there must
be considerable negotiation with the food industry, in order to transition into a more environmentally-
friendly approach that aligns with new policies. There should also be a restaurant café initiation program into
the use of free water refills and the selling of re-usable bottles. Any eateries should also have proper storage
for recycling and encourage customers to make environmentally appropriate choices. This could work
through incentives, such as that already in existence with discounts being offered to those who bring a Keep
Cup, or re-usable cup or bottle.
Available drinking fountains should replace the prevalence of sales for water bottles, along with a re-boosted
education campaign on the detrimental effects of sugar drinks for health, including impacts on obesity and
cognitive effects.
Concerts and festivals should have a significantly more conscientious approach in their use of plastic. All
festivals that do not adhere to re-usable bottles or cups should be banned from operating in the future.
Again, I highlight the increased need for water fountains as an alternative to plastic here.
Companies that use packaging, of which there are many, must adhere to strict laws about unnecessary
packing material, such as tetra pac with foil lines. There could also be incentives to return packaging for reuse, in a similar fashion to a container deposit.
Finally, an increased boost to public education on where plastic often ends up. Whilst there are many antilittering campaigns currently supported by the government (http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/litter/prevent-
litter.htm), there needs to be a higher focus on the impacts of plastic for marine life. As suggested above,
there are many images available that powerfully demonstrate the adverse effects of plastic. Hot spots for
littering such as around beaches should be targetted areas, providing information and resources to minimise
the use of plastic and to ensure that there are appropriate disposals (if possible, for an incentive).
e.
Other:
There are case studies of towns in Australia, such as Bundanoon, becoming bottle-free towns
(http://www.australiaontap.com.au/#). This required partnerships and the mutual goal to go bottle-free,
Threat of marine plastic pollution in Australia
Submission 23
with 20 businesses agreeing to the initiative. The subsequent involvement of the community who
overwhelmingly supported the idea meant that this initiative was formally adopted in 2009, making the town
the world’s first bottle free town. Initiatives such as these need to attract more attention as solutions to our
necessary reduction of plastic, and Government bodies must liaise with participating businesses in order to
replicate the successful model in other precincts.
Australia On Tap (http://www.australiaontap.com.au/#) also details other initiatives, often started by
concerned members of the community. The University of Canberra has now phased out bottled water and
instead chosen to increase the provision of free drinking water around campus. With a university population
of 13000, such an initiative has given us an outstanding model for large-scale changes to use across other
areas.