Are biodegradable plastics the answer to the Pacific gyre?

Not long ago I posted here about a continent of plastic circulating in the Pacific gyre, and how slow degradation of some plastics may actually be releasing toxins. Since then a great deal of discussion has taken place as what might be possible solutions. Some have suggested biodegradable materials, including biodegradable plastics, while others suggest that just adds to the problem.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC), the primary organization for large chemicals manufacturers in the United States, including the plastics industry recently issued a press release entitled "Degradable Materials Hold Great Promise, But Not a Current "Solution" to Preventable Marine Litter." In it they first argue that it is all marine debris, not just plastics, that are the problem. The then note that there isn't any one easy answer, but that most agree that "recycling, coupled with tough litter abatement laws, well-run municipal waste management systems, and behavioral changes," are needed.

The idea of biodegradable plastics and other materials has been met with mixed reviews. In general these degrade into less harmful materials, and if fully biodegradable, into carbon dioxide and water. But as the ACC release notes, Keep Los Angeles Beautiful has suggested that the perception of biodegradability actually leads people to litter more, as they think the litter will "just go away."

Another concern is that "biodegradable" is often defined broadly to include plastics that break down into smaller particles but retain much of the original chemical composition. Small particles are mistaken by marine life as food and ingested, which presents both the risk of possible leaching of materials into the bloodstream but also the risk of blockage, which keeps animals from eating normal food, extracting nutrition, and eliminating waste. Another option are bioplastics, which are actually created from renewal biomass sources such as vegetable oil and corn starch (normal plastics are derived from petroleum based sources).

So the jury is still out on what to do, but clearly the process begins with each of us, including limiting our plastic (e.g., less bottles of water and soda), recycling, and not tossing out trash into the environment.

USEPA Seeking Scientific Information on CO2-caused Ocean Acidification

Think global warming affects only the air temperature? Think again. The oceans matter also when it comes to climate change. Carbon dioxide (CO2) could lead to big changes in the ocean, and most of it would not be good. According to the Center For Biological Diversity (CBD) in a petition filed last year, new science shows that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are acidifying ocean waters. The result is impairment in the ability of coral and other marine invertebrates to build and maintain exoskeletons (the hard parts on the outside that keep them together).

To evaluate the petition, EPA is seeking scientific and policy information on ocean acidification caused by CO2. They need this information to help them decide whether to revise their current pH water criterion, a move which could lay the groundwork for regulating greenhouse gases through the Clean Water Act. EPA published a notice of data availability in an April 15 Federal Register notice, and asked for commenters to provide existing information about ocean acidification as well as new scientific data and policy suggestions for addressing acidification. The goal is to use the information to decide whether to grant the CBD petition, which asked the agency to revise its national marine criterion for pH to protect marine life.

Because of the interconnectedness of the issue, EPA is soliciting information on technological advances in rapid, continuous, or remote monitoring of pH; long term data that demonstrate acidification; and methods to evaluate pH variability. They are also seeking estimates for survival rates for coral and non-coral organisms, as well as any methods for weighing the impact of acidification in comparison to other stressors, such as storm damage and overfishing. Finally, the EPA would like individual states to offer their experience on implementing the current pH standard and for experts to suggest scientifically defensible approaches to set and monitor pH criteria.

The ramifications of this decision are potentially expansive. EPA's decision on the pH criteria could set an ecological goal for future CO2 limits. The resultant criteria are non-binding, but they inform state water standards, and that could in turn require the setting of emission limits at the state level to achieve the standards. This action is a part of a myriad of actions the EPA is contemplating in an effort to address climate change through regulations. Other actions include the reconsideration of the previous administration's denial of California's request to regulate CO2 from vehicles, reevaluation of a Bush EPA memo barring regulation of CO2 in power plant permits, and the preparation of a climate change endangerment finding that could set the stage for regulations across many programs and agencies. As I have mentioned in the past, the Obama administration is taking climate change issues very seriously and has filled many of his key environmental and energy positions with personnel experienced and active in those areas.

Climate Change and a Novel Water Quality Case Could Have Major Impact on Decision-Making

Most of the time climate change issues don't enter into how Environmental Protection Agencies set nutrient limits in water bodies. That may change. Environmentalists are seeking to require the USEPA for the first time to consider climate change effects on water flow and activity when setting discharge limits for impaired waters.

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) is suing EPA over its approval of a phosphorus limit on Lake Champlain in Vermont. CLF wants EPA to consider climate change and its impacts on wet weather flows when setting the lake's total maximum daily load (TMDL). The TMDL is the maximum amount of a contaminant that a waterbody can accept without violating water quality limits. TMDLs take into consideration both point and non-point sources into impaired waters, and normally one would not even think about some global phenomenon like climate change. TMDLs tend to be local or regional.

Consideration of climate change impacts could sometimes result in stricter discharge limits, such as when increased precipitation could result in increased pollution runoff. But in other cases, e.g., if climate change causes more arid conditions, it could result in less runoff and fewer pollutants contributing to impairment.

Either way, the question comes down to whether EPA had sufficient information available and knowledge to consider climate change in the permit, which was issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation in 2002. CLF says EPA does have enough knowledge of the effects of climate change, and thus should have taken that into account in the permit. In early March a federal district court granted requests by both EPA and CLP to extend the deadline so they could enter into negotiations in hopes of finding an agreeable compromise.

If CLP wins the case, the next question would be how exactly the EPA would "consider" climate change?