The Red Herrings of Greenpeace
November 24th, 2006
It must be hard for Greenpeace. Once tackling the world’s great environmental threats meant throwing yourself in front of a harpoon gun, or having your ship blown up by French spies. Today’s concerns are far more pedestrian, and it’s not easy to get people worked up about litter in the ocean. That must be why Greenpeace decided to issue a press release warning of the PACIFIC TRASH VORTEX. According to them, this swirling whirlpool of doom is collecting our garbage and concentrating it into “an area the size of Texas”, poisoning marine life and killing baby seals. They’ve got a lovely animation of the PACIFIC TRASH VORTEX which can be seen here.
Let’s have a look at a couple of the statements made in the Greenpeace press release, as reported by Reuters.
The Greenpeace report, “Plastic Debris in the World’s Oceans” said at least 267 species — including seabirds, turtles, seals, sea lions, whales and fish — are known to have suffered from entanglement or ingestion of marine debris.
Plastic pollution is a problem in all the world’s oceans, the Greenpeace report said, but underlined the issue in the Pacific by sailing through the floating garbage dump and capturing images of wildlife interacting with plastic.
Okay, firstly, I don’t believe that Greenpeace single-handedly counted 267 different species in trouble. And more to the point, sea lions are coastal, so I don’t think they’ll be hanging out in the middle of the largest ocean on Earth. Something is amiss. Secondly, I can’t find any pictures of this PACIFIC TRASH VORTEX, despite their claims. If there really is a carpet of filth coating the North Pacific, I want to see it.
The next step is to find the source of all these statements. That would be Greenpeace’s report “Plastic Debris in the World’s Oceans“, written by Michelle Allsopp, Adam Walters, David Santillo, and Paul Johnston. The first thing we notice is: this is a literature review. There’s no evidence that any of these authors have ever been to the PACIFIC TRASH VORTEX. In fact, the words “PACIFIC TRASH VORTEX” do not appear anywhere in this paper. What’s going on?
This isn’t a bad paper - something your average undergraduate would be proud of. For the most part it details various published papers that have reported the negative effects of marine pollution, and says very little about a giant swirling vortex of garbage. Then I found the following table:
Now, Wikipedia tells me that the North Pacific Gyre lies roughly between the equator and 50 degrees north. So, according to Greenpeace’s own report, the average amount of debris found here is less than one piece per square kilometer. That makes the PACIFIC TRASH VORTEX cleaner than the Arctic, North Atlantic, English Channel, Mediterranean, Southern Atlantic, Ambon Bay and the Southern Ocean. In fact, there isn’t a single area on the table with less trash than the North Pacific Gyre. So where the heck did Greenpeace get their PACIFIC TRASH VORTEX idea from? Page 28 reveals:
The North Pacific central gyre is an area of convergence where clockwise ocean currents act as a retention mechanism and prevent plastic debris from moving towards mainland coasts. A study in this region reported exceptionally high densities of plastic debris (Moore et al. 2001). Using nets to collect debris, the abundance of floating plastic averaged 334,271 pieces/km2, (range 31,982 to 969,777 pieces/km2). The results of floating plastic debris from this study cannot be directly compared with most other studies on floating debris in which debris is quantified by a different method, namely visual inspection of the ocean surface.
Now, let’s remember that phrase “cannot be directly compared with most other studies“, while we look to page 7:
Floating marine debris: studies on different areas of the marine environment reported quantities of floating marine debris that were generally in the range of 0-10 items of debris per km2. Higher values were reported in the English Channel (10-100+ items/km2) and Indonesia (more than 4 items in every m2). Floating micro debris has been measured at much higher levels: the North Pacific Gyre, a debris convergence zone, was found to contain maximum levels, that when extrapolated represent, near to a million items per square kilometre.
So, which is it? Does the North Pacific contain one piece of garbage per square km? Or one million? You’d think with Steve Smith “finding a lot of stuff out here, floating by” and with “inflatable boats dispatched from the ship to collect samples”, Greenpeace might be able to narrow down the garbage density to ooh, say, a power of 10 or so. Of course, that might meaning telling the truth: there is a lot of garbage out there, but it’s spread over 34 million square kilometers. The environmental problems that Greenpeace highlighted are happening, but for the most part, not in the North Pacific (well, it beats living in Ambon Bay, put it that way). This is because Greenpeace, though good at getting headlines, aren’t very good at science. Until they find another harpoon gun to jump in front of, expect more sensationalistic press like this from our errant eco warriors.
Entry Filed under: General
|
|
|
|
32 Comments Add your own
1. C3P0 | November 24th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
I knew there was something fishy going on out there! Nice work, keep it up!!
2. andrew holt | November 27th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
as the moore paper refers to a method using nets, maybe it catches items ‘floating’ beneath the water also - ie buoyant but not at the surface (i haven’t looked into this, just an idea). that MAY explain the difference numbers being touted. it wouldn’t suggest a specific problem in the pacific unless the moore ‘net method’ was also tried in other seas and gave low numbers.
as i understand it, much of the waste plastic in the sea eventually degrades into small marbles which look alot like morsels of food to many sea creatures - they ingest them and are poisoned by them.
3. Frank | November 27th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
The study covered in the Moore paper used nets both on the surface and submerged 10m below the surface (the submerged nets caught less debris). The real difference is that the methods used in the Moore study meant picking through the haul with a fine tooth comb. A majority of the debris was “monofilament line” - not something easily seen from the deck of a ship - thus accounting for the difference.
4. jep | December 21st, 2006 at 2:32 am
sciencepunk is more like sciencecunt..
perhaps a good analysis, but bad attitude. if GP is wrong ok. no need spitting venom here.
5. Frank the SciencePunk | December 21st, 2006 at 9:21 am
Care to elaborate?
You seem to be confusing impartiality with impassiveness.
6. Jugoconfuego | April 11th, 2007 at 5:46 am
NOAA Marine debris
http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/
There is more (accurate?) information here
7. Frank the SciencePunk | April 11th, 2007 at 8:20 am
Thanks Jugo!
8. Kirby | May 4th, 2007 at 4:09 am
May I ask why you suspect they would attempt to construct the idea of a floating Pacific trash dump? I have not seen any pictures yet either, and if it is twice the size of Texas satellite imagery should capture it no? But despite these shortcomings, I doubt Greenpeace, or CBS news (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/06/eveningnews/main591770.shtml) or anyone else would benefit from manufacturing a story such as this. Apparently there is a documentary coming out about it (not sure when) that some surfers spearheaded. Anyway, I find it hard to believe this doesn’t exist
9. Frank the SciencePunk | May 4th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Greenpeace need to make headlines to keep donations coming in, and are not above distorting the truth to achieve this. I’m not disputing the existence of the North Pacific Gyre or its ability to capture trash, but their claims go much further than the science can support.
10. Ocean Nerd | June 1st, 2007 at 12:49 am
While Greenpeace may have had questionable tactics in the past is not relevant for this case. In the ocean community, we have been trying to get the word out about this trash heap for years. The fact is, human beings are responsible for creating a garbage dump in the ocean that is now twice the size of Texas. There is a national geographic book that has many photos, I am not sure where you can find them on the www, but there are many scientific articles which I list below speaking about the problem of plastics in the ocean. Your attitude is saddening.
Boland, Raymond C., Donohue, Mary J. Marine debris accumulation in the nearshore marine habitat of the endangered Hawaiian monk seal, Monachus schauinslandi 1999–2001 Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 46, Issue 11, November 2003, Pages 1385-1394
Bugoni, 2001 Marine Debris and Human Impacts on Sea Turtles in Southern Brazil. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 42, Issue 12, December 2001, Pages 1330-1334
Buxton, R., 1989. Plastic debris and lost and abandoned fishing gear in the aquatic environment. In: Background Paper from a Canadian Perspective for a Workshop to be held in HalifaxMay 1989, , Department of Fisheries.
Carr, A. Impact of nondegradable marine debris on the ecology and survival outlook of sea turtles
Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 18, Issue 6, Supplement 2, June 1987, Pages 352-356
Derraik, José G. B. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review
Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 44, Issue 9, September 2002, Pages 842-852
Donohue, Mary J. Boland, Raymond C. Sramek, Carolyn M. Antonelis, George. Derelict Fishing Gear in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: Diving Surveys and Debris Removal in 1999 Confirm Threat to Coral Reef Ecosystems. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 42, Issue 12, December 2001, Pages 1301-1312
GESAMP, 1990. The State of the Marine Environment. In: UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 115, UNEP.
Henderson, John R. A Pre- and Post-MARPOL Annex V Summary of Hawaiian Monk Seal Entanglements and Marine Debris Accumulation in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, 1982–1998
Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 42, Issue 7, July 2001, Pages 584-589
Laist, D.W.,1997. Impacts of marine debris: Entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. In: Coe, J.M., Rogers, D.B.
(Eds.), Marine Debris: Sources, Impacts, and Solutions. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 99–140.
Page, Brad. Jane McKenzie, Rebecca McIntosh, Alastair Baylis, Adam Morrissey, Norna Calvert, Tami Haase, Mel Berris, Dave Dowie, Peter D. Shaughnessy, et al. Entanglement of Australian sea lions and New Zealand fur seals in lost fishing gear and other marine debris before and after Government and industry attempts to reduce the problem. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 49, Issues 1-2, July 2004, Pages 33-42
11. Frank the SciencePunk | June 1st, 2007 at 9:13 am
Ocean Nerd:
I’m struggling to accept that you even read my article. I haven’t disputed that the North Pacific Ocean Gyre exists, or that collects waste. Neither am I contending that garbage in the ocean is a bad thing, which it clearly is.
The fact is Greenpeace’s own report states that, compared to other sites tested by equivalent methods, the North Pacific Ocean Gyre has one of the lowest incidences of floating garbage. So instead they use a completely different method which by their own admission is unsuitable for comparison.
Perhaps you think a better attitude would be to allow this kind of deception to go unchallenged simply because the intentions are good? Thanks, but I think everyone should be held to the same standards of accuracy and honesty.
12. Dean Morrison | October 4th, 2007 at 1:47 am
I am a troll.*
*attributed
13. Frank the SciencePunk | October 5th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Pruned suggests a novel use for the floating garbage patch… LINK.
14. Jamie | October 5th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
I think the 4.15 table looks only at large pieces of garbage. The Greenpeace study seemed to look for anything large or extremely tiny. Table 4.15 is based on visual data from boats whereas the Greenpeace studies looked at materials captured in very small nets. So, yes this material would be hard to see, but this small stuff would be the more damaging material to the organisms passing through this garbage “vortex”. The marine organisms could ingest these materials and once inside the harm could be greater than large external pieces of plastic. In terms of Greenpeace blowing the problem out of proportion, I would say that is their job. They look to the media for coverage just as politicians and large corporations do. Once they get the attention of the public, then a more accurate discussion can begin, but first they must dramatize things to yank our attention away from Brittany and Paris. I do believe this plastic in the ocean problem is going to become more serious as it continues to build up, so I think Greenpeace is doing the right thing even if they are overdramatizing.
15. gabe | October 6th, 2007 at 4:16 am
See, here’s why I love all of you skeptics. You write the most ridiculous response to any article on environmental concerns by comparing apples and oranges. Perhaps the pacific gyre is indeed cleaner than other oceans. Does that then mean it’s not polluted? Perhaps nuclear power doesn’t emit as much CO2 as coal. Does that then make it safe?
Do the research, smart guy, and look into what the trash vortex is and what it means for the ecosystem it is now an unnatural part of. You don’t have to trust greenpeace or any other group trying to push an agenda, but for god’s sake, do some research before you post a reply. If they’re wrong, prove it, but you lose all credibility by denying reality and attacking a group instead of first figuring out if they have a point.
You psuedo-intellectual punks are hilarious. Red herring, an incorrect label for your post. From wikipedia, the actual classification:
“Fallacies are used frequently by pundits in the media and politics. When one politician says to another, “You don’t have the moral authority to say X”, this could be an example of the argumentum ad hominem or personal attack fallacy; that is, attempting to disprove X, not by addressing validity of X but by attacking the person who asserted X. Arguably, the politician is not even attempting to make an argument against X, but is instead offering a moral rebuke against the interlocutor.”
16. Frank the SciencePunk | October 6th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Jamie -
I appreciate your point, but I think you tread a dangerous path when you start bending the truth to get peoples attention. While in the short term, you might increase awareness of your cause, the long term effect is a growing cynicism of your commentary.
There is a very real problem of waste in the world’s oceans - but contorting a piece of earnest scientific research to get headlines is undermining in my opinion. Greenpeace would have been better to focus the press release on the most uncontentious aspects of marine pollution.
gabe -
Thank you, your comments were very entertaining. I LOL’d.
1) If you can find a point in this article where I’ve said that pollution isn’t a bad thing, or that there is no pollution in the North Pacific, please tell me.
The issue here isn’t whether the Pacific Gyre is polluted (of course it is) - it’s whether Greenpeace can support their claims (a floating carpet of filth twice the size of texas killing everything in its path, etc etc).
2) Do some research? Have I not been through the source material for the press release thoroughly enough for you?
3) Calling me a “pseudo-intellectual” and then proceeding to patronise with definitions of ad homenim attacks, copied and pasted from Wikipedia, is a mark of a true wit. I salute your deadpan humour!
17. heidi | October 21st, 2007 at 7:15 pm
I am still reeling at my inability to find ANY images of this Texas sized plastic dung heap. No sattelite images, no plane fly-by images, no “laymen” images..nothing. Not even the News that televised this story had any footage. I can’t find any footage or images. Not that this island of refuse doesn’t exist, and not that garbage isn’t an issue we need to deal with… If you are going to tell me a story that is of this “proportion” then I want to see it with my own eyes. if anyone knows where to find image or video….. I like to know what I am eating.
18. Frank the SciencePunk | October 22nd, 2007 at 5:37 pm
heidi:
Although there is far more trash in the Pacific than there should be (and there should be none at all, really), the “million items per square kilometre” is achieved using nets that picked up monofilament line - which is pretty much invisible. Visibly there appears to be far less. Although Smith did say:
The plastic trash, some in large pieces and others broken down to small but recognizable particles, is visible from the ship’s deck, about 50 feet (15 metres) above the ocean surface
19. Pasquino | October 30th, 2007 at 11:43 am
As usual, Greenpeace send a press report to newspapers and they trust it blindly and publish without checking.
There are plenty of sat images on the web (Nasa World Wind, Google Earth).
Try to spot this huge island on them if you can.
20. Frank the SciencePunk | November 2nd, 2007 at 1:47 pm
For the visual-minded among you, here is a video from the garbage patch.
Google Vids
Be warned though, it features a lot of sun-kissed hippies, ukuleles and god-awful jazz music.
21. sara | November 23rd, 2007 at 4:27 am
If you want to disprove anyone or anything don’t use Wiki, it just makes you look like an idiiot.
22. Filosofo Austro-Ungarico&hellip | December 30th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Pacific Trash Vortex?…
Il Pacific Trash Vortex, noto anche come Great Pacific Garbage Patch, è un po’ come l’Araba Fenice, io personalmente non sono riuscito mai a vederne una foto…
In realtà è molto probabile che non esista. Se date un’occhiata a questo documento d…
23. Brett | January 15th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
The google video posted above is pretty telling. In 24 days they found 100 large pieces of plastic in the ocean. Certainly these things should not be there. The activists note that we should stop doing harm, and are quite upset about the plastic in the ocean. They do however fail to notice that everything they have been eating with or out of, sleeping on, poo-ing in and floating upon on for those 24 days is about 80% made out of plastic.
24. jerem coon | February 6th, 2008 at 5:30 am
it exists alright… its all there..everything imagineable that floats as well as plastics. greenpeace was right!! ships engineer.
25. jerem coon | February 6th, 2008 at 5:35 am
and more…. we were amazed to see a huge buoy float past too…complete with ringing bell …. it was a red one………we almost expected to see an old galleon covered with seaweed and manned by skelitons!!
26. Seminole | March 1st, 2008 at 7:00 pm
I agree with Frank. If you cant support your numbers, you decimate the credibility of real, accountable non profits that are using their donated funds in a positive and responsible way. I am sure that the Gyre exists, but dont inflate it to attract more money
27. Coremeat | March 20th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
This is the least of our problems. Chemtrails are poisoning us and the world and greenpeace wont acknoledge or investigate them. greenpeace is a fraud.
28. Nancy Nadel v. Sean Sulli&hellip | April 4th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
[…] of plastic floating in the sea that is now the size of Texas”/a>. (Note: this is actually not true.) Plastic water bottles get used once and thrown away. There’s these things called reusable […]
29. John Forrest | April 8th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Yeah…I’m sure there’s absolutely nothing to worry your smart little heads about. Everyone just relax and go back to your TVs…
30. mauifrankie | May 4th, 2008 at 10:17 am
I know you wrote this garbage in 2006. By now there is enough additional information that even hard nosed “scientific minds” like yours should be convinced of the existence of the patch of garbage. But I also know that people like you never change their minds about the threats to the environment. Oh, how I would love to really call you by your name, but i will refrain. Just keep polluting you obviously don’t believe it’s real any way.
31. Bob | June 2nd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Glad you posted this article Frank as we have spent the morning looking for information on this plastic island the size of Texas and yours is the only believeable one out there.
Where are the pictures of this island then?
As usual Green Peace are just scaring people into giving them their hard earned cash, we especially laughed at the one of the dead bird that was meant to have died from eating plastic. Firstly you could tell the plastic they had placed over the poor birds body was new - if it had been in the water and then eaten by bird it would not be clean and brand new looking. Second this greedy bird had eaten more than it’s body weight in the stuff, after a couple of bottle tops this bird would not have wanted to eat anything let alone more plastic, only wish we made a note of the link but it’s on thier web site shouldn’t be hard to find!
Your figures do not add up Green Peace and as a result i trust you even less, stop ruining your own reputation before we give up believing you completely!
32. Nancy Nadel v. Sean Sulli&hellip | August 12th, 2008 at 3:31 am
[…] glut of plastic floating in the sea that is now the size of Texas.” (Note: this is actually not true.) Plastic water bottles get used once and thrown away! There’s these things called reusable […]
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed