해양 플라스틱과 그 출처에 대한 오해

### 해양 플라스틱의 진실: 오해, 출처 및 해결책
* 🌊 많은 사람들이 해양 플라스틱을 주로 **태평양 쓰레기 대란**과 연관 지어 오해의 소지가 있는 이미지를 통해 그 모양과 기원을 잘못 표현하는 경우가 많습니다.
* 📸 언론에 유포된 대부분의 사진은 가짜이거나 해안 지역에서 찍은 사진이지만, **실제 쓰레기 더미는 다른 해안 지역보다 덜 오염된 미세 플라스틱의 소용돌이**입니다.
* 🐟 쓰레기 더미에 있는 플라스틱의 상당 부분은 어업에서 발생하며, 연구에 따르면 **거대 플라스틱의 75%~86%가 어구와 관련**이 있는 것으로 나타나 플라스틱 오염에 대한 개인의 책임에 대한 이야기에 도전하고 있습니다.
* ♻ 재활용은 필요하지만 전 세계적으로 재활용되는 플라스틱의 비율이 **10% 미만**이고, 개인이 쓰레기를 버리는 것에만 초점을 맞추면 잘못 관리된 폐기물과 같은 시스템적인 문제에서 벗어나기 때문에 재활용만으로는 플라스틱 위기를 해결할 수 없습니다.
* 미세 플라스틱은 타이어에서 페인트에 이르기까지 다양한 출처에서 발생하며, 특히 **고소득 국가에서 해양 플라스틱의 62%**를 차지할 정도로 엄청난 양의 오염을 일으키고 있어 우려가 커지고 있습니다.
* 🌍 플라스틱 오염 문제를 해결하기 위한 전 세계적인 노력이 진행 중이지만, 플라스틱 생산량 증가가 오염 수준 증가와 관련이 있다는 명확한 증거에도 불구하고 **플라스틱 생산량 감소보다 화석 연료 성장을 우선시하는 석유 산업의 이해관계**로 인해 진전이 더디게 진행되고 있습니다.
* 📉 전문가들은 현재의 추세로 볼 때 플라스틱 사용량이 지속적으로 증가할 것으로 예상되므로 **플라스틱 생산을 줄이고 플라스틱에 사용되는 화학 물질을 단순화**하여 재활용 효율성과 안전성을 개선해야 한다고 주장합니다.
* 📚 더 깊은 이해에 관심이 있는 분들을 위해 해양 플라스틱을 둘러싼 이러한 중요한 문제에 대해 **자세히 알아볼 수 있는 보고서와 리소스 목록**을 준비했습니다.

엘리자베스는 쓰레기가 아니라 잘못 관리된 폐기물이 해양 플라스틱 오염의 주범이며, 재활용만으로는 위기를 해결할 수 없다고 말합니다.

Elizabeth: When many people hear about ocean plastic, it's usually in the context of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. The idea that there was this giant trash island in the ocean was one of the things that got so many people paying attention to ocean plastic in the first place. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is in the open ocean. You cannot see land anywhere nearby. So when you see pictures like this, where there's clearly mountains or maybe islands in the background, that is obviously not the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. And then when you start looking, you see that the majority of these are fake. Most of these are probably honest mistakes, but then there are other ones which are obviously Photoshopped, like this one, which is clearly just using a picture of a landfill or something. The question here is, what does this thing actually look like if it doesn't look like any of this and why is everyone using photos of it that are of something else?

These photos are just one example of all the things we get wrong when we talk about the patch and about ocean plastic in general. The plastic isn't coming from where you think, we're blaming the wrong people for it, and there are devastating sources of microplastics that hardly anyone is even talking about. I've spent the last few months diving into the research and interviewing experts, and I'm here to tell you that you're being lied to about ocean plastic. So, what does it actually look like? Well, in short, news sites and blogs use fake photos because the real thing just isn't that exciting to look at. It's this giant swirling vortex of plastic, it thins out at the edges, it moves every year, and plastic is constantly being added to it. It was talked about as another shame-on-us kind of thing, and it was assumed that it must be all of our daily household plastic.

that was in the garbage patch. Reporter: It's called the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. It's mostly plastic, pooling what we all throw away. Basically, the framing was like, We've all been bad, and now there's this big patch here. A study from 2022 looked at the macroplastics, the stuff bigger than 5 millimeters, in the garbage patch, and found that 75%, up to 86% of it was from the fishing industry. I think a lot of news coverage probably thought there was no harm in laying on a little bit of guilt about plastic because we all do buy and use it every day, but guilt-mongering like that can still be dishonest, and making people feel defeated does not help. We've been doing that for a while now, and it has not addressed the plastic-pollution crisis. When I first started talking to experts about this,

I encountered one thing I really was not expecting. There's actually a debate going on over whether we should clean this thing up at all. Once it is in the ocean, it is connected with marine life, and it's too late to remove it. That's Martin Thiel. He might have a bit of a bold take on this, but he's not alone in thinking that at a certain point, plastic becomes part of the ecosystem. Once we throw away plastic, it's not ours anymore. And other life absolutely colonizes that plastic. Some studies have shown that nearly 100 species can live on plastic and make that plastic their home. And so being careful about how we clean that plastic up is really important to protecting and preserving the ecosystem. More research has actually come out about the garbage patch being teeming with life and actually that coastal species are hitching a ride all the way to the garbage patch and then thriving there. Scientists have also found plastic-eating microbes.

that can turn polyethylene into CO2, although in small quantities. That said, it's not a settled question yet. Some plastic leaches toxic chemicals. Some of it gets eaten by animals and contaminates the entire food chain. We don't fully understand the trade-offs between leaving plastic in ecosystems versus taking it out. Anyway, back to those photos. If the pictures we keep seeing are not of the garbage patch, what are they? The two most widely shared images of the patch are this one and this one. A photographer named Caroline Power took those off the coast of Honduras in 2017. So this particular crisis was actually close to land, not far out to sea. In reality, the garbage patch is less polluted than many coastal zones. Which might actually be good news because researchers also think it's more effective to clean plastic from coastal areas than from garbage patches that are far out to sea. It's actually really interesting that the fervor over ocean plastic,

the panic about it started with the garbage patch because the garbage patch is kind of this exceptional thing. It's mostly fishing gear, it's far out to sea, it's difficult to clean, and it's really not representative of the ocean-plastic problem as a whole. Closer to shore, you see more of what you'd expect: water bottles, wrappers, all kinds of consumer packaging. But how it actually gets there is often misrepresented. When you Google, How does so much plastic end up in the ocean? the main result you find over and over again is littering. To show you what I mean, here's an educational video from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Dianna: Where does marine debris come from? Marine debris comes from many different sources and enters the ocean in many ways. Intentional littering and dumping are a big cause of marine debris. Sometimes the trash goes directly into the ocean,

like when beachgoers don't pick up after themselves. And there are other examples of this all over the internet. So, this page, for example, it's called How Does Plastic End Up in the Ocean? And the No. 1 reason it puts is that we're throwing plastic in the bin when it could be recycled, and No. 2 is littering. Both of those are just not a majority of the problem here. This is the European Environment Agency, and it says, Poor waste management and careless littering on land are two of the main causes of the problem. Littering is responsible for a very small percentage of the overall plastic in the environment. Based on this graph from the OECD, you can see littering is this teeny-tiny blue bar here, and mismanaged waste, not including littering, is this massive one at the bottom. Mismanaged waste includes all the things that end up either in illegal dump sites

or burned in the open or in the rivers or oceans or wherever. The focus on littering specifically, it's an easy answer because obviously there's nothing wrong with discouraging people from littering, but it focuses on individual people's bad choices rather than systemic forces that are basically flushing plastic into the ocean every minute. Mismanaged waste includes everything that escapes formal waste systems. So they might end up dumped, they might end up burned, they might end up in the environment. We're not even talking about landfills here. If it's landfill, that's managed waste. According to the OECD, 82% of macroplastic leakage into the environment, so that's land, air, and sea, is the result of mismanaged waste. Putting so much emphasis on individual choices also takes the pressure off of the companies whose products so often become plastic waste. We know from beach-cleanup data that Coca-Cola has been the No. 1 plastic polluter.

for six years in a row, producing 11% of all the branded plastic pollution found on beaches. And just 56 companies are responsible for half the world's branded plastic pollution. So, I read Coca-Cola's sustainability report, and most of the emphasis for their solutions is on recycling. So, is recycling the key to stopping plastic from getting in the ocean? Spoiler alert: no. But it's more complicated than you might think. We know at this point that big lies were told about recycling, and they were told because the plastics industry had a PR problem. In 1969, there was a quote from the American Chemical Society saying, It is always possible that scientists and engineers will learn to recycle or dispose of wastes at a profit, but that does not seem likely to happen soon on a broad basis. And, boy, were they right. Globally, recycling rates are less than 10%, and they've been stuck that way for decades now.

Keep in mind, the amount of recycled plastic we make globally has quadrupled in 20 years. We're recycling more than ever; it just can't keep up. I think we need to show a graph here. So, if you look at what goes into the ocean, items that actually have a chance of being recycled are hard plastics made of just one thing. This report calls them rigid mono-materials, but you can see they make up just 18% of plastic leakage into the ocean. These other two massive categories, they make up a vast majority of the plastic in the ocean, and those are just not widely recyclable items. You might hear people say that they're technically recyclable; the technology exists, but it's just not economically viable, and it's not being done at a large scale. So, the industry has known at this point that mixing together different types of plastics makes them unrecyclable.

They've known it for more than 50 years, and they've just kept doing it. But either way, what we're looking at is less than a fifth of ocean plastic having even the potential to be recycled. So graphs like this really brought it home for me, that this is one of the biggest lies about the ocean-plastic problem, is that somehow we can recycle our way out of it. When such a tiny fraction of what's going into the ocean is even maybe recyclable, we need to talk about different ways to solve this problem. Recycling was doomed to fail because it was given an impossible task, and the impossible task was to just keep up with limitless plastic consumption. However, it's not exactly completely fake either, and that's something I'm encountering more and more in my everyday life when I talk to people about this. There's been so much coverage of recycling being a scam that people think it doesn't matter at all,

that they shouldn't even try. The reality is that headlines saying recycling is a scam or totally fake are misleading. You know, it gets framed as an either-or. Either we only need recycling and only recycling will fix this problem, or recycling won't fix this problem at all and we should absolutely give up on it. And I quite simply disagree. It is not an either-or, it is a yes-and. Yes, we need recycling, and we need overall reduction. One of the reasons recycling hasn't worked so well is because of low collection and sorting rates, and convincing people that it's totally fraudulent will just make that problem worse. So, PET, plastic No. 1, and HDPE, plastic No. 2, are legitimately recyclable. Though the rates of plastic recycling for all plastics is less than 10%, for those two plastics, it's closer to 30%, and we could double that in the US by just doing a better job collecting plastics.

We just need to stop thinking that recycling plastics gives us a license to consume as much as we want and stop accepting the industry line that it's perfectly circular. It's meant to be a last resort for plastics we can't eliminate, and it still comes with some environmental trade-offs. There is no hiding the fact that our recycling system is not working very well right now, but that doesn't mean we should give up on it. If anything, it means that we need to invest in it and make it work. As you can see, this is messy. We want magic pills and silver bullets, a perfect solution for all these problems, and that's just not going to happen. And it's about to get messier because we need to talk more about microplastics. So, microplastics are incredibly hard to wrap your head around. They see numbers in the billions, and they're measured in terms of particles, and it's just sort of impossible

to envision what that even means or how bad it is. From Europe, so much microplastic goes into the environment that it's the equivalent of everyone in Europe throwing one grocery bag into the ocean each week. Then, in the US, it's triple that number. Though microplastics are 11% of all the plastic that goes into the ocean each year, when you look at just high-income countries, that number goes up to 62%. Scientists keep finding them in new places, and then that makes the news, and now it's in the news cycle so much that it's almost become kind of a meme, with people joking about, like, microplastics for dinner and whatever you might see. So, for a while we were thinking maybe the main problem here was polyester and plastic clothing, but then we started having more data come out about tires. The tires on cars shed microplastics like crazy. Estimates vary, but tires can shed between 10% and 16%

of their weight over their lifetime. That means each tire on a car loses a kilogram, or 2 pounds, of tire dust over its lifetime. We also know that the heavier a car is, the faster its tires wear down, which means the more microplastics go out into the environment. So that means, like, the big SUVs, Americans tend to drive really big cars, those are creating higher numbers of microplastics. It's estimated that 9% of all plastic pollution going into the ocean is from tires, and right now there's just no way of catching it. So, textiles remained a problem. Then we added tires to the list. But the craziest thing is that after that, a report came out that said that there was a new source of microplastics we hadn't been calculating correctly and that if their math was right it created more microplastics than all the other ones combined, more than tires and personal-care products.

and clothing combined, and that source is paint. So, according to this report, about 40% of paint ends up in the environment, and the craziest thing is that 37% of paint is plastic polymers. Like, the composition of paint is plastic. We're painting our walls with plastic. When I heard that lots of microplastics came from paint, I had assumed it was mostly from ships, but actually, marine sources were not even a majority of the microplastics that end up in the environment. And a lot of it is from buildings. About half the paint applied in European lower-income countries will eventually leak to the environment. That is mind-boggling to me. All these things are basically modeled estimates. It's really difficult to measure microplastics, so people end up doing this sort of complex mathematic modeling to figure out how much paint gets shed off of these everyday objects. Even if this estimate is wrong and it's half that or a third of that,

paint is still a huge source of microplastics in the environment that's been wildly underestimated. Ultimately, the disconcerting vibe that I get from all of this is that we know there are huge sources of microplastics out there, but we could discover a new one tomorrow that's even bigger. There are also a whole other type of microplastics that come from things already in the ocean breaking apart. A recent study found that the color of the plastic actually makes a big difference in terms of how fast that happens. So red, green, and blue plastics become microplastics much faster than clear, silver, or black. Removing pigments from plastic would also make them much easier and more valuable for recyclers. But of course, mixing red caps and green bottles and all of that would mean brands giving up some of their brand power. So now we're getting to the really big questions. How do you compel massive institutions

that benefit from plastic to change their ways? Over the years, we've seen both governments and corporations make pledges to reduce their plastic footprints. Over five years, there was a 60% increase in these pledges, and in that same time, a 50% increase in plastic pollution. That's nuts. A 50% increase in five years? These pledges simply haven't worked. Plastic use is still set to triple by 2060. At this point, it might seem hopeless, but we're actually in a pivotal moment. In 2022, UN member states passed a resolution very ambitiously called End Plastic Pollution. For the past few years, they've been working on a global treaty. I've spoken to independent scientists who are at these negotiations, and they all talk about the same thing, reducing plastic production. This may seem painfully obvious, but we have to go through the data a bit because it's been weirdly controversial for a long time now.

to say that plastic production leads to more plastic pollution. If you map out plastic production since 1950 and map out the amount of plastic going into the ocean since that time, you get two lines that track each other very closely. And this is true even for individual brands. A 2024 study found that the more product that Coke, Pepsi, Nestlé, and other companies made, the more of their branded trash washed up on beaches. Even though making less plastic seems like a really clear answer, this idea is still tearing apart these negotiations. There is a big group of countries supporting the obligations to reduce plastic production, but we also have a very small group of countries that are stalling progress in these obligations. And this small group of countries are the petrostates. People think that we are negotiating a waste treaty, but in reality, we are negotiating the future of fossil fuels. The Center for International Environmental Law,

where Daniela works, analyzed the guest list at these talks. They found petrochemical and fossil-fuel-industry lobbyists outnumbered scientists at these talks, sometimes 3:1. These industries are fighting hard because they're counting on plastics for their future growth. The fossil-fuel industry is using all types of tactics to intimidate and to harass. So, as soon as we landed in Ottawa in April, we started to see billboards all over the city defending plastics, and with kids in a hospital with masks of plastic for oxygen, which, we are clear that we're not targeting these kinds of elements with our ads for production reduction. Inside the talks, industry reps don't want to talk about lowering production. They want to talk about recycling and waste management. Of course recycling is important, and we don't want to say that we don't need recycling, but if we want to make recycling

something that actually works. We need to bring production to more sustainable levels. There's no way that recycling is going to keep up with the levels of production that we have today. Every scientist and activist that I've spoken to about this issue wants two things: to reduce plastic production and to simplify the chemicals that go into plastics. There are about 16,000 chemicals used in plastics today, most of which are not regulated by international law. And getting that number lower could not only improve safety but also make recycling much more effective. I don't know how this is all going to turn out or if plastic production is actually going to go down, but I do know Dow, a chemical company and one of the world's largest suppliers of the polymers that go into single-use plastics, seemingly doesn't have plans to slow down anytime soon. Dow call: Plastics right now, PNSP.

silicones and coatings. I think we have a pretty good line of sight. Since 2019, we've seen a 20% increase in volumes in plastics. I think plastics is going to continue to see solid volumes, and we've got a cost advantage. So the long-term trends for plastics say the growth is going to continue to be there. If you're wondering where I got all this information, check out the link in the video description. I'm sharing a reading list of all the reports that I used to put this together. And for more Truth Complex, subscribe to Business Insider on YouTube.

You're Being Lied To About Ocean Plastic | Truth Complex | Business Insider

What you want to know about business. 

Visit our homepage for the top stories of the day: https://www.businessinsider.com 
Business Insider on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/businessinsider
Business Insider on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/insiderbusiness
Business Insider on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/businessinsider
Business Insider on Snapchat: https://www.snapchat.com/discover/Business_Insider/5319643143
Business Insider on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@businessinsider

If you have a permissions or licensing request, please connect with our partners at PARS International who will be able to provide you with an accurate quote for the overall usage rights that you’re interested in. A representative from PARS will contact you shortly after filling out this request form: https://www.parsintl.com/publications/insider/


Business Insider

태평양 쓰레기 대란에 대한 오해 바로잡기

대 태평양 쓰레기 패치는 종종 사진에 잘못 표현되어 있으며, 많은 이미지가 가짜이거나 포토샵으로 처리되어 있습니다.

이 패치에 있는 플라스틱의 대부분은 가정 쓰레기가 아닌 어업에서 나온 것입니다.

플라스틱이 해양 생태계의 일부가 되어 다양한 생물종의 서식처가 되었기 때문에 플라스틱을 청소할 것인지에 대해 전문가들 사이에서 논쟁이 벌어지고 있습니다.

잘못 알려진 플라스틱 해양 위기

플라스틱이 환경에 미치는 영향은 복잡하며, 일부는 독성 화학물질을 침출하고 먹이사슬을 오염시킵니다.

널리 공유되는 쓰레기 더미의 이미지는 다른 해안 지역보다 오염이 덜한 곳이며 전반적인 해양 플라스틱 문제를 대표하지 않기 때문에 오해의 소지가 있습니다.

쓰레기 투기보다는 잘못 관리된 폐기물이 플라스틱 오염의 주요 원인이며, 코카콜라와 같은 기업이 플라스틱 오염을 가장 많이 일으키는 기업입니다.

소수의 기업이 전 세계 브랜드 플라스틱 오염의 상당 부분을 책임지고 있으며, 재활용 노력은 실질적인 영향을 미치지 못하고 있습니다.

해양 플라스틱의 대부분은 재활용이 불가능한 품목에서 발생하며, 다양한 플라스틱을 혼합하는 업계의 오랜 관행이 재활용 노력을 방해하고 있습니다.

재활용은 필요하지만, 보다 효과적인 재활용을 위해서는 전반적인 감축 노력과 수거 및 분류율 개선이 병행되어야 합니다.

플라스틱 재활용과 미세 플라스틱의 도전 과제

플라스틱 재활용은 과도한 플라스틱 소비에 대한 해결책으로 여겨져서는 안 되며, 현재의 재활용 시스템은 효과적이지 않습니다.

미세 플라스틱은 고소득 국가가 해양 플라스틱 오염의 62%를 차지하는 주요 환경 문제입니다.

미세 플라스틱의 주요 배출원으로는 타이어 마모, 섬유, 그리고 놀랍게도 환경 플라스틱 오염의 상당 부분을 차지하는 페인트가 있습니다.

페인트가 미세 플라스틱에 미치는 과소평가된 영향

페인트는 미세 플라스틱의 중요하고도 과소평가된 공급원이며, 다른 미세 플라스틱도 해양 쓰레기가 분해되면서 발생합니다.

플라스틱의 색은 미세 플라스틱으로 분해되는 속도에 결정적인 역할을 하는데, 빨간색, 초록색, 파란색 플라스틱은 투명, 은색, 검은색보다 더 빨리 분해됩니다.

플라스틱 사용을 줄이겠다는 정부와 기업의 약속에도 불구하고 플라스틱 오염은 계속 증가하고 있으며, 현재 플라스틱 생산량 감축을 목표로 하는 국제 조약이 협상 중이며, 이는 현재 논쟁의 여지가 있는 사안입니다.

화석 연료 산업이 플라스틱 생산에 미치는 영향

석유화학 및 화석 연료 로비스트들은 플라스틱을 옹호하기 위해 협박 전술을 사용하면서 업계 회담에서 과학자보다 더 많은 수를 차지했습니다.

업계는 보다 지속 가능한 수준의 생산이 필요함에도 불구하고 생산량을 줄이기보다는 재활용과 폐기물 관리에 초점을 맞추고 있습니다.

플라스틱에 사용되는 규제되지 않은 화학물질이 16,000개에 달하는 상황에서 이 숫자를 줄이면 안전성이 향상되고 재활용이 더 효과적으로 이루어질 수 있지만 플라스틱에 대한 수요는 여전히 증가할 것으로 예상됩니다.