ENSTU 300: Critical Thinking & Communication in Environmental Studies

Marine Plastic Pollution Policy

Nick Ramsey, Environmental Studies Program, California State University
Monterey Bay

Introduction
“ Water and air, the essential fluids on which all life depends have become global garbage cans.”
– Jacques Cousteau.

As the world population continues to grow, humans create more and more trash. The
waste accumulates on land it makes its way to oceans around the world. Today billions of pounds
of plastic are being found in huge garbage patches around the world’s oceans and are impacting
over 300 species of wildlife, their habitats, coastline, and even the food we eat. Plastic is a part of
most people’s everyday life. Whether shopping bags, drinking straws, coffee cup lids, to go cups,
and food containers, the list is innumerable. Plastic products are convenient, inexpensive, and
easy to manufacture, but if humans continue to use them at the rate we are, the pollution will
continue to impact our oceans and get worse. Most of the plastic debris found in the ocean starts
out on land and makes its way to the ocean where it slowly breaks down over hundreds of years
into micro plastics never leaving the ocean again (Image 1). There are many stakeholders
involved that are directly impacted by the marine plastic pollution, including government,
scientists, wildlife organizations, fishermen, aquaculture industries, tourism, plastic producers,
and businesses. This case study will primarily focus on the statement: Due to the increase in the
amount of marine plastic pollution, there should be stricter policies regarding plastic pollution to
reduce the impacts it has on the ocean, marine life, and humanity. By reviewing the current
pollution problems and existing marine pollution policy, I will address several questions
regarding marine pollution. In this paper, questions will be answered like why has plastic become
such an issue in oceans around the world? Who cares about marine plastic pollution, and why?
Finally, I will look into the best possible solutions for ending marine plastic pollution and
protecting the oceans for the future.

Image 1: A breakdown of how long plastic lasts in the ocean

Source: The Ocean Conservancy

2
Background
History

Humans have caused up to 13 million metric tons of plastic to reach our oceans and impact
marine life around the world. Plastic has become a normal part of everyday life for most people.
Whether it is a plastic water bottle, plastic wrap for food, plastic garbage bags, or plastic straws,
we are a nation that uses a lot of plastics.

Plastics are synthetic organic polymers and have existed for over a century. They are
slow to degrade, buoyant, and have the ability to persist for centuries (Sheavly & Register,
2007). Being inexpensive, versatile, lightweight, strong, and flexible has made them popular
over the past three decades and has made them suitable for the manufacture of a widespread
variety of products. These characteristics that make up plastic are also the very reason why they
have become such a problem for marine habitats around the globe (Derraik, 2002).

Since their commercial development in the 1930s and 1940s plastic has dominated the
consumer marketplace. Production of plastic globally has increased 620% since 1975. Most
plastic is used for packaging of groceries and other goods and usually is disposed of immediately
after use. In 1960, plastic made up only about 1% of the total solid waste by mass in the United
States. As of 2005, plastics made up at least 10% of solid waste in 58 different countries with
available data (Jambeck et al., 2015).

The first reports of plastic litter in oceans came in the early 1970s and received nominal
attention. For example, the Council of the British Plastic Federation stated that “plastics litter is a
very small proportion of all litter and causes no harm to the environment except as an eyesore.”
Comments such as this show that not even the plastics industry could predict the type of plastic
boom the world has faced over the past 30 years (Derraik, 2002). It was estimated that in 1975
6.4 million tons of trash were being put into the ocean by ocean vessels, military operations, and
ship casualties. Since this time bans have been put on dumping into the ocean, but the pollution

3
from other sources still continues illegally and plastic particles still find their way back into the
ocean from land. The Ocean Cleanup, a non-profit organization developing advanced
technology to remove the world plastic pollution, estimates that 1.15 to 2.41 million tonnes of
plastic enter the ocean each year from rivers (The Ocean Cleanup, 2018). It is estimated that
about 80% of all marine debris originates on land (Jambeck et al., 2015). In the past three
decades, the topic has received more attention as information regarding the ecological
consequences of plastic debris has become available (Andrady, 2011).

The large amounts of plastic that has made its way to the ocean over the past 50 plus
years is now accumulating in vast quantities around the world. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch
(GPGP) is one of the five offshore plastic accumulation zones in the world’s oceans today. The
patch is located between Hawaii and California and has grown to a surface area that is twice the
size of Texas. The Ocean Cleanup estimates that the (GPGP) is approximately 80,000 tonnes
and contains a total of 1.8 trillion plastic pieces floating in the patch. To come up with theses
number the Ocean Cleanup conducted a sampling method that included 30 boats and 652 surface
nets and two flights over the patch to gather aerial imagery of the debris (The Ocean Cleanup,
2018).

Scientific Background

Plastic pollution is impacting oceans around the world. It is affecting marine wildlife, their
habitats, the economic health of fisheries, and outdoor recreation, as well as human health.
Humans are polluting the most remote parts of the world and are put into the environment by
poor disposal, natural disasters, and unintended loss. A study by the National Research Council
showed that 1.4 billion pounds of trash were put into the ocean just by ocean vessels (Watters,
Yolkavich, Lovw, & Schroder, 2010).

Marine wildlife is threatened by a number of different factors including entanglement in nets

(Image 2), fishing line, ropes, six pack rings, packing strapping bands, ribbons on balloons and
other debris. Animals that become trapped in the debris face dangers of being suffocated,
starvation, cuts and wounds, and impediment of movement. According to the U.S. Marine

4
Mammal Commission, 136 marine species have been reported in entanglement incidents,
including 6 species of sea turtles, 51 species of seabirds, and 32 species of marine mammals
(Sheavly & Register, 2007).

The ingestion of plastics is also causing serious problems to marine life. Plastic shopping bags
can often look like jellyfish to sea turtles and plastic pellets can often look like small fish eggs to
marine animals. Animals that ingest the plastic cannot regurgitate the item once it is swallowed.
It typically becomes stuck in their throats and digestive tracts causing them to get a false sense of
cessation, which is feeling full, leading them to stop eating and gradually starve to death. The
U.S. Marine Mammal Commission reports that ingestion incidents have been reported for 6 of 7
species of sea turtles, 111 out of the world’s 312 seabird species, and 26 species of marine
mammals (Sheavly & Register, 2007). Although plastics are thought to be buoyant and sit mostly
at the surface of the ocean, they also have the ability to reach the deeper parts of the sea and
impact marine life there as well (Watters et al., 2010).

Habitat destruction by plastic pollution is damaging shoreline, living coral reefs, and other
essential marine habitats around the world. Ensnared plastic debris can smother sea grass and
corals, causing an increase in siltation and turbidity which in turn blocks vital sunlight for plants.
This drifting plastic pollution can also host entire communities of encrusting organisms which
are transported great distances by marine currents. The transported organisms are brought to
areas where they can harm or outcompete native species as invasive species (Sheavly & Register,
2007).

With so much pollution washing onto beaches, communities and governments are forced to
spend funds on beach maintenance. The estimated cost of environmental damage caused by
plastic to marine ecosystems is 13 billion dollars. This number is the cost of beach cleanups and
the financial loss incurred by fisheries (The Ocean Cleanup, 2018). Plastic pollution dissuades
people from boating, swimming, fishing, and visiting coastal areas (Sheavly & Register, 2007).

5
Image 2: A seal trapped in a drifting net lost by fishermen

Source: mikesphyto.com

Plastic Pollution Management Today

Some legislation has been implemented to endorse the preservation of the earth's oceans. The
first set of laws that regulates ocean dumping is the 1972 London Dumping Convention (LCD)
and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from ships (MARPOL). These
international guidelines were created in hopes of dealing with ocean pollution by recognizing
marine vessels as a significant and controllable source of pollution into the marine environment
(Derraik, 2002). Nearly ten years later the Annex V of MARPOL was implemented as the key
international authority for controlling ship sources of marine debris. The law “restricts at sea
discharge of garbage and bans at sea disposal of plastics and other synthetic material such as
ropes, fishing nets, and plastic garbage bags with limited exceptions.” The Annex V applies to all
watercraft and has been ratified by 79 countries around the world (Derraik, 2002).

However, the Annex V legislation is still commonly overlooked. Ships are still estimated to be
dumping 6.5 million tons of plastics per year. For example, observers aboard foreign fishing
vessels on Australian waters found that one third of the vessels didn’t comply with the MARPOL
regulations on plastic disposal. The problem seems to be the lack of economic cost related to
dumping plastics into the ocean. Since companies and people see no economic expense tied to
their ocean pollution they feel no need to change their practice of illegal dumping. After

6
assessing the impact of Annex V, studies showed no reduction of buildup of marine plastics nor
a reduction in the entanglement rate of animals. The main struggle when it comes to plastic
pollution legislation is enforcing it in an area as massive as the world’s oceans. It is vital that all
countries work together to make sure than all vessels follow the guidelines of Annex V (Derraik,
2002).

Table 1. History of Plastic Pollution Policy in the United States

Year Policy Effect

1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Set pollution discharge rules for US waters, established water
Act quality criteria, and gave EPA enforcement authority

1972 Coastal Zone Management Zone Encourages coastal states to develop and implement coastal
zone management plans

1972 Marine Protection, Research, and Prohibits transportation of material from the US for the purpose
Sanctuaries Act of ocean dumping

1987 Marine Plastic Pollution Research The act implements the provisions of MARPOL Annex V into
Control Act US law, making it illegal to throw plastic into waters within
200 miles of the US coastline

1994 Shore Protection Act Created regulations for waste transport vessels like trash barges

2000 The Coral Reef Conservation Act Benefits coral reefs and other marine habitats by authorizing
NOAA to provide assistance to States in removing fishing gear,
marine debris such as plastics, and abandoned vessels from
coral reefs to conserve living marine resources

2006 Marine, Debris, Prevention, and This law funded NOAA’s Marine Debris Program to “identify,
Reduction Act assess, reduce, and prevent marine debris and its effect on the
marine environment
The act requires the program to “identify, determine sources of,
2012 Marine Debris Act Amendments assess, prevent, reduce, and remove marine debris and address
the adverse impacts of marine debris on the economy of the
United States, marine environment, and navigation safety.

Policy Context

How does the current international and federal policy on plastic pollution support the health and
well-being of oceans? With the increase in plastic use during the last 40 years, laws have been

7
implemented to limit what can be polluted into oceans around the world. International and
federal policies influence use of plastics and how they should be disposed of. Table 1 is a list of
the different policy implemented on plastic pollution in the United States over the past 40 years.

International Plastic Pollution Policy

In the 1970s, international ocean pollution policy began in response to a series of tanker
accidents in the 1976-1977. These policies set guidelines for what could be dumped in oceans
around the world. The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL) was created to prevent pollution of the marine environment by vessels from
operational or accidental causes. This policy lacked any focus on plastic pollution until the end of
1988 when Annex V was created to impose a complete ban on the disposal into the ocean of all
forms of plastics (International Maritime Organization, 2011). Implementing MARPOL has been
difficult because of the nature of maritime shipping. Each country that the ship visits implements
its own conduct and inspections to confirm if the ship is in compliance with international
standards (GAO, 2000).

Federal Plastic Pollution Policy

Federal policy on pollution in the United States started with the Clean Water Act (CWA). The
foundation for this act was set in 1948 and was originally called the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act until 1972. The act enforced pollution control standards for industries and set water
quality standards for all kinds of contaminates found in surface waters (EPA, 2017). The U.S.
government also passed the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. This gave
the EPA and the US Coast Guard power to control dumping in US ocean waters (Marine
Defenders, 2017).

Government officials then directed their focus towards plastic with the passing of the
Marine Plastic Pollution Research Control Act of 1987. The act applied provisions of MARPOL
Annex V which made it illegal to dump plastic into waters within 200 miles of the US coastline
and banned garbage dumping within three miles of shore (Marine Defenders, 2017). With this
heightened focus on pollution, Congress attempted to implement policy that aimed towards the

8
ban of plastic use. The Degradable Plastics Act of 1988 was introduced to require plastic articles
which are produced, distributed, or sold in the US be made of naturally degradable material. This
bill was unable to gain any push and was denied by the House of Representatives (Congress,
2016).

As plastic pollution continued throughout the years, scientists began to see its detrimental
impact on marine life and ecosystems. During the 109th Congress in 2006, the Marine Debris
Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act was passed. The law establishes a marine debris
preventing and removal program with the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). The goal is to decrease and stop the occurrence and adverse impacts of marine debris
on the marine environment and navigation safety. NOAA was also subject to undertake marine
debris mapping, impact assessment, and removal efforts, with an emphasis on marine pollution
posing a threat to living marine resources. The law additionally takes actions to reduce violations
and implement MARPOL Annex V to prevent ships from dumping plastic into the ocean
(Congress, 2016).

Stakeholder Perspectives
Marine plastic pollution, and the policies that manage it, impacts many individuals. Stakeholders
affected by marine plastic pollution include scientists, government, global plastic producers, and
businesses. Table 2 outlines each stakeholder’s values, contributions and concerns.

Stakeholder Representative What does the How can the What are the
group and Examples stakeholder value stakeholder concerns of the
representatives about the project? contribute to the stakeholder?
project?
Scientists and NOAA Healthy Providing Healthy ocean and
Government ecosystems/ecological scientific marine ecosystems
EPA data/research
Protection of wildlife
habitat Improve
stewardship of
environment

9
Plastic British Plastics Economic gain Provide Economic gain
Producers Federation reasoning for
Safeguarded funds why plastic is Allocation of funds
American important to the for producing
Plastics Council Physical economy plastics globally
sustenance/security
Viability of their
product

Wildlife SPCA Wildlife Protection of wildlife Activism Healthy marine life

Rehabilitation Rescue and and wildlife health and ecosystems
Organizations Rehabilitation Informing the
Center public

National Pushing for

Wildlife stricter local
Rehabilitation policy
Association

Fishermen Fisheries around Economic gain Improve Profit

the world Stewardship of
Healthy Ecosystems environment Sustainable fisheries
Local Squid and
Spot Prawn Explain impacts
Fishermen on marine life
during fishing

Point source
plastic pollution
Table 2: Stakeholder Perspectives

Scientists and Government Perspectives

In a U.S. Congressional Hearing, retired US Navy Officer Conrad C. Lautenbacher, a

representative for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), spoke about
the importance of protecting the ocean for people’s consumption, overseas trade, and the living
organisms that are a critical component of the oceans’ health: “Oceans are home to the majority
of the world’s living organisms and are critical component of the Earth’s climate system. It is
hard to overstate the importance of the oceans yet at a time of increasing dependency, our oceans
are in trouble” (The State of the Oceans, 2006). He mentioned that the U.S. has implemented the

10
Commission on Ocean Policy to better comprehend the challenges facing the oceans and to
identify different ways to improve management. Involvement by the White House has also been
critical for providing guidance and support required to accomplish goals and maintain influence
towards the issue of marine plastic pollution. Lautenbacher spoke about the recent efforts of
developing an Ocean Research Priorities Plan: “This plan will provide strategic direction for
future research, foster more collaboration between agencies and set priorities among competing
demands.” NOAA is playing a leading role in managing national marine protected areas. For
example, NOAA established the Aleutian Islands Habitat Conservation Area in Alaska that
protects over 280,000 miles that will protect fish populations. The NOAA have also led similar
habitat protection measures off the coast of Washington, Oregon, and California. More
legislation is needed to improve conservation and management efforts. The NOAA believes that
an Integrated Ocean Observing System known as IOOS would provide observations and manage
data to enable better decision making. Lautenbacher mentioned that the goal of the system is to
be part of the larger, Global Earth Observation System that will enhance the ability to conserve
and properly manage Earths most critical resources (The State of the Oceans, 2006).

David Santillo, a senior scientist with Greenpeace Research Laboratories at the

University of Exeter in the UK thinks of plastic trash as a global problem that people don’t truly
understand when using plastics. “To most people, plastics are cheap, short lived and ultimately
disposable.” This impression is caused from people being disconnected from their modern
consumption habits and the disposal of the products after they are consumed. He believes it is
essential to reconsider our approach to using plastics, and that we need “To see them as high
value, long lived and non-disposable materials and use them sparingly and wisely. No matter
where the plastic goes on earth it remains a problem for all of us” (Santillo, 2010).

Wildlife Rehabilitation Organization Perspectives

In a 2018 interview, Mary Billington, a wildlife rehabilitator from the SPCA wildlife center in
Monterey, California, spoke about the different types of wildlife impacted by plastic pollution in
the Monterey Bay. She talked about multiple species of marine birds that are impacted by fishing

11
line and nets left over by fishermen. “It has become an everyday problem of people finding birds
tangled in left over fishing line, the birds we find that are still alive are often far too injured to
rehabilitate and we are forced to euthanize them.” The fishing line hinders the bird’s movement,
causes cuts and wounds, and can strangle the bird to death. The birds that are mostly impacted by
fishing line are pelagic birds such as pelicans, loons, and common murres that need to dive
below the surface of the ocean in order to get their food (image 3). Other marine birds like sea
gulls have been seen attempting to make bird nests out of small microplastics, which has
negative effects on their young because birds mistakenly can ingest the plastic or become
tangled. Currently the SPCA believes there is not enough being done to limit the amount of
plastic and fishing line being left behind by fishermen and beach goers. They believe that
enforcing fishermen in the Monterey Bay to use a biodegradable fishing line would help to
reduce the amount of wildlife being impacted by this.

Image 3: Common Loon tangled in fishing line

Source: SPCA wildlife center

Fishermen Perspectives

12
In an interview with John Aliotti in 2018, a spot prawn and squid fishermen in the Monterey
Bay, discussed the types of fish nets that are typically by fishermen and what types of impacts
they have on marine life. John explained that fishermen use nylon fishing nets because they are
long lasting, durable, and are the cheapest options available to them. When asked if he thinks
that fishermen should be required to use biodegradable fishing nets he said “the only way that
biodegradable nets would work is if the Government hands out incentives to change or they
come up with a net that I can actually afford to purchase. He mentioned that a big problem with
net pollution is that fishermen throw them overboard because it is cheaper and easier than taking
them to a recycling location. More port’s need to have infrastructure in place to have fishermen
collect recycle, or trade used nets. He went on to say that there is an obvious impact from plastic
pollution on marine ecosystems. He said that seabirds are constantly being found tangled in
debris and has had one instance where he has found a harbor seal tangled inside of a ghost net.

Plastic Producer Perspectives

Executive director of Plasticseurope, Karl Forester believes that plastics are a part of the solution
to the world’s challenges like lack of resources, climate change, emission, and food:
“Innovations made by, from and with plastics account for many of the advances that society is
benefiting from today.” He argues that most of the political debate concerning the circular
economy tend to separate plastics from the products they are used in and focus on “end-of-life.”
“We call for the environmental impact of a product be addressed holistically over its entire life
cycle, not just after use.” Forester believes that improvement to the cycle needs to be applied
where most effective. This might mean developing their performance during the use phase;
others may need to strengthen their design; and some may need to increase their post use
collection and sorting technologies. Forester then goes on to say that all materials have an impact
on the environment, not just plastic. A study by Trucost, a company which makes estimates
about the hidden costs of unsustainable use of natural resources by companies, indicated that the
environmental impact of plastic use in consumer goods and packaging is almost four times less
than using alternative materials. The organization believes that plastic is the perfect material to

13
shape the future because it saves far more energy and resources through its lifetime than is
required to produce it (Forester, 2017).

The Director of Risk and Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute,
Angela Logomasini, considers plastics to be an important contributor to energy efficiency and a
healthy environment. She states that “Plastics are environmentally superior to alternatives in
many ways. First, plastics are extremely energy efficient, which makes them less expensive and
more competitive in the marketplace than many alternatives.” She backs up her claim by citing a
study by Price Waterhouse-Coppers/EcoBalance in 2004 in which they compared the
environmental impact of plastic to paper bags. The study showed that plastic bags require 96%
less water and 40% less energy to produce than paper bags and generate 80% less waste. The
study also showed the impact of paper bags which produce 70% more air pollution and 50 times
the water pollution. She goes on to say that the reason that plastics arose in the marketplace
initially is because they were far more successful both economically and environmentally
(Logomasini, 2010).

Discussion

Recommendation for policy modification include: 1.) Equipment to clean up pollution, 2.) A ban
of single use plastic products with incentives to businesses and 3) a tax on plastic pollution.
These options aim to address existing deficits in the current marine plastic pollution
management. The goal for the alternative policy options are to improve the current pollution
management done internationally and by the federal government of the United States. The
criteria that was included for all three policy options are marine life, aesthetics on the beach,
economic feasibility, and technical feasibility. All three will be analyzed to decide on the most
feasible option that meets the normative statement.

Table 2: Analysis of Policy Options by Criteria

14
 Policy Option 1: Policy Option 2: Ban of Policy Option 3: Tax
Equipment to clean up single use plastic plastic production
pollution products-with
incentives to businesses

Criteria 1: Marine Life +++ Removes pollution ++ Reducing future +Assumes reduction of
that degrades their impacts (but not plastic use if taxed-may
habitat existing plastics) not bear out

Criteria 2: Aesthetics ++ Less plastic makes +++ No plastic litter Could reduce amount of
on the beach for a better looking left behind by beach plastic litter on beaches
beach users but could also have no
impact if businesses
continue to use plastics
- Negative
Criteria 3: Feasibility- --- Ridiculously 0 Could be more approach – can be
economic expensive, no expensive – especially
effective, but
willingness for in short term (shipping,
government to take sourcing) – but industry and
responsibility and pay incentives will help businesses will
reduce burdens not like it

Criteria 4: Feasibility- --Very expensive to - Could make it far 0 Will be far more
technical build this type of more for businesses to costly for businesses
technology produce, store, deliver, but will lower their
and track its products or amount of plastic waste
services production

Policy Option 1 – Equipment to clean up pollution

With this option, equipment would need to be purchased by the government and used to
remove the current plastic pollution. Different types of technology have been invented in the past
5 years that could possibly have an impact on cleaning the ocean of plastic pollution. The
SeaBin, created by two Australian surfers has a pump and water filtration system that is able to
suck debris from any marina or dock. The owners of this technology are still developing a
prototype for the SeaBin but there has had success in marinas in San Diego and Finland. The
product is expected to be released by the end of 2018 (Herreria, 2017). The only downfall with
this type of product is its inability to reduce garbage that is farther out to sea than just the harbor.
There has been other technology developed that hopes to solve the pollution problem on a larger
scale. The Ocean Cleanup project was developed by a man named Boyan Slat that hopes to clear

15
out half of what is concentrated in the Pacific Garbage Patch between Hawaii and California.
The Ocean Cleanup is developing a fleet of V-shaped systems that are able to drift across the
Pacific with ocean currents and simultaneously sweep up marine debris in the process (Image 4).

Image 4: Ocean Cleanups V shaped system to clean up pollution

Source: The Ocean Cleanup
The organization has been able to raise an estimated $31.5 million to put towards the
development of their product. They plan on beginning to clear out the Pacific garbage patch in
2018 (Herreria, 2017). Having these types of equipment would be of great benefit to the marine
life because it would eliminate the current pollution that is impacting them. It would also have a
positive impact on aesthetics by limiting the amount of plastic that washes up on shorelines
around the world. The issue with this policy option is getting governments around the world to
pay for this type of equipment. They could be expensive to purchase and are also costly to
produce globally.

Policy Option 2 – Ban of single use plastics with incentives to businesses

This second option aims to prevent plastics from reaching the ocean in the first place. By
banning single use plastics, companies would be forced to phase out their use of plastic and aim
to find alternatives for their products. There would be incentives given to businesses that would
lower the economic impact caused by switching to biodegradable materials. By forcing the
switch to single use plastic alternatives, there would be no more plastic pollution entering the
ocean which would benefit marine life, their habitat, and improve the overall aesthetics of
beaches. This option would be beneficial to stakeholders like wildlife organizations and
scientists because it would eventually stop plastic pollution from reaching the ocean and causing

16
damage. The Degradable Plastics Act of 1988, that was only introduced to Congress, is an
example of the type of policy that needs to be implemented in order to solve the issue of plastic
pollution. The act requires that plastic articles which are produced, distributed, or sold in a State
be made of naturally degradable material which will begin reduction to environmentally benign
subunits within a specified period of time after being discarded that is not to exceed 180 days
and complete such reduction within a specified period of time that is not to exceed two years.
The Act would also impose civil and criminal penalties against persons who violate such rules
(Congress, 2018). The economic feasibility is where this option becomes difficult. By banning
plastics in packaging and consumer products, the environmental costs could actually increase. In
a study done by the firm Trucost, they revealed that replacing plastic with other materials would
increase the amount of packaging generated in the United States by 55 million tons annually and
increase energy use and carbon emission by 82 percent (Russel, 2018).

Policy Option 3 – Tax plastic production

The final option is to implement a tax on the production of single use plastic products.
This option hopes to cut down on plastic use and without forcing businesses to switch to
biodegradable products. If production of plastic drops, there will be far less plastic in the
consumer marketplace, which means less plastic pollution in the ocean. This will have a positive
impact on marine life and habitat while at the same time improving the aesthetics on beaches.
The revenue generated by tax could be used to research the impact that plastic pollution and be
used to eliminate current plastic pollution. The drawback to this option is getting businesses to
actually make the switch to biodegradable products. Although it seems technically feasible to
make the switch, the economic feasibility may not be enough to get plastic producers and
businesses to change their current ways of operation.

Recommendation

I believe the most effective way to tackle the problem of marine plastic pollution is a
combination of policy option 1 and 2. By combining the two options together, we are able to
work towards removing the current marine plastic pollution and also prevent any future plastics

17
from reaching the ocean. All three options have components that are essential to the safety of
marine life around the world and also for the overall aesthetics of beaches and coastline.

Within the plan to tax plastic production, success would rely heavily on getting
businesses and plastic producers to change the way they operate. If they eventually make the
switch to biodegradable products it would lower the amount of plastic in the market place and
lower the amount of plastic pollution being made. If businesses and plastic producers think that
the tax is not enough for them to change their ways, then we will be left in the same spot that we
began. The inability to force the change from plastic to biodegradable products is why this option
lacks any real feasibility, both economically and technically.

Policy option 1 is focused entirely on the removal of current marine plastic pollution.
This option seems like the best short-term problem that benefits both marine life and aesthetics
of beaches. However, this option lacks any policy in preventing future plastic pollution from
reaching the ocean. Policy option 2 would solve this problem by slowly having businesses switch
to biodegradable products while giving them incentives along the way. This would eventually
prevent any type of plastics from reaching the ocean while allowing equipment to clean up the
pollution that is currently in the ocean. By giving producers, consumers, and distributors enough
time to switch to biodegradable products that take no longer than 180 days to break down, we
can hope that plastic products can be phased out without a lot of problems from businesses.
Giving businesses incentives along the way will lower the economic impact they will have to
endure for making the necessary switch. Both federal and international government must work
together will companies involved in pollution reducing equipment to come up with a cost-
effective plan that meets the needs of all stakeholders; at the same time adjusting policy so that
producers and businesses that use plastic make the switch to biodegradable products that have on
impact on the earth.

Conclusion
Plastic pollution is an issue that harms marine life, people, and the overall health of our oceans.
The world’s oceans are being trashed with plastic pollution that currently will not break down for

18
hundreds of years to come. Existing policy has not done enough to mitigate pollution and must
be changed to protect the ocean for the future. After thorough analysis of existing policies, three
new policy options were identified: 1.) Equipment to clean up current marine plastic pollution,
2.) Creating a ban of single use plastic products while giving incentives to businesses and 3.)
Taxing the production of plastic. The most effective option is to combine policy option 1 and
policy option 2 together in hopes of cleaning up current marine pollution and at the same time
preventing future pollution from reaching oceans. This model can be applied to regions all over
the world to engage all stakeholders in meaningful way and achieve desired environmental
outcomes.

Literature Cited

Aliotti, J. (2018, April 28). Personal Interview

Andrady, A. L. (2011). Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin,62 (8), 1596-
1605.

Billington, M. (2018, April 9). Personal Interview

Civic Impulse. (2017). Plastic Pollution Control Act of 1987, 42 U.S.C. 100. Retrieved from:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/100/s1986

Civic Impulse. (2017). S. 362 – 109th Congress: Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act
of 2006. Retrieved from: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s362

Derraik, J. G. (2002). The Pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 44(9), 842-852. Retrieved February 17, 2018, from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X02002205.

Forester, K. (2017). The role of plastics in a circular economy: time to rethink. Retrieved March 24, 2018,
from: https://www.politico.eu/sponsored-content/the-role-of-plastics-in-a-circular-economy-time-to-
rethink/

19
Herreria, C. (2017). Huffington post: 3 incredible inventions that are cleaning our oceans. Retrieved April
26, 2018, from: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/inventions-that-clean-the-
ocean_us_5938be94e4b0b13f2c66ee01

International Maritime Organization. (2018). The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships Annex V. Retrieved from:
http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/environment/pollutionprevention/garbage/Pages/Default.aspx

Jambeck, J. R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T. R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., . . . Law, K. L. (2015).
Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science, 347 (6223), 768-771.

Logomasini, A. (2010). Plastic Pollution: Can the world solve the plastic waste problem?. Retrieved
March 24, 2018, from:
http://library.cqpress.com.library2.csumb.edu:2048/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqrglobal2010070006
&type=hitlist

Marine Defenders. (2012). Marine Debris Laws Brief History of Marine Debris. Retrieved from:
http://www.marinedefenders.com/marinedebrisfacts/laws.php

Office of the Legislative Counsel. (2014). Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, 33
U.S.C. 1401. Retrieved from:
https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/Marine%20Protection,%20Research,%20And%20Sanctuaries%20A
ct%20Of%201972.pdf

Russel, S. (2018). American Chemistry Council: To fix plastic pollution, we need to solve the right
problem. Retrieved April 26, 2018, from: https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2018/04/earth-day-2018-
solve-the-right-problem-to-fix-plastic-
pollution/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIp9K3g43X2gIVCcZkCh2B3AIyEAAYASAAEgJ8nfD_BwE

Santillo, D. (2010). Plastic Pollution: Can the world solve the plastic waste problem?. Retrieved March
24, 2018, from:
http://library.cqpress.com.library2.csumb.edu:2048/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqrglobal2010070000
&type=hitlist&num=0#top

Sheavly, S., & Register, K. (2007). Marine debris & plastics: Environmental concerns, sources, impacts
and solutions. Journal of Polymers and the Enviornment,15(4), 301-305.

20
The Ocean Cleanup. (2018). The Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Retrieved from:
https://www.theoceancleanup.com/great-pacific-garbage-patch/

The Ocean Cleanup. (2018). Technology. Retrieved from: https://www.theoceancleanup.com/technology/

The State of the Oceans: Hearing before the subcommittee on national ocean policy study, Senate, 109 th
Cong. 6 (2006) (Testimony of Conrad C. Lautenbacher) Retrieved March 24, 2018, from:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109shrg68021/pdf/CHRG-109shrg68021.pdf

United States General Accounting Office. (2000). Marine Progress Made to Reduce Marine Pollution by
Cruise Ships, but Important Issues Remain. Retrieved from: https://www.gao.gov/new.items/rc00048.pdf

University of North Texas. (2002). Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 2002, 33 U.S.C. 1251.
Retrieved from:
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc12056/m1/3/?q=ocean%20plastic%20pollution

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2017). Summary of the Clean Water Act. Retrieved
from: https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act

United States Congress. (2017). Degradable Plastics Act of 1988, 43 U.S.C. 5193. Retrieved from:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/100th-congress/house-
bill/5193?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22plastic+act%22%5D%7D&r=1

Watters, D. L., Yolkavich, M. M., Lovw, M. S., & Schroder, D. M. (2010). Assessing marine debris in
deep seafloor habitats off California. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60, 131-138.

21
22