Governing (dominating) the climate

Whilst carbon dioxide levels are the highest they have been in human history, trust in institutional regimes to solve this global issue is at the lowest. Recent climate change models have warned that an increase of 1.5°C may already result by 2030. Solving the problem simply through mitigation strategies —changing habits, adopting renewable energy, etc— seems infeasible; we probably need stronger interventions.

Scientists started to investigate other means, besides mitigation approaches, to stabilize the climate and stay within the 2°C. Two solutions gained much attention: the production of bioenergy combined with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and sulphate aerosol geoengineering (SAG). Should we favor one of the two? It might help to answer this question first: would you be the slave of a nice slave-owner?

Firstly, we need a basic understanding of the technologies. BECCS combines carbon capture and storage technology with an electric plant fuelled with biomass, including crops and forests; biomass is both used to absorb carbon and replace the use of fossil fuels. In particular, this approach allows the reuse of the land where the biomass is grown and the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere as long as the biomass is harvested sustainably. The captured CO2 can be stored under the soil, for instance in the deep ocean.

BECCS diagram —Image PNA
SAG diagram —Image China Dialogue

SAG, on the other hand, works by introducing sulphate in the atmosphere. These injections will reflect a part of the radiation coming from the sun back to space and counterbalance the warming influence of greenhouse gasses (GHG). This approach mimics the effects of volcanic eruptions whose fine dust and sulphuric droplets help cooling the planet. Sulfate aerosol could be delivered by high-altitude balloons, artillery guns, high-level aircraft, tall towers, or space elevators. The cost of this technology is very limited compared to mitigation approaches and the results could be seen in a matter of decades. At first glance these technologies look promising, but a closer look shows their shortcomings.

Both technologies could cause enormous damage to humans and the environment in case they would not work. BECCS could lead to food and freshwater shortages since it will use portions of the land devoted to agriculture. SAG might disrupt precipitation patterns. Therefore, a great deal of discussion has accompanied the emergence of these technologies. Most of the concerns around these technologies focus upon implementation and technical issues: Many scientists judge these technologies morally impermissible due to the detrimental consequences that can derive from them. These judgments are important, but they might neglect an even more important aspect of the story.

Is technology neutral?

In this article, I want to assume that these technical and implementation issues had been solved and ask whether there is an inherent feature of the technology itself that should lead policymakers to prefer the adaption of either SAG or BEECS. Simply, if there were no issues with these technologies, is there some intrinsic aspect of the technology itself that should make us favor one over the other?

First of all, we need to understand how some aspects of technology could lead us to choose one over the other. Technology, differently from what you might believe is not neutral. In fact, certain technologies, in virtue of their design, uphold certain values. Technology can hold a specific value if, in its widespread usages, it tends to promote rather than violate that value. For instance, a gas-engine car can be used in many ways, but its central uses remain transportation. Consequently, when a gas-engine car is utilized certain consequences —for instance pollution— occur, which promotes or deters certain values —i.e. sustainability—. Every technology, thus, has certain embedded consequences manifested in their central uses. Apart from economic values, technology can systematically promote or deter cultural and moral values —democracy, justice, cultural practices, etc—. Does SAG or BECCS uphold or deter certain specific value due to their specific design/implementation mechanisms?

Some parts of the world are warmed the most by human action —Image NASA

The capacity to yield power

Under the assumption that both SAG and BECCS work fine, the latter is praised for its capacity to capture carbon and store it under the terrain with the possibility of reusing the captured carbon. On the other hand, SAG does not allow to capture CO2 from the air but only reflect solar radiation. Once SAG is employed the process should be continuous and accompanied by mitigation strategies. Halting the process of injection will lead to sudden warming of the climate, known as the ‘termination shock’. We cannot see SAG as a one-off strategy but rather as a temporally extended process. SAG imposes its long-term adaption. In this sense, it can be said that SAG has an inherent tendency to be dominating.

When we use the word domination, we generally refer to its descriptive meaning: someone who dominates someone else. Domination can have a normative meaning. In this sense, domination is not simply associated with superior power but rather with the capacity to exercise one’s superior power without any external constraints. To put it simply, a slave-owner, no matter how nice he treats his slaves remains still a slave-owner. The slaves have to live with the fear that one day he might change his mind and has the capacity to threaten them. With this meaning, domination inevitably clashes with the concept of freedom: the ability to choose one’s path. Specifically, how and towards who is SAG more dominating than BEECS in virtue of its design?

The subjects of domination

Firstly, SAG is dominating towards future generations. It is normal that humans dominate future generations since they are not present yet. SAG, however, increases the magnitude of current domination over future generations because its deployment will inevitably impact the entire globe. Furthermore, SAG changes the nature of this domination. SAG makes it possible for the current generation to escape external checks on their power over future generations. Whilst the deployment of BECCS is constrained by the fact that its implementation will forcedly harm the interests of the present generations, for instance by driving the price of food up or diminishing reserves of freshwater, the deployment of SAG will just benefit the current generation by lowering global temperatures. SAG, thus, lacks any intra-generational checks. Finally, SAG results inherently dominating toward future generations since it forces them in a specific direction. As we have said, in contrast to BECCS, SAG does not eliminate GHG from the atmosphere, it simply halts the process. This, thereby, imposes future generations to comply with the technology. But SAG is not only more dominating than BECCS towards future generations.

SAG, indeed, is even more dominating towards the natural environment and non-human species than BECCS. The implementation of SAG does not meet external constraints since, up to now, there is no evidence that there is an upper limit of sulphate that can be injected in the atmosphere. On the other hand, nature presents clear limits on where the biomass can be cultivated; besides, carbon can be stored safely only in particular conditions. Similar to the case of intergenerational domination, SAG does not seem to have external checks and thus it enlarges the scope of domination over the natural environment —we have to remember that domination is not simply associated with complete control but the capacity to yield greater power—. This, in turn, could raise the bar of artificial solutions humans can adopt to shape the environment. Furthermore, as we have seen, SAG cannot be a single-shot strategy but has to perennially maintained. This means that SAG would expand the timeframe of domination over nature.

It is clear that we are warming the planet. Can we do something to avoid it? The answer is yes, of course, we can —Image Unknown Author

Ye shall not dominate

As we have seen certain technologies hold specific political, cultural, and/or moral values that make it clear that once chosen certain consequences will be more likely to happen. Certain technologies, specifically, might change the way we see the world and/or change our cultural practices. For instance, when using the gas-fueled car we experience the world in a different way than when we walk or use the bike; we see the world proceeding fast. Seemingly, technologies can change our relationship with the environment. When trying to solve climate change, choosing among the current designs of SAG and BECCS may signify choosing a particular relationship we want to have with the natural world. Still, this does not mean that the current design of SAG must be a definite one. In considering future designs, however, we must be aware that specific designs embody different values, and that satisfying all of them at the same time is not feasible. When designing we inevitably make trade-offs between the values we find most important. In order to make an accurate choice, we must make sure that the value of non-domination enters into the dialogue; because no one wants to be a slave, of not even a nice slave owner.

Related posts
array(2) { [0]=> int(899) [1]=> int(105) }
array(4) { [0]=> object(WP_Post)#1706 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(6973) ["post_author"]=> string(4) "2046" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2014-07-28 00:01:55" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2014-07-27 22:01:55" ["post_content"]=> string(4677) "No hace mucho, leí estupefacto que una persona moría devorada por un león en presencia de sus familiares, quienes, desde el coche que abandonó para fotografiar de cerca al animal, contemplaban el espectáculo aterrados. No es que tal insensatez sea un fenómeno muy común entre los visitantes de la reserva, pero creo que en algún grado la desconexión general del ser humano con el medio biológico en el cual ha evolucionado le ha hecho perder un saber instintivo cuyo vacío ha sido ocupado por una estúpida visión paternalista hacia la naturaleza. Hasta los documentales emitidos por televisión sobre los animales tienen que montarse describiendo un pequeño argumento con final feliz para el destino del animal, que no hieran el bienestar moral del espectador. W_deleonesyhombres Da qué pensar esta poca identificación entre el hombre y la naturaleza. En Girona, alguien que sufrió una fuerte indigestión denunció al ayuntamiento por dejar crecer en un parque público el tipo de setas no comestibles que ingirió. El ayuntamiento tuvo que erradicarlas de sus parques. La domesticación deliberada de la naturaleza por el hombre oculta que integramos un sistema orgánico en el que el buen funcionamiento de una de sus células se corresponde con el buen funcionamiento de células de distintas clases, que son las que permiten a ésta optimizar su potencial. Recíprocamente ésta es la que con su buen funcionamiento facilita a su alrededor que el sistema prosiga reproduciéndose con estabilidad. Nuestras especiales facultades no deberían pervertirse con la desconsideración hacia otras especies vivas, extinguiéndolas o 'humanizándolas', pues son éstas las que despiertan en nuestro cuerpo el saber instintivo y vegetativo sobre el que nuestra cognición debe asentarse para poder navegar hacia su plenitud. La perversión del sistema, o enfermedad, se evidencia cuando destruimos a nuestro alrededor las manifestaciones naturales de la vida que nos protegen psíquicamente del adormecimiento mental, del cual se aprovechan los mandatarios para infundirnos esta falsa seguridad institucional que llevó al pobre desgraciado a creer que podía fotografiar al animal salvaje 'respetuoso' con los turistas que han hecho el costoso viaje hasta ahí.Not long ago, I read shocked that a person died devoured by a lion in front of their family, who watched the show terrified in the same car that the person had abandoned for photographing the animal. This folly is not very common phenomenon among visitors to the reserve, but I think to some degree the general disconnect between human beings and the biological environment in which it has evolved, has made him lose an instinctive knowledge whose vacuum has been filled for a stupid paternalistic view toward nature. Even on television documentaries about animals must be mounted describing a small argument with happy fate for the animal, which does not hurt the moral well-being of the viewer. W_deleonesyhombres Invites reflection this little identification between man and nature. In Girona, someone who suffered severe indigestion denounced the council for letting grow into a public park inedible mushrooms. The council of City Hall had to eradicate its parks this mushrooms. The deliberate domestication of nature by humans, hides that integrate an organic system in which the proper functioning of your cells corresponds to the proper functioning of cells of different types, which are those that allow it to optimize its potential. Reciprocally with their efficient operation, facilitates around the system continues playing with stability. Our special faculties should not be perverted with disregard the other species, extinguishing or humanizing species, because they are the responsible of awaken in our body the knowledge of our instinctive and vegetative body, the place where our cognition needs settle to sail to fullness. The perversion of the system, or disease, is evident when we destroy around our natural manifestations of life that protect us psychically mental numbness, which the rulers exploit to infuse this false institutional security that led to the unfortunate man to believe that he could photograph the wild animal 'friendly' with tourists who have made the expensive trip up there." ["post_title"]=> string(71) "De leones y hombresOf lions and men" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(16) "of-lions-and-men" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2020-02-19 00:01:54" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2020-02-18 23:01:54" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(29) "http://whatonline.org/?p=6973" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } [1]=> object(WP_Post)#1741 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(2979) ["post_author"]=> string(4) "2049" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2012-07-09 00:04:33" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2012-07-08 22:04:33" ["post_content"]=> string(2081) "En tan sólo unos decenios, el hombre ha roto el equilibrio de miles de años de evolución de la Tierra y ha puesto en peligro su futuro. El riesgo es enorme y la Humanidad tiene que concienciarse de la explotación desmesurada de las riquezas del planeta y cambiar sus hábitos de consumo. Este es el argumento que llevó al fotógrafo francés Yann Arthus-Bertrand a embarcarse en tres años de trabajo para rodar el documental 'Home' (Hogar). Realizado a base de imágenes aéreas tomadas en más de 50 países, la intención del autor fue 'colocar el primer ladrillo del edificio que todos nosotros debemos reconstruir conjuntamente', según sus propias palabras. La película es gratuita y se estrenó simultáneamente en salas de cine y en Internet en junio de 2009. Actualmente está preparando una secuela, 'Home, historia de un viaje', en la que insiste sobre las heridas del planeta y explica las razones que le han llevado a volver a abordar el mismo tema.In just a few decades, man has disrupted the balance of thousands of years of the Earth's evolution of and has jeopardized his future. The risk is enormous and Humanity must become aware of the excessive exploitation of the planet's wealth and change their consumption habits. This is the argument that led to the French photographer Yann Arthus-Bertrand to embark on three years of work to shoot the documentary 'Home'. Made of aerial images taken in more than 50 countries, the author's intention was 'to place the first brick of the building that we must rebuild all together', in his own words. The film is free and was released simultaneously in theaters and on the Internet in June 2009. Currently he is working on a sequel, 'Home, story of a journey', which insists on the wounds of the world and explains the reasons that led him to get back on the same subject. " ["post_title"]=> string(70) "Hogar, dulce hogarHome, sweet home" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(15) "home-sweet-home" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2021-05-08 23:49:17" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2021-05-08 21:49:17" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(29) "http://whatonline.org/?p=2979" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } [2]=> object(WP_Post)#1705 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(1512) ["post_author"]=> string(4) "2049" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2012-05-28 00:02:48" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2012-05-27 22:02:48" ["post_content"]=> string(1447) "Neil deGrasse Tyson es un astrofísico y divulgador científico estadounidense. Actualmente es también director del Planetario Hayden en el Centro Rose para la Tierra y el Espacio e investigador asociado en el Departamento de Astrofísica del Museo Americano de Historia Natural. Desde el año 2006 es el presentador del programa de televisión de corte educativo-científico NOVA scienceNOW en el canal PBS, y su nombre suena con fuerza para conducir la secuela de la serie de televisión 'Cosmos: un viaje personal', co-creada y presentada originalmente por Carl Sagan. Un redactor de la revista Time le preguntó cuál era el hecho más asombroso que había encontrado en su estudio del Universo, y en este vídeo podemos ver su respuesta.Neil deGrasse Tyson is an American astrophysicist and science writer. Today is also the director of the Hayden Planetarium in the Rose Center for Earth and Space and a research associate in the Department of Astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History. Since 2006 is the host of educational and scientific television program NOVA scienceNOW on PBS, and his name sounds hard to drive the sequel to the television series 'Cosmos: a personal journey', co-created and originally filed by Carl Sagan. An editor of Time magazine asked him what was the most amazing fact that he had found in his study of the universe, and in this video we see his response." ["post_title"]=> string(118) "Lo más asombroso de todo el UniversoThe most outstanding fact across the Universe" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(41) "the-most-outstanding-fact-in-the-universe" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2021-06-13 14:34:37" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2021-06-13 12:34:37" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(29) "http://whatonline.org/?p=1512" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "2" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } [3]=> object(WP_Post)#1905 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(5854) ["post_author"]=> string(3) "390" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2014-04-28 00:01:42" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2014-04-27 22:01:42" ["post_content"]=> string(13314) "Los orígenes del plástico se remontan a finales del siglo XIX, pero no fue hasta 1909 el momento en que se inventó la baquelita, el primer plástico totalmente sintético de la historia. Posteriormente fueron avanzando químicamente y a partir de la segunda mitad del siglo XX, el plástico ha colonizado todas las esferas de nuestra vida, y nuestra cotidianidad está a nivel de consumo marcada por los objetos de un solo uso, en especial en la industria del envase para la alimentación humana. Hay decenas de miles de tipos específicos de plásticos, agrupados dentro de poco más de una decena de sus tipos. Tienen una vida que va de 400 a 700 años hasta degradarse y desaparecer totalmente. Sin embargo, la mayoría de ellos, son usados y fabricados para un solo uso, esto incluye a envases de todo tipo y de uso cotidiano. Es una paradoja que a nivel medioambiental está haciendo estragos y que supone un gran reto para la humanidad. W_plastico_oso
Alrededor de un 75% del plástico europeo y un 93% del estadounidense se desechan indebidamente en el entorno o se exportan a países en vías de desarrollo —Imagen Unknown Author
Si bien es cierto que adelantándose a una ley a punto de entrar en vigor, en 2011 el gigante de la alimentación Carrefour decidió dejar de repartir bolsas de plástico 'porque solo se reciclan un 10%, porque tardan más de 400 años en descomponerse y porque así muchos animales podremos respirar más tranquilos' —Foto Cecilia Duarte
En el año 2012, a nivel mundial, se produjeron 280 millones de toneladas de plástico. En Estados Unidos, el porcentaje de plásticos que se recupera frente al producido es de un 7%, en Europa del 25 %. El resto o no es reciclable, se desecha indebidamente en el entorno o se exporta a países en vías de desarrollo. Se calcula que solamente en Estados Unidos, cada cinco minutos se usan y se desechan dos millones de botellas de agua, de las cuales solo un 10% son recicladas. Cada año, más de seis millones de toneladas de basura acaban en los océanos, en su mayor parte plásticos. Y se calcula que en total puede haber más de 100 millones de toneladas de basura en suspensión en los mares y océanos de todo el mundo. La isla de la basura En el año 1997, Charles Moore, un navegante y oceanógrafo británico, descubrió una gran mancha de basura en el norte del océano Pacífico. Posteriormente se ha llamado la Isla de Basura o el séptimo continente, dado que a día de hoy tiene la superficie de tres veces España, aproximadamente 1.400.000 km2, y se estima que puede contener decenas de millones de toneladas de desechos, y sigue creciendo. Esta superficie se ha creado dada la confluencia en ese punto de dos corrientes que al arremolinarse llevan toda la basura y cuerpos flotantes tóxicos a un mismo lugar. El 80% de esta basura proviene de las costas de Japón y Estados Unidos y también de embarcaciones y puestos flotantes —como bases de extracción de petróleo— en estos océanos. Existen cuatro manchas similares, aunque de menor tamaño, en otros puntos oceánicos del mundo que provienen de otros países, pero todos los mares y océanos del mundo están contaminados por este material. La mayoría de los plásticos que se concentran en estas manchas son de tipo fotodegradables, su propia degradación hace que se transformen en minúsculas partículas hasta un nivel molecular y viajan por las corrientes marinas de todo el globo. Dado su minúsculo tamaño, se confunde con el zooplancton, siendo ingerido por las medusas y otros pequeños seres invertebrados y ellos a su vez ingeridos por otros animales marinos. En la superficie marina de estas zonas contaminadas, según diversas investigaciones, hay más partículas de este tipo que zooplancton. También peces, grandes cetáceos y sobre todo aves ingieren plásticos de larga duración, algunos muriendo a causa de su ingesta, otros siendo ingeridos por otros animales con dichos materiales dentro de sus cuerpos. De este modo, el plástico entra —ha entrado ya— en la cadena alimentaria de todo el ecosistema, incluida por supuesto la del ser humano, teniendo esto incalculables impactos para nuestra salud. Nuestro propio modo de vida y de consumo afecta a nuestra salud, y comemos lo que tiramos. Inverosímil pero real paradoja. W_usarytirar
Increíble pero cierto —Foto Chris Jordan
Cada año un millón de aves marinas y 100.000 animales marinos, entre ellos delfines, tortugas, peces y grandes cetáceos mueren por la contaminación de plásticos. Y a nivel ecosistémico es incalculable la cantidad de especies que están afectadas por la contaminación marina de residuos plásticos y químicos humanos. Todo esto sin sumar el impacto de la pesca marina realizada de manera no sostenible. Por otra parte, recientemente, en 2013, la OMS (Organización Mundial de la Salud) y la UNEP (Programa de Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente) publicaron un informe donde alertaron de los peligros de algunas sustancias químicas —cosmética y protección solar sobre todo, parabenos y otros—, entre ellas el Bisfenol A, presente en objetos, envases y muchos plásticos de envase alimentario de un solo uso. Estas sustancias funcionan como disruptores endocrinos y se vinculan a trastornos endocrinos propiamente, algunos tipos de tumores, funcionamiento cerebral y de fertilidad. En animales concluyen que los disruptores pueden estar vinculados a caídas demográficas que se han apreciado en los últimos años en algunas especies. Los han definido como amenaza global para todas las especies y para el medio ambiente. Por todos los motivos descritos son muchas las organizaciones, como la Environmental Cleanup Coalition, o la Plastic Pollution Coalition, que se ocupan de la misión de difundir ideas y desarrollar acciones para solucionar el problema que ha generado el invento del siglo XX. La alimentación de proximidad y local, la reducción de envases y bolsas y la participación en proyectos de limpieza son algunas de las claves que plantean. Sin embargo, el reto como Humanidad para con nuestro medio y para con todos los que lo habitamos es, a día de hoy, oceánico.The origins of the plastic back to the late nineteenth century, but it was not until 1909 that bakelite, the first completely synthetic plastic invented of the history. They were advancing chemically and since the second half of the twentieth century the plastic has colonized all areas of our lives and our everyday and is conditioned  the objects of single use, especially in the packaging industry for food. There are tens of thousands of specific types of plastics grouped into little more than a dozen types. They have a life that goes from 400 to 700 years to degrade and disappear completely. However, most of them are used and manufactured for single use, this includes all packaging and all kinds of daily use. It is a paradox that is ravaging environmental level and is a great challenge for Humanity. W_plastico_oso
Around 75% of European and 93% of American plastic are improperly discarded in the environment or exported to developing countries —Photo Unknown Author
In 2012, worldwide, there were 280 milions of tons of plastic. In the United States the percentage of recovered plastics produced is compared with a 7%, 25% in Europe. The rest or is not recyclable, is improperly disposed of in the environment or is exported to developing countries. It is estimated that in the US alone, every five minutes are used and two million water bottles are discarded, of which only 10% are recycled. Each year more than six million tons of trash end up in the oceans, most plastics part. And it is estimated that in total may be more than 100 million tons of waste suspended in the seas. In 1997, Charles Moore, a British oceanographer and navigator, discovered a big garbage patch in the North Pacific Ocean. Later called Garbage Island or The Seventh Continent, since today is three times the area of ​​Spain, approximately 1.400.000 km2, and is estimated to contain tens of millions of tons of waste and growing. This area was created by the collision of two streams that create a vortex that concentrates all the garbage floating toxic bodies at one place. 80% of this garbage comes from the coast of Japan and the United States as well as boats and floating positions —as base oil extraction— in these oceans. There are four similar spots in other parts of the world ocean smaller, and come from other countries, but all the seas and oceans of the world are contaminated by this material. Most plastics are concentrated in these spots are photodegradable type, its own degradation causes it to turn into tiny particles to a molecular level and the particles travel by sea currents around the globe. Given its small size, is mistaken for zooplankton, being eaten by jellyfish and other small invertebrates and they in turn ingested by marine creatures. Sea surface from these polluted areas, according to research there are more particles of this type that zooplankton. Also the fishes, especially large cetaceans and birds ingest plastic long lasting, some die because eat plástics and others don't die but are eaten by other animals with this materials inside. For this reason, the plastic has entered —and has started— in the food chain of the entire ecosystem, including of course the human being, with this incalculable impacts on our health. Our own way of living and consumption affects our health, and we eat what we throw away. Unlikely but true paradox. W_usarytirar
Unbelievable but true —Photo Chris Jordan
Each year , one million seabirds and 100.000 marine animals including dolphins, turtles, fish and large whales die from plastic pollution. And untold numbers of species at the ecosystem level are affected by marine pollution and human waste plastics and chemicals. All this without adding the impact of marine fisheries unsustainably. Moreover, recently in 2013, the WHO (World Health Organization) and UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) published a report in which they warned of the dangers of some chemicals —cosmetics and sunscreen especially parabens and others—, including Bisfenol A, present in many plastic containers and food packaging single use. These substances act as endocrine disruptors, and the investigations link this to endocrine disorders, certain types of tumors, brain function and fertility. In the case of animals, the investigation conclude the disruptors its probably the cause of the demographic problems in some species in recent times. They have been defined as a global threat to all species and the environment. For all the reasons described many organizations such as the Environmental Cleanup Coalition or Coalition Plastic Pollution, dealing with the mission of spreading ideas and develop actions to the problem that generated the invention of the twentieth century. The power of proximity and local reduction of packaging and bags and participation in cleanup projects are some of the key posed, however the challenge as humanity to our environment and to all those who inhabit is actually, oceanic." ["post_title"]=> string(104) "Nos comemos el plástico que tiramosWe eat the plastic we throw away" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(32) "we-eat-the-plastic-we-throw-away" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2020-03-09 15:33:55" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2020-03-09 14:33:55" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(29) "http://whatonline.org/?p=5854" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } }