Fake news is killing the oceans!

Summary: Nothing shows America’s broken vision like the persistence of fake news propaganda despite years of debunking by experts. This leaves us divided and unable to respond to our problems, as neither Left nor Right clearly see the world. “We’re choking the ocean with plastic” is one such tale, showing how real problems become masked by myths. Meanwhile, overfishing, pollution, and habitat destruction are wrecking the oceans. I and many others wrote about this three years ago, and this fake news still appears in headlines.

Great Pacific Garbage Patch

The large amount of plastic waste in the oceans was first reported by Edward J. Carpenter and K. L. Smith Jr. in “Plastics on the Sargasso Sea Surface” (Science, 17 March 1972): “Their occurrence was widespread. … Most of the pieces were hard, white cylindrical pellets, about 0.25 to 0.5 cm {0.1 – .2″} in diameter…”. That debris accumulated in specific areas of the Pacific was predicted in a paper by Robert Day et al at a 1989 NOAA conference. But that was science, and so of little use to activists and click-starved journalists.

The first recorded sighting of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch was by oceanographer Charles J. Moore (heir to oil wealth, now an environmental activist) when sailing home after a race in 1999. Here is how he describes it (from “Trashed”, Natural History, Nov 2003). Too bad he did not bring a camera to record it!

“Day after day, Alguita was the only vehicle on a highway without landmarks, stretching from horizon to horizon. Yet as I gazed from the deck at the surface of what ought to have been a pristine ocean, I was confronted, as far as the eye could see, with the sight of plastic.

“It seemed unbelievable, but I never found a clear spot. In the week it took to cross the subtropical high, no matter what time of day I looked, plastic debris was floating everywhere: bottles, bottle caps, wrappers, fragments. Months later, after I discussed what I had seen with the oceanographer Curtis Ebbesmeyer, perhaps the world’s leading expert on flotsam, he began referring to the area as the “eastern garbage patch.” But “patch” doesn’t begin to convey the reality. Ebbesmeyer has estimated that the area, nearly covered with floating plastic debris, is roughly the size of Texas.”

This is fake news, and so quickly went viral. There are patches of debris, but no such masses of plastic “as far as the eye can see”. There is much plastic, but most is barely visible to the eye – and lies under the ocean’s surface.

Like all powerful fake news stories, it grew over time. See Moore’s 2014 op-ed in the New York Times: “Choking the Oceans with Plastic” — “We even came upon a floating island bolstered by dozens of plastic buoys used in oyster aquaculture that had solid areas you could walk on.” Again, no photo of the floating island, let alone of him walking on it.

Moore becomes somewhat more accurate when confronted by a knowledgeable journalist, such as Suzanne Bohan in this 2011 article: “It’s not something you can walk on, or see from a satellite. We’ve always tried to dispel that fact,” Or in this quote of him from The Independent: “The original idea that people had was that it was an island of plastic garbage that you could almost walk on. It is not quite like that. It is almost like a plastic soup. It is endless for an area that is maybe twice the size as continental United States.”

Great Pacific Garbage Patch
From the San Jose Mercury News, 3 August 2009.

It is as large as Texas. Or the continental US. Or twice that!

“Estimates of size range from 700,000 square kilometres (270,000 sq mi) (about the size of Texas) to more than 15,000,000 square kilometres (5,800,000 sq mi) (0.41% to 8.1% of the size of the Pacific Ocean), or, in some media reports, up to “twice the size of the continental United States”.”

Wikipedia entry about The Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

From a 2008 interview of Charles Moore  by NPR, “Garbage Mass Is Growing in the Pacific“: “If something isn’t done, he says, the island will increase in size by a factor of ten every two to three years — making in time something more akin to an actual, solid island.” He predicted that it would grow 20x – 30x from 2008 to now. Since it does not exist (as he describes it), it did not do so. But activists’ failed predictions do not stop the spread of their stories.

Journalists love these stories, printing lurid descriptions of the rapidly growing Texas-sized (or twice-Texas-sized) garbage patches (e.g., National Geographic, San Jose Mercury News, The Guardian, New York Times). Unfortunately scientists ruined the fun, as in this by NOAA:  “How Big Is the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch”? Science vs. Myth” (7 Feb 2013)…

“While everything may be bigger in Texas, some reports about the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” would lead you to believe that this marine mass of plastic is bigger than Texas – maybe twice as big as the Lone Star State, or even twice as big as the continental U.S. …For the record, no scientifically sound estimates exist for the size or mass of these garbage patches.”

That conclusion rests on a firm foundation of studies such as this in Science (2010), this in PNAS (July 2014; summary here), and this in Science (Feb 2015; ungated copy here). For more cold water on the fun see this summary of the research by Angelicque White (asst prof of oceanography at Oregon State).

That NOAA article says something else of interest about this myth, discussing articles by Carey Morishige of NOAA’s Marine Debris Program

“(1)  There is no “garbage patch,” a name which conjures images of a floating landfill in the middle of the ocean, with miles of bobbing plastic bottles and rogue yogurt cups. …While it’s true that these areas have a higher concentration of plastic than other parts of the ocean, much of the debris found in these areas are small bits of plastic (microplastics) that are suspended throughout the water column. A comparison I like to use is that the debris is more like flecks of pepper floating throughout a bowl of soup, rather than a skim of fat that accumulates (or sits) on the surface.

“(2)  There are many “garbage patches,” and by that, we mean that trash congregates to various degrees in numerous parts of the Pacific and the rest of the ocean. These natural gathering points appear where rotating currents, winds, and other ocean features converge to accumulate marine debris, as well as plankton, seaweed, and other sea life.”

But we have photographs!

Ripley's photo of the Pacific Garbage Patch, 26 July 2015

Activists helped propagate the story by providing photographs of the Garbage Patch, usually photos of coastal areas (not the deep ocean) — often after a storm or other event washed debris from shore. The above photo was taken in Wakuya after the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake. The photo at the top is explained in “Lies You’ve Been Told About the Pacific Garbage Patch” by Annalee Newitz at iO9, May 2012.

“You’ve probably heard of the ‘Pacific garbage patch,’ also called the ‘trash vortex.’ It’s a region of the North Pacific ocean where the northern jet stream and the southern trade winds, moving opposite directions, create a vast, gently circling region of water called the North Pacific Gyre — and at its center, there are tons of plastic garbage. You may even have seen this picture of the garbage patch, above — right? Wrong.

“That image, widely mislabeled as a shot of the Pacific garbage patch, is actually from Manila harbor. And it’s just one of many misconceptions the public has about what’s really happening to plastics in the ocean. We talked with Scripps Institution marine biologist Miriam Goldstein, who has just completed a study of how plastic is changing the ecosystem in the North Pacific Gyre, about myths and realities of the Pacific garbage patch.

“‘That picture of the guy in the canoe has been following me around my whole career! I think it’s an example of media telephone, where somebody wanted something dramatic to illustrate their story – and then through the magic of the internet, the picture got mislabeled. We have never seen anything like that picture. I’ve never seen it personally, and we’ve never seen it on satellite.'”

Scientists have a different concern

Today research focuses on the effects of the large quantities of plastic – mostly very small pieces – on the ocean ecosystem, and on the effects of the chemicals produced by their breakdown. How bad is this? It is a frontier in ocean science, well worth attention. But little is known now about the rates about these processes. Activists, as always, describe these as certain doom – substituting dystopian fiction for science.

Where does the plastic come from?

The fake news implies that American and the other developed nations are the bad guys. The research disagrees. See this from “Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean” by Jenna R. Jambeck et al. in Science, 13 February 2015 (open copy here). The top polluter is China: 28% of mismanaged plastic waste. The top developed nation is the USA at #20: 1%. A latter paper found even lower contributions from the developed nations: “River plastic emissions to the world’s oceans” by Laurent C. M. Lebreton et al. in Nature Communications, 7 June 2017. Banning plastic straws in America won’t do much.

Sources of Plastic Waste in Oceans

Now for some good news!

A bacterium that degrades and assimilates poly(ethylene terephthalate)” by Shosuke Yoshida el al. in Science, 11 March 2016 — Abstract:

“Some bacteria think plastic is fantastic Bacteria isolated from outside a bottle-recycling facility can break down and metabolize plastic. The proliferation of plastics in consumer products, from bottles to clothing, has resulted in the release of countless tons of plastics into the environment. Yoshida et al. show how the biodegradation of plastics by specialized bacteria could be a viable bioremediation strategy (see the Perspective by Bornscheuer). The new species, Ideonella sakaiensis, breaks down the plastic by using two enzymes to hydrolyze PET and a primary reaction intermediate, eventually yielding basic building blocks for growth.”

For more about this see “Could a new plastic-eating bacteria help combat this pollution scourge?” in The Guardian, 10 March 2016 — “Scientists have discovered a species of bacteria capable of breaking down commonly used PET plastic but remain unsure of its potential applications.”


Scientists have debunked the exaggerated stories about the Great Garbage Patch, but more people see the myth than the corrections. Meanwhile science continues.

We do know that overfishing and pollution are wrecking the ocean, creating one of our most serious ecological problems. We need to act soon. But the flood of exaggerations and lies about environmental problems – such as the plastic garbage plastics – further erode people’s already low confidence in our institutions and distract attention from real and serious problems. This makes it more difficult for us to see and respond to the many challenges we face.

Some of the many warnings about threats to the oceans

(a)  Articles

  1. Globalization, Roving Bandits, and Marine Resources“, Science, Boris Worm et al, 17 March 2006
  2. Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services“, Boris Worm et al, Science, 3 November 2006 – The author’s forecast that unless global policies change, 100% of seafood-producing species stocks will collapse by 2048.
  3. Can Catch Shares Prevent Fisheries Collapse?“, Costello et al, Science 19 September 2008
  4. Science Lags on Saving the Arctic From Oil Spills“, Michael Torrice, Science, 11 September 2009
  5. Ecologists fear Antarctic krill crisis“, Nature, 1 September 2010 — “Fishing industry threatens to destabilize stocks”
  6. Net gains: Estimating the scale of the problem may allow us to arrest dangerous levels of overfishing“, Nature, 20 February 2013
  7. Pollution and overfishing are destroying this vital resource“, Philipp Neubauer et al, Science, 19 April 2013

(b)  Websites with information about threats to the oceans

  1. Overfishing: Plenty of Fish in the Sea? Not Always, National Geographic website — articles, videos, graphics
  2. Overfishing.org

For More Information

See the excerpts and links in this 41 page report about the plastics ocean armageddon propaganda.

Ideas! For shopping ideas see my recommended books and films at Amazon.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See these all posts about our dying oceans, especially these…

Defend The Ocean
Los Angeles Times, June 2012. Photo by Lou Dematteis/Spectral Q.

16 thoughts on “Fake news is killing the oceans!”

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      Few people care about climate change, and even less about the science of climate change. The Left screams about the world ending, and denies the science – and no longer even attempts to defend their fictions. The Right has moved on to new delusions, except for a few hard-core science deniers.

      The big middle has moved on. That’s why neither candidate in 2016 bothered mentioning climate change.

    2. Larry,

      “The big middle has moved on. That’s why neither candidate in 2016 bothered mentioning climate change.”

      Wherever I am, Trump’s comments on AGW global warming as being BS was one of the main reasons I voted for him.

      1. Larry Kummer, Editor


        As in so many things, Trump is on all sides of the climate change debate. That’s because he has feelings, not ideas or positions, on many issues.

        In 2009 he was part of a business coalition pressuring President Obama to act swiftly:

        “If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.”

        In November 2012 he he tweeted that it was a Chinese plot to make the US less competitive. In a December 2015 campaign rally he said it was a money-making “hoax”.

        In a Novembe 2016 NYT interview he said he had “an open mind” and that “there is some connectivity” between human activity and climate change.

        Now he says climate change is not a hoax, but he is not sure of its source.

        If more convenient for corporations, he’ll probably change course again.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      “You can repeat yourself …”

      Reading is your friend! Try it, and you will see those posts present different information about the deteriorating condition of our oceans. Other than this post, which I clearly state is a repeat from 2015.

      “before people stop engaging…”

      Absolutely! All serious problems should be mentioned only once! Think how much briefer newspapers would be! /s

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      Re: Green New Deal

      There are lots of crackpot ideas out there. They often poll well. It’s how great nations willingly – even enthusiastically – throw themselves into ditches. This happens much more often than defeat by external foes.

      This proposal shows a remarkable ignorance about what made the New Deal work: the massive under-utilization of the US economy during the Great Depression, and low government debt levels. As we should expect from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

    2. You’re probably right. Talking about “game” and men’s rights activism is more your thing (which is very cool and not pathetic, btw).

      1. Larry Kummer, Editor


        That is a childish insult. Reading is your friend. You could learn about scientists’ warnings of the oceans’ peril (see the For More Info section in this post). From the posts here you could learn about sociologists’ work on America’s changing gender relationships (e.g., sociologist Mark Regnerus work here and here).

        There is an obvious explanation for your unhappiness with information about America’s gender revolution.

        “People subject disconfirming information to greater scrutiny and skepticism than confirming information.”
        — Sociologist Duncan J. Watts in Everything Is Obvious Once You Know the Answer (2011).

  1. I have long thought that the climate stories for reefs and such have probably had some degree of exaggeration, or at least of being an extremely broad and inaccurate estimate. Diminished, perhaps beyond our ability to repair even with more advanced technology? Sure. Outright and inevitably destroyed completely? Ehhhh.

    I might have linked this in the past, but I’ll link it again: University of Washington group on sustainable fisheries has optimism, especially under things below RCP 8.5 https://sustainablefisheries-uw.org/optimism-for-fisheries-under-climate-change/ In addition to this it explains the RCP concepts and so on better than just about anything else I’ve seen published for a lay audience.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      RCP8.5 is the worst case used in AR5. As a worst case scenario should be, it is horrific – but several steps beyond improbable. Its use to scare people is one reason the “climate change movement” has failed. I and hundreds of others have written about this extensively. Yet they continue to use it, doubling down on failure.

  2. Where is the fuss? I recently walked from Nova Scotia to Galway without getting my boots wet. Why build a transoceanic bridge when the plastic does all the work for you?

  3. Just got to this post and I know posting this late in the game is in some respects worthless, but I have a question you might be able to illuminate so I figured I’d write it.

    One of the rebuttals to taking action here is that developed countries don’t cause most of the plastic pollution. The thing I wonder is whether this takes into account how most developed countries ship their plastics elsewhere (mostly South East Asia I think) to be recycled. (kind of similar to how worst emissions by country changes if you look at consumption vs production).

    My guess is it’s probably a marginal impact on their pollution rate, but I have no idea and have not seen any breakdown of home grown versus imported sources of pollution.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor

      The Murr,

      Good question! My guess (guess!) is the same as yours: the ocean plastic discharges from China and the less developed nations is mostly domestic in origin. SO we can attempt to influence them, but little else.

      California banning straws will have a microscopic effect on the annual discharge.

  4. Pingback: Fake news: is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch so Great? – Medi(A)broad

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top
%d bloggers like this: