For many years, the population has heard about the impact of human-caused pollution and its daily impact on nature. Although many NGOs, environmentalists, news outlets, and the public themselves raise awareness about these impacts, many choose to dismiss it as a minor issue or are unaware of the true scale of this problem.
Among various types of problems, from the release of harmful gases into the atmosphere to the discharge of sewage and wastewater into the oceans, one specific “villain” has been increasingly highlighted in this process that could gradually destroy the oceans once and for all: plastic pollution.
Currently, around 70% of planet Earth’s surface area is occupied by seas. However, considering the exorbitant amount of plastics released into the oceans, it won’t be long before marine life is wiped out and several species become extinct.
The situation has become so catastrophic that in 1997, American navigator and oceanographer Charles Moore found enormous amounts of plastic floating in the open ocean in a gigantic area of the North Pacific, between Hawaii and California, which became known as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. These so-called “plastic islands” consist of immense concentrations of trash in the ocean, resulting from the movement of currents that carry waste improperly discarded by humans to these specific points. This Pacific patch alone is estimated to currently cover more than 1.6 million square kilometers, exceeding the area of the state of Amazonas.
To encourage reflection and raise awareness of the importance of rethinking human behavior toward the environment, we’ve included interviews with sources such as biologist Victor Basílio and biology student Rafaela Mojon . Check them out below and share!
The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is often called a “plastic island,” but it’s actually more like a vast soup of invisible fragments mixed with the sea. How would you describe the true visual and ecological impact of this pollution to someone who’s never seen it?
VICTOR BASÍLIO – We call it an “island” because it’s an absurd concentration of trash, mostly plastic, but also various other floating materials. When we talk about an island, many people imagine something with relief, visible from afar. But that’s not the case: it’s something that sits on the surface of the water, in the mirror. From afar, looking at the horizon, you can’t see it. Only when you see it from above do you appreciate its true dimensions. It’s so large that it can be seen by satellites.
The ecological impact is devastating. Some of the trash accumulates there, but it also breaks off and continues into the sea. Animals get entangled in packaging, bags, and lines. There have been cases of fish drowning inside packaging—which is surreal. Many animals ingest plastic, thinking it’s food: whales, sperm whales, and seabirds like albatrosses. In the case of albatrosses, for example, they end up feeding their young bottle caps and packaging instead of food, which leads to the death of the young. Furthermore, turtles can become entangled in objects and grow deformed, and marine mammals, such as sea lions, can be mutilated by trash stuck to their bodies. Not to mention chemical pollution: sealed packaging containing products leaks and contaminates the water. The ecological impact of marine litter is infinite.
RAFAELA MOJON – This patch isn’t a solid island, but rather a kind of “soup” made up of thousands of tiny pieces of plastic. From a distance, they seem almost invisible, but up close, we find bottle caps, fishing lines, and microplastics. The latter are even more worrying, as they stick to algae and end up being ingested by marine animals, carrying toxic substances into the food chain. The visual impact is deceiving, but the ecological impact is profound, as this “soup” is intertwined with the base of marine life.
An estimated 11 million tons of plastic are dumped into the oceans each year, and this number continues to grow. In your opinion, why are we still so slow to adopt effective solutions to curb this constant flow of waste?
VICTOR BASÍLIO – Humans create things first, and only then consider their impact. And once they discover the impact, taking action costs money. And no one wants to invest in something that doesn’t generate a financial return. Recycling, for example, requires a lot of investment and generates little return, often breaking even. In a world where money speaks louder, most people don’t care about doing it right.
There are technological solutions—machines that collect trash from rivers and oceans, bacteria that consume plastic, among others—but because they don’t generate immediate profits, they don’t receive investment. So pollution continues to increase. The slow pace of solving the problem isn’t due to a lack of technology, but rather a lack of economic interest.
RAFAELA MOJON – We’re slow because plastic is cheap and convenient, and the cost of disposal is “hidden” in nature and public services. Furthermore, consumption is stimulated by social media, which constantly encourages the purchase of new products, almost always packaged in plastic. Another problem is the lack of information: many people don’t know how to reduce their use of this material or how to dispose of it properly. Thus, we remain trapped in a cycle of production, consumption, and disposal that favors pollution.
One of the biggest challenges in removing these spills is the risk of harming biodiversity, as the plastic mixes with plankton and other vital organisms. What possible actions should be taken to clean up the oceans and protect these fragile ecosystems?
VICTOR BASÍLIO – Trash must be removed from everywhere: the sea, forests, beaches, urban environments. It is not beneficial under any circumstances. The impact on biodiversity is enormous. If removed, nature will always be better able to balance and regenerate.
RAFAELA MOJON – One way to clean the oceans without harming animals is to focus on places where trash is concentrated, such as rivers, ports, and areas of the sea with the most plastic. Floating barriers and boats can collect large objects, such as bottles, nets, and buoys, but very small filters should be avoided to avoid removing plankton, which serves as food for fish. Another very important measure is investing in basic sanitation, because a lot of plastic reaches the sea through sewage and untreated rivers. It’s also essential to recover lost fishing nets, create protected areas in the sea, and closely monitor pollution to ensure that the cleanup is efficient and safe for marine life.
Turtles, birds, and fish are just a few examples of the species that mistake plastic for food and end up dying. How does this kind of silent tragedy affect the balance of marine life and, consequently, our own food security?
VICTOR BASÍLIO – Plastic causes not only physical pollution, but also chemical pollution. It enters the food chain: one organism ingests it, another feeds on it, and so the pollution becomes concentrated. When it reaches fish at the top of the food chain—and then us, who consume them—the concentration is extremely high. This increases the risk of diseases like cancer.
This cascading effect also generates population imbalances. Marine predators, such as birds, decline in number, which increases the population of fish that would otherwise be consumed, and so on. Nature strives for balance, but trash disrupts this dynamic. In some cases, the impacts reach global scales. It’s still difficult to measure how far this will go, but the effects are already very serious.
RAFAELA MOJON – When turtles, birds, and fish mistake plastic for food, they end up dying of starvation, suffocation, or poisoning. This doesn’t just affect the animals: it disrupts the food chain and harms other species that depend on them. With fewer fish and healthy marine life, fishing becomes more difficult, which can affect the diet and income of people who depend on the sea. It’s a silent problem, but one that has a direct impact on everyone’s lives.
Several projects are trying to develop ways to capture larger waste without harming biodiversity. In your opinion, to what extent can these technologies be part of the solution, and what still needs to be done to expand the positive impact of these initiatives?
VICTOR BASÍLIO – When people really want to solve problems, they do it the right way. Automatic waste collection technologies, for example, work, but they also pose small risks—noise, vibration, visual pollution, and the possibility of accidents with animals. Still, the benefits outweigh the risks. The problem is the lack of interest in investing, because there’s no financial return. Some companies only take superficial actions to appear environmentally friendly. But real change depends on political and economic interest.
RAFAELA MOJON – Technologies that capture marine debris are very helpful, especially for large objects, but they still don’t solve everything, because microplastics remain widespread. For these solutions to have a greater impact, we need more investment, a larger scale of operations, and also education and prevention, so that less plastic reaches the ocean from the start. Technology alone isn’t enough; action is needed at all levels.
There’s a lot of talk about collecting accumulated plastic, but experts emphasize: the key is preventing it from reaching the ocean. What are the most urgent changes you believe society needs to adopt—whether as individuals, governments, or industries—to truly turn this around?
VICTOR BASÍLIO – It’s not a matter of choosing between removing existing waste or preventing more from arriving. Action is needed on both fronts. Industries must be responsible for the packaging they place on the market. Incentive programs, such as returning packaging in exchange for discounts, should be the norm. Otherwise, companies will continue producing without concern.
The government should impose stricter regulations, such as mandating the manufacture of biodegradable packaging or reverse logistics. Hefty fines would force companies to change. In the meantime, the burden falls on selective waste collection, which can’t handle the absurd amount of waste. Plastic bags and straws are good examples: they’re often replaced with biodegradable options, but still packaged in regular plastic. In other words, all steps need to be aligned.
RAFAELA MOJON – The most important thing is to prevent plastic from reaching the ocean. To achieve this, everyone can reduce their use of disposable items, reuse products, and separate waste properly. Governments need to invest in basic sanitation, ensure sewage treatment, and create stricter laws that cover industries for the waste they produce. Companies, in turn, must use recyclable or reusable packaging and take responsibility for what they sell. Preventing pollution is always better than trying to clean it up later.
Finally, there’s much talk about the risk of this pollution spreading and the oceans becoming completely compromised, despite the fact that approximately 71% of Earth’s surface is covered by them. Regarding this assertion that the oceans could eventually become 100% compromised, is that even possible given the rate at which pollution has spread?
VICTOR BASÍLIO – Many experts say that even if humans become extinct, the planet will continue. I don’t like this argument because it seems to justify our mistakes. But the fact is that the ocean is already compromised, and this affects us, human beings.
Predatory fishing is a prime example: gigantic nets drag everything along, destroying entire ecosystems. This leads to consequences such as sharks approaching the coast in search of food, increasing attacks. This isn’t because they want to attack people, but because of a lack of food.
Other factors further aggravate the situation: pollution, rising temperatures, coral bleaching, and the destruction of mangroves—which are nurseries for marine species. As a result, the natural system is collapsing. Brazil still has abundant resources, but a drastic reduction compared to decades ago is already evident. The same goes for water: it won’t run out, but its use and pollution are already generating a crisis in availability. The problem isn’t a lack of resources, but how we use and waste them.
Understanding this is crucial, but also distressing. The more we learn, the more we see the magnitude of the human impact and how solutions are hampered by a lack of political and economic will.
RAFAELA MOJON – Saying that the oceans could be completely destroyed is an exaggeration, but pollution is already affecting a large portion of them. If we don’t change, we could lose many marine ecosystems, harming fish, corals, and birds, and impacting fishing and human food supplies. The good news is that with swift action—such as reducing plastic, improving sanitation, and protecting marine areas—we can still reverse much of the damage and preserve ocean life.