Analyzing SDG 6: A Microscopic Look at Microplastics
By: Advocacy
Tags: Clean Water, Climate Action, Sustainable Development

By Ana Lipton, UNA-NCA Advocacy Fellow

UN Sustainable Development Goal 6 addresses the lack of access to clean water and sanitation faced by 30% and 60% of people, respectively. Microplastics are not addressed explicitly within the SDGs but are an impediment to the goals outlined in SDG 6: microplastics carry toxins and pollute water-based ecosystems, threatening biodiversity (SDGs 6.3, 6.6,) and touched on in SDG 14, Life Under Water (14.1). One of the SDG 6 targets is to “implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate”; due to the nature of water currents, microplastics have become a global problem and require a global solution.

The current situation mimics Garrett Hardin’s tragedy of the commons situation: individual actors will exploit a shared resource to benefit in the short term and at a cost to the public in the long run. When dealing with common land (or in this case, water), cooperation needs to be pursued by all actors — if only one abuses their access, the commons deteriorate. Transboundary agreements regarding water policy have been successful when mediated by a third party authority toward a shared goal. The principle of working together for a shared benefit is one of the UN’s founding principles. The role of water — and now microplastics — will be central in multilateral structures moving forward.

Microplastics have a diameter of fewer than 5 millimeters. They are produced by and found within various materials, such as tiny plastic beads, plastic fibers, and large plastics that break down into smaller fragments. Every year, millions of pieces of plastics escape wastewater treatment plant filters and wind up in rivers and oceans, where they pose a threat to aquatic life.

The chemical pollutants found in microplastics create a ‘toxic pellet’ that flows downstream in rivers and can then be flushed into the ocean, posing a further threat to marine life and organisms higher up the food chain. In a review of 150 specimens of fish, nearly 50% had digested microplastics; the species sampled included seabass and mackerel, typically consumed by humans. The fish ingest microplastics, which then get passed on to humans via bioaccumulation.

Microplastics’ toxicity is relatively new research; microplastics themselves only became pervasive when microbeads were incorporated into beauty regimes for cleansers and toothpaste. Since as early as 2009, studies have indicated that microplastics release chemicals into the surrounding wildlife. Since then, further research has verified that microplastics cause chemical and neurological toxicity.

How can something so small inflict so much damage?

It’s the motion of the ocean, not the size of the wave.

Microplastics are fundamentally still plastic — they take hundreds of years to break down. Even ‘biodegradable plastics’ only break down when exposed to too high temperatures — something that would only happen in industrial or volcanic settings. As a result, we and future generations will likely be dealing with microplastics for the foreseeable future.

Their small size also makes it more challenging to track and realize microplastics’ presence without laboratory equipment. When consumed by aquatic life and subsequently consumed by people, microplastics are undetectable by physical touch or taste. Therefore people are unlikely to notice if they have ingested microplastics indirectly. The people most likely to be exposed are those who fish for themselves instead of purchasing farm-sourced fish grown in a controlled environment. These tend to be already marginalized groups vulnerable to health problems with less than adequate access to healthcare.

Scientists are still studying microplastics’ effect on human health and need to conduct more trials before reaching a definite conclusion. Regarding biodiversity, microplastics have a significant impact on aquatic biodiversity for two reasons: firstly, when consumed by fish, neurotoxins are released. Because plastic is indigestible, it takes up space typically used to absorb food that provides necessary nutrients. Secondly, microplastics can act as a mode of transport for invasive species. For example, suppose a non-native algae specimen enters a new environment after being carried on a microplastic by currents. In that case, it can out-compete local species for space, food, or sunlight.

Why is this relevant to the US?

An estimated three-fourths of America’s water is from surface water; it is the most readily available water supply and the most exposed and vulnerable to its surroundings. Slow-moving waters are at higher risk of keeping microplastics in their system because plastics have time to sink or be pushed into shallow waters. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funds research to learn more about microplastics, including their location and effects on the environment. In their 2013 study, the Initiative found 112,000 particles per square mile in the Great Lakes alone — a number has almost certainly increased since then.

The Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 was passed under the Obama Administration to combat the number of microplastics in water. The Act banned the production of microbead utilizing cosmetics beginning in 2017. Microplastics eventually enter international waters where they congregate in gyres, ocean columns caused by currents. There are five significant gyres globally, including the North Pacific gyre, which attracted public attention in 2009 for its “garbage patch” of plastics congregated between Hawaii and the Californian coast.

NOAA Marine Debris Program

Why is this relevant to the Potomac River area?

Washington D.C. water has been tested regularly since the 2001 lead crisis that showed elevated lead particles in drinking water. Private property owners can choose to have their water tested or not. As a result, most studies on water quality in the Potomac area have focused on lead and other metal content due to high lead history. The EPA enforces the Lead and Copper Rule, which regulates public pipes’ respective levels and randomly tests 100+ randomly selected private homes.

The EPA is increasing monitoring microplastic levels in the water, and individual NGOs as more information about microplastics is uncovered, and more efficient collection methods are created.

What you can do to minimize your impact:

Purchase less plastic! When less plastic is purchased, less plastic is thrown away, and therefore less ends up in the water system. Organic materials such as cotton and bamboo are much more biodegradable and can usually fulfill their purposes’ equally well as plastic. If you do purchase something plastic, reuse it! Recycling plastic can only go so far — plastics take centuries to biodegrade naturally. Hence, the plastic can’t be repurposed and often sits in landfills and transported to waterways. Furthermore, not all plastic is recyclable, including straws, coffee cups, and plastic bags. Thermoset plastics cannot be recycled regardless of what heat is applied. Be aware of potential contributors and adjust accordingly. Since the microbead ban, the ultimate dispersal into the water has waned. Currently, most of the microplastics found in water originate from synthetic fabrics such as polyester. Plastics from fibers dislodged from textiles during the machine washing process have now become the primary source of microplastics in the ocean; by using gentler and more infrequent cycles, you can reduce your plastic input.

The bottom line: plastics, both large and small, harm the environment and pose a risk to our health. Do your best to reduce your impact, and you’ll potentially be rewarded with cleaner, clearer water. More importantly, the earth will thank you.