Debunking Patrick Moore's Great Pacific Garbage Patch Denial

Between 2012 and 2014, Graphic novelists Martín Morazzo and Joe Harris created “Great Pacific,” an 18 volume, beautifully illustrated story of a young man, Chas Worthington, who claims the Great Pacific Garbage Patch as a sovereign nation. This science fiction scenario shows the garbage patch as a vast island, twice the size of Texas, filled with hills and valleys, inhabited by seabirds, and illustrated with thousands of pieces of trash in each detailed panel.

Nobody actually thinks the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is a floating island, but in Chapter 6 of “Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom”, Patrick Moore tries to argue that because he discovered it’s not an actual floating island: a steppable surface like where the Cabbage Patch Kids come from, and that he can’t see it on satellite images, that it doesn’t actually exist. 

If the last five chapters of Patrick Moore's latest book were laced with misinformation and outright falsehoods, this one is a stinking heap of hazardous waste, and it can only appeal to the truly gullible.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, and other similar oceanic garbage patches, are very real, and our understanding of their dangers increase every year—the threat of plastics introduced into natural ecosystems are among the greatest of our environmental threats and among the greatest environmental threats to human health.

Patrick Moore has a financial motive to spread misinformation about the environmental hazards of plastic. He owns a greenwashing firm that serves clients in the oil and gas industry, as well as the plastics industry—industries inherently linked since plastic is a byproduct of oil. His job is to convince the gullible that ocean plastics do not harm our oceans or us. As he has President-elect Donald Trump's ear, you can be certain that the United States' global role in addressing the Great Pacific Garbage Patch will diminish or disappear. Expect the agencies that represent the United States on oceanic pollution - the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the US Coast Guard, the Department of State, the Marine Science Foundation, the Army Corps of Enginners and the National Parks Service, to all lose the levers they have to mitigate this issue.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is a vast area of marine debris accumulation in the North Pacific Ocean. It is made up mostly of plastic waste and other floating debris, concentrated by oceanic currents. 

In most cases, you cannot actually see the Great Pacific Garbage Patch; its density is 4 particles per cubic meter, and much of the plastic waste consists of small bits of rice-sized plastic and microscopic bits smaller than 5mm in size, which we call microplastics. 

Not everything floating in the patch is small. Much of the plastic waste is yet to be dissolved into microplastics. Plastic bottles, bottle caps, plastic bags, food wrappers, ghost nets, fishing gear, buoys, straws, stir sticks, plastic forks, plastic lids, packaging nurdles, styrofoam, plastic jugs and plastic toys.

The North Pacific is the location of one of the world’s five great gyres; these oceanic systems of circulating surface currents. Ocean currents and wind patterns in the gyre cause debris to build up in this area over time, creating a large, dispersed zone of floating plastic trash.

There are two definitions of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch—one is that it is this patch between California and Hawaii that is twice the size of Texas. The other, more accurate definition, is that it is actually two locations on either side of the North Pacific gyre. The Eastern part (California-Hawaii) is the largest individual patch, the Western patch, off the coast of northern Asia, is another large patch. But trash is also accumulating in the gyre itself.

Perhaps the best definition is to think of the Pacific Trash Vortex as the whole thing, and to see the Great Pacific Garbage Patch as the eastern and western accumulation of plastics and other human debris.

While in this book and elsewhere, Moore adamantly claims the Great Pacific Garbage Patch does not exist, there is extensive evidence from multiple science-based sources. Here are some of them:

SEAPLEX (Scripps Environmental Accumulation of Plastic Expedition):

Conducted in 2009 by researchers from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, this expedition documented plastic pollution in the North Pacific Gyre. The team collected samples and observed large amounts of microplastics. Learn more about their observations here.

The Ocean Cleanup Project

Founded by entrepreneur Boyan Slat, this organization has conducted extensive research on the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Their 2018 study published in Scientific Reports estimated that the patch covers an area of approximately 1.6 million square kilometers and contains around 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic. Read their study here.

Satellite and Aerial Surveys

Aerial surveys and satellite imagery have provided visual evidence of debris fields in the North Pacific Ocean. These surveys help map the extent and density of the patch.

Direct Sampling and Measurement

Researchers use trawl nets and other sampling devices to collect debris from the patch. These samples are analyzed to determine the concentration and composition of plastics and other materials. Data from these samples show high concentrations of microplastics and other debris, which confirms the presence and scale of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

Citizen Science and Reports from Mariners

Sailors, fishermen, and other ocean-goers frequently report encountering large amounts of debris in the patch region. These anecdotal reports contribute to the understanding of the patch's presence and its impact on the Pacific and its wildlife.

The patch poses a severe threat to marine life through ingestion and entanglement. Microplastics can be ingested by a wide range of marine organisms, entering the food chain, and, we are learning more each month that these microplastics in the food chain are affecting human health.

The existence of the Pacific Garbage Patch is well-documented and supported by extensive scientific research, direct sampling, and visual evidence. 

Here is an example: This study in the coveted journal Nature received 1029 citations. Its absract states:

Here we characterise and quantify a major ocean plastic accumulation zone formed in subtropical waters between California and Hawaii: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch (GPGP). Our model, calibrated with data from multi-vessel and aircraft surveys, predicted at least 79 (45–129) thousand tonnes of ocean plastic are floating inside an area of 1.6 million km2; a figure four to sixteen times higher than previously reported.

Patrick Moore Claims that Photographs of Dead Seabirds with Ingested Plastic were Staged in a Vast Global Conspiracy of Peer-reviewed Scientists and Citizen Observers

Patrick Moore's claim that photographs of dead seabirds with ingested plastic are staged and fake is easy to dismiss. The evidence is from among the most reputable sources, directly and firmly contradicting his wild assertion. 

Photos of dead seabirds that have ingested huge amounts of plastic often look…hard to believe. These photos sometimes show the emaciated carcass of dead seabirds, with multicolored plastic seeming to be larger than the bird itself. In fact, this is because the bird’s body has degraded to the point that the stomach lining has dissolved, and the skeletal remains of the bird look too small to hold all that plastic. In reality, anybody who spends a lot of time with seabirds knows that they can ingest huge amounts of food - obviously birds that spend weeks or months traveling across huge oceanic distances need the ability to store food for long periods.

Dozens of field studies conducted by marine biologists and ornithologists have documented the presence of plastic in the stomachs of dead seabirds. These studies involve and document the systematic collection, dissection, and analysis of bird carcasses.

Research findings on plastic ingestion by seabirds have been published in numerous peer-reviewed journals, providing scientifically validated evidence.

There are numerous sources for anyone to see just how full of plastic bird carcasses can get. In this Youtube video, we see a dissection of a shearwater, leading to a stomach just as full as those photos that Patrick Moore unprofessionally tried to dispute are real:

Reports of seabirds ingesting plastic come from all over the world. The diversity of the reporting on this widespread problem, as opposed to an isolated area or incident, shows that it would be impossible to stage.

Researchers often document their findings with photographs and videos as part of their study methodology. These visual records are used to support scientific conclusions and are subject to scrutiny by the scientific community.

Many photographs and reports also come from citizen science projects, where volunteers and non-professional researchers contribute to data collection. This broad involvement adds to the authenticity and volume of documented cases.

Leading environmental organizations and scientific bodies, such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), recognize plastic pollution as a significant threat to marine life, including seabirds.

The scientific community has dismissed claims like those made by Moore as unsubstantiated and fabricated. The evidence from rigorous studies far outweighs anecdotal or unverified assertions.

Photographer Chris Jordan's project on the Midway Atoll is one of the most well-known visual documentations of plastic ingestion by seabirds. His work shows albatross chicks with stomachs full of plastic debris, and his methodology has been transparent and widely accepted as credible.

Numerous scientific papers, such as those published by researchers like Dr. Jennifer Lavers, provide detailed accounts of the methods used to collect and analyze seabirds affected by plastic ingestion. These studies often include photographic evidence as part of their supplementary materials.

Patrick Moore's claim that photographs of dead seabirds with ingested plastic are staged lacks not a single shred of evidence and is contradicted by extensive scientific research and documentation.

Patrick Moore’s Claim that Birds Don’t Eat, and Die of Plastic, is False

Patrick Moore's claim that seabirds do not die from ingesting plastic contradicts an enormous body of evidence. Dozens of independent studies and observations have documented the detrimental effects of plastic ingestion on seabirds. Here are some key points supported by scientific research:

• Seabirds often mistake plastic debris for food. Ingested plastics can cause physical blockages in their digestive systems, leading to malnutrition, starvation, and sometimes death.
• Birds with stomachs full of plastic have reduced space for actual food, which can lead to nutritional deficiencies and poor health.
• Plastics can absorb harmful chemicals from the environment. When ingested, these toxins can leach into the birds' bodies, causing various health issues, including reproductive problems and liver damage.
• Ingesting plastic can alter seabirds' feeding behaviors, making them less effective hunters and foragers. This can reduce their ability to thrive and reproduce.
• Seabirds often mistake plastic debris for food. Ingested plastics can cause physical blockages in their digestive systems, leading to malnutrition, starvation, and sometimes death.

Research spanning decades has consistently shown that plastic ingestion is harmful to seabirds. Studies have documented cases where large percentages of bird populations have ingested plastic, with clear correlations to health issues and mortality.

Numerous autopsies of dead seabirds have found significant amounts of plastic in their stomachs, directly linking plastic ingestion to mortality. Field studies have also documented declining seabird populations in areas with high plastic pollution.

Studies on the Laysan albatross, a seabird species known to ingest significant amounts of plastic, have shown that plastic ingestion is associated with increased mortality, particularly among chicks.

Reviews and meta-analyses of seabird studies worldwide have concluded that plastic ingestion is a significant and widespread issue affecting seabird health and survival.

Patrick Moore's claim that seabirds do not die from ingesting plastic is not supported by the scientific evidence. Extensive research has demonstrated that plastic ingestion poses a significant threat to seabirds, contributing to mortality and a range of health problems. The consensus in the scientific community is clear: plastic pollution is a severe and growing problem for seabirds and marine life in general. Efforts to reduce plastic pollution are essential to protect these vulnerable species and their ecosystems.

Articles and Studies on Plastic and Threats to Seabirds

Seabirds that swallow ocean plastic waste have scarring in their stomachs – scientists have named this disease 'plasticosis'

Eating Even One Piece of Plastic Has Health Consequences for Baby Seabirds

Patrick Moore Claims Marine Plastic is Beneficial to the Environment - is that true?

Patrick Moore argues in this chapter that plastics can provide surfaces for marine organisms to colonize, potentially creating new habitats. He also suggests that plastics might contribute to plankton production, which would benefit the base of the marine food chain.

While it’s nice to think about a floating piece of garbage becoming a habitat for a colony of goose barnacles, its important to understand how the Pacific Ocean works, and the relative importance of these pelagic habitats. Just because a piece of trash creates a habitat for some organism does not suggest that is in any way beneficial to the environment of the Pacific Ocean. The Pacific biosphere does not need to be interfered with to produce habitat. As a regular to the edge of the Abyss in the Pacific, I am well aware of the many natural terrestrial habitats floating out there.

Patrick Moore's claim that plastic pollution in the Pacific creates great habitats for animals misses the point because it overlooks the more serious environmental and health impacts of plastic pollution. While some goose barnacles might temporarily find refuge in floating debris, the pervasive presence of plastics disrupts marine ecosystems, introduces toxic chemicals, and leads to the ingestion of microplastics by marine life. Additionally, plastics can entangle wildlife, causing physical harm, and the accumulation of non-biodegradable materials poses long-term threats to ocean health and biodiversity. Focusing on a bottle of Dr. Pepper flung from a cruise ship as an example of environmental stewardship neglects the extensive, detrimental consequences of plastic pollution on marine environments.

Here are some of the ways in which plastic harms the environment:

• Marine animals often mistake small plastic particles(microplastics) for food. Ingesting plastic can cause physical harm, block digestive tracts, reduce the desire to eat, and lead to malnutrition or starvation.
• Animals can become entangled in larger pieces of plastic, such as fishing nets, six-pack rings, and plastic bags. This can lead to injury, suffocation, drowning, or impaired movement, making it difficult for animals to feed or escape predators.
• Plastics can absorb harmful chemicals from the surrounding water, and these toxins can leach into the bodies of marine animals when ingested. This can cause reproductive issues, genetic mutations, and other health problems.
• Large amounts of plastic debris can alter habitats, such as coral reefs and seabeds, by smothering organisms and blocking sunlight. This can disrupt the balance of these ecosystems and harm the species that rely on them.
• Floating plastics can transport invasive species to new environments, where they can outcompete native species and disrupt local ecosystems.
• Toxic substances from plastics can accumulate in the bodies of marine organisms and move up the food chain. Humans consuming seafood contaminated with these toxins can face health risks such as hormonal disruptions, reproductive issues, and carcinogenic effects.
• Microplastics, tiny plastic particles have been found in drinking water, salt, and even the air we breathe. The long-term health effects of microplastic ingestion in humans are still being studied but are a increasingly a major cause of concern for human health.
• Plastic pollution can damage commercial fisheries by killing or contaminating fish populations. It also negatively affects tourism, as polluted beaches and waters are less attractive to visitors.
• The financial burden of cleaning up plastic pollution is significant for governments and communities. This includes direct clean-up efforts and the cost of managing waste and recycling programs.
• The production and disposal of plastics contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. From the extraction of fossil fuels to the manufacturing process and eventual incineration, plastics play a role in driving climate change.
• Plastics are highly durable and can take hundreds to thousands of years to break down in the environment. This persistence means that plastic pollution continues to accumulate over time, exacerbating its impact.

Patrick Moore Claims that Microplastics are Beneficial to Human Health. Is this Accurate?

Microplastics are considered a potential threat to human health. While the full extent of their impact is still being studied, there is growing concern among scientists and health experts about the risks, and peer-reviewed evidence is accelerating. Here are several ways in which microplastics could pose a threat to human health:

Human Exposure to Microplastics

Food
Microplastics have been found in a variety of foods, including seafood, salt, honey, and even some fruits and vegetables. Seafood is particularly concerning because marine organisms ingest microplastics, which can then enter the human food chain.

Drinking Water
Microplastics have been detected in both bottled and tap water worldwide.

Air
Microplastics can become airborne and be inhaled. They are found in indoor and outdoor environments, including household dust and urban air.

The Potential Health Risks of Microplastics to Human Health

Respiratory Issues
Inhalation of microplastics can lead to respiratory problems. Microplastics can cause inflammation and other damage to the respiratory system.

Digestive System
Ingested microplastics can lead to physical blockages and damage to the digestive tract.

Toxic Chemicals
Microplastics can contain and absorb harmful chemicals, such as pesticides, heavy metals, and persistent organic pollutants (POPs). These chemicals can leach out of the plastics and into human tissues.

Endocrine Disruption
Some chemicals associated with plastics, such as bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates, are known endocrine disruptors. They can interfere with hormone function, potentially leading to reproductive, developmental, and other health issues.

Biofilms and Pathogens
Microplastics can serve as surfaces for the growth of biofilms, which can harbor harmful bacteria and pathogens. This could increase the risk of infections if ingested or inhaled.

Here is an example of a recent study that suggests a link between microplastics and autism-spectrum disorder:

Pre/post-natal exposure to microplastic as a potential risk factor for autism spectrum disorder

Patrick Moore Claims that there is No Evidence that Dead Whales are Found with Plastic in their Stomachs.

Patrick Moore's claim that there is no evidence of whales being found with plastic in their stomachs is incorrect. There is substantial and well-documented evidence showing that whales, among other marine animals, have ingested plastic. Here are several key points and examples that refute Moore's claim. I have included links to articles that reported on each of these cases.

Documented Cases of Whales with Plastic in Their Stomachs

• Cuvier’s Beaked Whale (Norway, 2017)
  A Cuvier’s beaked whale stranded on the coast of Norway was found to have 30 plastic bags and other plastic debris in its stomach. The whale was emaciated and had to be euthanized due to its poor condition. Reuters Article

• Sperm Whale (Spain, 2018)
  A sperm whale that washed up on the coast of Spain had 29 kilograms (64 pounds) of plastic waste in its stomach, including plastic bags, ropes, and a drum. The ingestion of plastic was believed to have contributed to the whale's death. New York Times Article

• Pilot Whale (Thailand, 2018)
  A pilot whale found in a canal in Thailand had ingested 80 plastic bags, weighing around 8 kilograms (18 pounds). Despite rescue efforts, the whale died, and an autopsy revealed the plastic bags obstructing its stomach and intestines. Reuters Article

• Sperm Whale (Italy, 2019)
  A pregnant sperm whale washed ashore in Sardinia, Italy, with 22 kilograms (49 pounds) of plastic in its stomach. The debris included plastic plates, bags, and fishing nets. New York Times Article

Numerous scientific studies and publications have documented the presence of plastic in the stomachs of various whale species. These studies involve autopsies of dead whales.

This article shows press photos of large amounts of plastic found in the stomach of a whale during an autopsy.

Research has shown that ingestion of plastic can lead to blockages in the digestive tract, malnutrition, and internal injuries, contributing to the death of these whales.

Organizations like Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and the Marine Conservation Society frequently report cases of marine animals, including whales, affected by plastic pollution.

These organizations often collaborate with marine biologists and researchers to document and raise awareness about the impact of plastic pollution on marine life.

Photographic and video evidence from necropsies and field studies show the presence of plastic in the stomachs of whales and other marine animals. This visual documentation supports the claims made by researchers and conservationists. Patrick Moore's claim to the contrary is not supported by the documented cases, scientific research, and reports from reputable organizations.

Patrick Moore Claims that Plastic in the Ocean is Beneficial Because it Creates Habitat for Sea Life. Is he Correct?

Patrick Moore's claim that plastic in the oceans creates new habitats for marine life is easy to dismiss as greenwashing. While it is true that some marine organisms can attach to and colonize plastic debris, this does not mean that plastic pollution is beneficial. Here are several key points to consider:

Many marine animals, including fish, birds, and mammals, mistakenly ingest plastic, which can lead to malnutrition, intestinal blockage, and death. Animals can also become entangled in larger pieces of plastic, leading to injury, drowning, or impaired movement.

Toxic Chemicals

Plastics can leach harmful chemicals into the water. These chemicals, such as bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates, can have detrimental effects on marine life and potentially enter the food chain, impacting human health.

As plastics break down into smaller particles, they become microplastics, which are ingested by a wide range of marine organisms. Microplastics accumulate in the tissues of these organisms and disrupt their physiological processes.

While plastics might provide surfaces for some organisms to attach to, they can also disrupt natural habitats, such as coral reefs and seagrass beds, which are critical for the health and diversity of marine ecosystems. Just because something is a habitat, does not mean it's healthy for the ecosystem. In fact, plastics can act as permanent rafts for invasive species, allowing them to travel across oceans and potentially disrupt local ecosystems by outcompeting native species.

Misconception of Habitat Creation

The idea that plastics create new habitats oversimplifies the complex interactions within marine ecosystems. Natural habitats provide specific conditions that are essential for the life cycles of various marine species. Plastics do not replicate these conditions and can often create imbalances rather than fostering healthy ecosystems.

Long-term Environmental Impact

The persistence of plastic in the environment means that the negative impacts are long-lasting. Unlike natural materials, plastic does not biodegrade and can remain in the ocean for centuries, continually harming marine life and ecosystems.

While some marine organisms can temporarily utilize plastic debris, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that plastic pollution is detrimental to marine environments. The negative impacts far outweigh any minor or temporary benefits that might arise from the presence of plastics in the ocean.

Patrick Moore Claims that Henderson Island Does Not Have Plastic Pollution. Is He Right?

Henderson Island, a remote and uninhabited island in the South Pacific Ocean, is indeed one of the most plastic-polluted places in the world. This fact was highlighted in a 2017 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which found that the island had an estimated 37.7 million pieces of plastic debris on its beaches, amounting to an astonishing 671.6 items per square meter on the surface of its beaches and a total mass of 17.6 tons.

Key points about Henderson Island's plastic pollution:

1. Despite its remoteness, Henderson Island is located in the South Pacific Gyre, a current system that accumulates floating debris from across the ocean—the equivalent of the North Pacific gyre responsible for the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. This makes it a significant collection point for oceanic plastic pollution.
2. The study mentioned that Henderson Island has the highest density of plastic debris recorded anywhere in the world. This includes large visible items and microplastics embedded in the sand.

3. The accumulation of plastic on Henderson Island poses significant risks to local wildlife, including seabirds, marine species, and potentially terrestrial species that might come into contact with the debris. Ingested plastics can cause malnutrition, blockages, and exposure to toxic substances.
4. Henderson Island serves as a stark example of the global plastic pollution crisis. It demonstrates how even the most remote locations on Earth are not immune to human impact and underscores the need for global efforts to address plastic pollution.

Patrick Moore Claims there is no plastic pollution on Henderson Island because he can't see it on Google Earth. He often evokes this idea that anybody can investigate scientific claims on their own, while dismissing the actual peer-reviewed evidence. This reminds me of the similarly-inclined science misinformation nut, Bruce Haedrich, who wrote, ""the 'elites' and 'experts' in any field often have agendas which take precedent over truth and common sense. It is best to draw from our own experience and intellect to find the truth."

But the resolution of Henderson Island on Google Earth (seen in the image above) is not detailed enough to be able to discern small to midsize objects, like the ones clearly seen in the video below.

An example of where small objects fail to appear in Google Earth satellite footage is the Green Turtle Cay spit in the Abaco Islands. This spit always has dozens of seabirds and shorebirds hanging out at low tide. If I can't see them on Google Earth, why does Patrick Moore expect to see garbage pails and buoys on Henderson Island?

Even places where objects much bigger than buoys - like humans - are all over the place, they are difficult to discern in Google Earth images. For example, where are all the people in Times Square?

While Henderson Island is recognized for its extreme levels of plastic pollution, it is key to understand that many other regions and islands around the world also face severe plastic pollution problems, especially other areas within the world's major ocean gyres. The plastic nightmare on Henderson Island highlights the widespread and pervasive nature of plastic pollution, and is a reminder that comprehensive action to lessen plastics pollution globally is required - misinformation helps nobody.

Read my rebuttal of the other Patrick Moore chapters here:

Patrick Moore Credibility
Chapter 1 Fact-check: Baobab Trees
Chapter 2 Fact-check: Coral Bleaching
Chapter 3 Fact-check: Carbon Dioxide
Chapter 4 Fact-check: Polar Bears
Chapter 5 Fact-check: Estimated Threats to Biodiversity
Chapter 6 Fact-check: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch