An Earth Law Solution to Ocean Plastic Pollution
By Michelle Bender
Updated 2025 by Arianna Blandon, Lillian Gilbert-Smith, Jessica Paul, Seneca Wilson, and Rachel Lowe
Photo by Michelle Bender
Plastic pollution is emerging as a top threat to ocean ecosystems. Some 80% of all marine pollution is plastic waste. By 2050, plastic leaks are estimated to increase by four tons per minute, which could result in more plastic than fish by weight in the ocean. Plastic debris affects nearly 700 species worldwide through entanglement and ingestion, alters natural biological and chemical processes, and introduces toxins into food webs, costing the U.S. economy millions of dollars annually. The majority of this debris comes from land-based sources (plastic manufacturers, processors, landfills, sewage overflows, litter). Of the leakage that comes from land-based sources, 75% comes from uncollected wastes and 25% escapes from within the waste management system. Unfortunately, 80% of plastic waste is too low in value to incentivize recovery and recycling, and only about 10% of produced plastic ends up being recycled.
Past efforts to address plastic pollution have failed in stemming the flow from land to sea. As a top 10 producer of plastic waste, the U.S. plays a critical role in managing the waste stream of plastics. The absence of a comprehensive plastic pollution law and policy framework provides an opportunity for federal agencies to explore whether and how existing law and policy mechanisms can be used to address the threat of plastic pollution. This report provides an example by analyzing the Clean Water Act and relevant provisions.
The inability of environmental law to address growing threats, such as plastic pollution, indicates the need for a paradigm shift. The environmental laws of the 1970s have yet to fulfill their goals and purposes. The Clean Water Act has yet to prohibit discharges and produce clean water because it allows pollution under permitting systems.
As a result, this report attempts to challenge the assumptions behind current environmental law by introducing Earth law, a system of law that recognizes Nature’s inherent rights to exist, thrive, and evolve. An Earth law approach would prohibit the discharge of plastic into our nation’s waterways by considering the health of all Earth members. Therefore, this report proposes that the threat of plastic pollution will only be controlled if humans govern themselves in a way that recognizes their relationship with Nature.
I. Introduction
a. The problem
Scientific studies indicate that an emerging threat faces our freshwater and marine ecosystems: plastic pollution [1]. Since plastics are cheap, versatile, and strong [2], and deliver significant societal benefits (e.g., energy savings, consumer protection, healthcare innovations) [3], it comes as no surprise that plastic production has increased exponentially since the 1960s [4]. If current practices continue as usual, by 2050 plastic leaks are estimated to increase by four tons per minute, more plastic than fish by weight [5]. With the ability to persist for up to four centuries [6], plastic products are harming freshwater and marine ecosystems [7].
b. Types of plastic
Plastics consist of a variety of synthetic organic polymers and additives, giving each plastic product its unique properties [8]. Plastic is generally split into mega, macro, meso, and microplastics. Microplastics (e.g., pellets, granules) range in composition from 0.001-140 particles/m3 with an accumulation rate in organisms of 0.1 to 15,033 counts [9]. Not readily seen, they receive less attention than macroplastics, which are visible pieces of debris, larger than 5 mm, and usually found on surface water or coastal beaches [10].
c. Impacts of plastic
Plastics pose a significant threat to ocean and freshwater ecosystems and the benefits humans receive from them [11]. Studies estimate 8.8 million U.S. tons of macroplastics and 1.65 U.S. tons of microplastics enter the ocean each year [12]. The amount of plastic debris discarded by the commercial fishing industry has nearly doubled over the last 50 years, from 340,000 tons in 1975 [13] to 640,000 tons annually [14]). While macroplastics may break down into microplastics, the lifespan of these small particles is uncertain, with estimates of degradation rates up to thousands of years or longer [15].
First, plastics threaten the survival of many species of wildlife, negatively impacting nearly 700 species worldwide [16].
Larger items, such as fishing nets, entangle and kill wildlife [17].
Smaller items ingested by wildlife can pierce organs, block digestive tracts, and lower fitness by decreasing fertility [18].
As plastic breaks down, it becomes less buoyant and sinks to the ocean floor [19]. This can lead to hypoxia (oxygen deficiency), dead zones, and a shift in the sediment properties that are necessary for sex-determination in animal eggs [20].
Plastics transport invasive species [21]. As a medium for long distance dispersion, plastics carry species to uninhabited areas, where they compete with native species. For example, a study in the Western Atlantic showed insect eggs on 24% of the plastic pellets sampled [22].
Second, plastic products serve as a conduit for the release of toxins into and through freshwater and marine food chains, posing a threat to wildlife, public health, and the fishing industry.
Plastic, mistaken as food, is ingested at all levels of the food web and travels through it via a process known as bioaccumulation (i.e., the accumulation of a substance in an organism’s tissue due to a greater intake rate than excretion or metabolic rate) [23].
Plastics cause two chemical impacts: the release of additives (e.g., BPA), and the attraction and subsequent release of toxins (PFAS, PCBS, pesticides, etc.) caused by biofilms that develop on the plastic particles [24]).
Plastic fragments can transport contaminants, increase their environmental persistence, and concentrate organic pollutants up to 106 times that of surrounding seawater [25]. The chemicals present in plastic pollution, such as PCBs, lead to reproductive disorders or death, increase the risk of diseases, and alter hormone levels [26].
Third, plastic pollution is costly.
Beach cleanups cost coastal communities millions of dollars each year [27]. For example, Texas spends approximately $14 million a year cleaning beaches; and San Francisco spends approximately $6 million per year picking up cigarette butts [28].
Plastics on beaches lower aesthetic value and therefore revenue for coastal communities and the tourism industry [29].
Losses to the fishing industry occur through vessel damage, decreased fertility, and ghost fishing (the continued trapping and killing of marine life by discarded fishing nets). In the U.S., an estimated $250 million worth of lobster is lost to ghost fishing annually, and four to 10 million blue crabs are trapped in ghost fishing gear each year in Louisiana [30].
Plastic litter fouls propellers and clogs the water intake of vessels [31]. This reduces fishing opportunities and increases accidental death. In the U.S. alone, cleanup and boat repairs due to marine debris costs over $1 billion a year [32].
d. The sources of plastic pollution
Rivers are highly polluted with plastic products from stormwater runoff, wastewater, and industrial effluent [33]. As much as 80% of marine debris comes from land-based sources (e.g., plastic manufacturers, processors, landfills, sewage overflows, litter [34]), and 60- 80% of all marine debris is plastic [35].
Of the leakage that comes from land-based sources, 75% comes from uncollected wastes, and 25% escapes from within the waste management system [36]. Unfortunately, 80% of plastic waste is too low in value to incentivize recovery and recycling, with only about 10% of produced plastic recycled [37]. This lack of reuse and recycling, coupled with annual plastic production rising to almost 400 million metric tons, means the harm of ocean plastic pollution will only worsen without significant policy changes [38].
II. Addressing plastic pollution through environmental law and policy
As a top 10 producer of plastic waste, the U.S. plays a critical role in managing the waste stream of plastics [39].
a. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the discharge of pollutants into our nation’s waters [40]. Despite a final rule in 1987 controlling the amount of resin released from plastic manufacturing facilities [41], data suggests that “pre-production plastic resin pellets accidentally released from plastic processors contribute approximately 10% by count to the plastic debris problem” [42]. Current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulation addresses microplastics and other persistent chemicals on a case by case effluent limit as there has not been any specific threshold or regulation set [43].
So, water-quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) can significantly reduce the discharge of plastic waste. This next line of defense is based on “the amount of pollutants in the water without regard to the cost or technology availability” [44].
b. Water Quality Standards
The EPA creates national water quality criteria standards—standards upon which states may choose to build in more stringent measures at the state level [45]—based upon the latest scientific knowledge on the effects of the presence of pollutants [46].
Mounting scientific evidence indicates that plastic poses a threat to our nation’s drinkable, fishable, and swimmable waterways. This scientific information indicates that the water quality criteria should be reviewed to determine whether plastic should be considered a criteria pollutant.
The EPA already recognizes that most trash that ends up in the ocean comes from land. The agency has developed the Trash Free Waters initiative “to reduce the amount of trash and litter that enters streams and rivers, lakes and bays, beaches and coastlines, and ultimately the world’s oceans” [47] and the National Marine Debris Monitoring Program, to monitor the sources and end-life of trash [48]. These programs include outreach, education, research, and partnerships [49] but fail to enforce change (e.g., regulations and initiatives) through their existing statutory authority.
A new effort in tackling water quality, including the threat microplastics pose to it, comes from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021. This law allocated more than $50 billion to the EPA to improve current drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure. A part of this effort has been to tackle contaminants previously unaddressed by U.S. law—in particular, microplastics. This, alongside other legislation like the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, are steps in the right direction to reduce consumption of microplastics [50].
c. Total Maximum Daily Loads
Next, states are required to identify impaired waters [51], those that do not meet water quality standards, and establish limits on pollutants causing the impairment [52].
Establishing nationwide limits on the amount of plastic allowed in watersheds can significantly reduce the flow from land to sea. Current impairment and allowable limits do not take into account microplastics because this form of trash (i.e., anthropogenic debris that can be trapped by a 5mm mesh screen) is smaller than 5mm [53].
Currently, as prescribed by the Marine Debris Act, NOAA is responsible for researching, removing, and reducing marine plastic debris. There was also an expansion of plastic pollution regulation via the Save Our Seas Acts passed in 2018 and 2019 - 2020. This expanded other agencies onto these efforts, and with the current state of the issue there is an opportunity to integrate microplastics in current legislation [54].
Therefore the EPA should adopt a definition of “trash” that includes micro-sized debris and therefore address the vast majority of plastic debris. Similarly, the EPA can initiate rulemaking for the implementation of trash Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) on all waterways [55], ensuring limits address trash of all sizes.
d. Multi-Sector General Permits
Under Section 205 of the Water Quality Act, which amended the Clean Water Act in 1987, the EPA created requirements for “stormwater discharges associated with specific categories of industrial activity” [56].
Therefore, more stringent requirements can be placed on plastic manufacturing facilities located on the coast to prevent the loss of pre- production plastic to stormwater. The EPA can ensure the strongest control measures are attached to the permits in order to prevent the leakage of plastic from land to water. The EPA already requires that “facilities that handle pre-production plastic must implement best management practices (BMPs) to eliminate discharges of plastic in stormwater” [57].
To promote further clarity and compliance, the EPA can codify required practices for implementation by pre-production plastic facilities rather than leave it to be determined on a facility-by-facility basis, as is the current practice. Evidence suggests “pre-production resin pellets accidentally released from plastic processors contribute approximately 10% by count to the plastic debris problem” [58].
While there is not a current effort in identifying microplastic thresholds in TMDL or NPDES regulations, it should be noted that states like California have taken steps to change this. For example, the California Ocean Protection Council has developed a policy, “Statewide Microplastics Strategy Understanding and Addressing Impacts to Protect Coastal and Ocean Health” [59]. This multi-year plan has two main components: solutions to support immediate action and science to inform future action. The solutions component promotes greater public engagement, including collaboration with California Native American Tribes. It also improves monitoring and eliminates microplastics at the source of manufacturing [60].
Regulation and 1 mm mesh screens downstream could significantly reduce the flow of plastic pollution.
Under California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the Pre-production Plastic Debris Program controls the leakage of preproduction plastics [61] by requiring plastic manufacturing, handling, and transportation facilities to implement minimum BMPs to control discharge [62]. As part of the permits, a 1mm mesh screen must be installed downstream from all pre-production plastic locations [63].
If this program were implemented nationwide, the amount of pre-production plastic found in our waterways could be greatly decreased. Additionally, if multi-sector general permits included minimum BMPs and the requirement of 1mm mesh screens downstream from facilities, such permits would help reduce the flow of plastic pollution.
III. An opportunity for Earth Law to address plastic pollution
Earth law is an emerging field seeking to address the fundamental flaws of current environmental law and policy. This form of law explicitly recognizes “the interdependence among humans and the environment” and respects ecosystem relationships.
With an overarching purpose to support “a mutually beneficial relationship between humanity and the community of life on Earth,” humans govern themselves in ways that benefit all beings and ecosystems [64].
Earth Law governs humans as co-equal parts with other Earth members due to the assumption that all beings have the same fundamental rights.
Earth law governs humans as co-equal parts with other Earth members due to the assumption that all beings have the same fundamental rights [65]. This idea stems from a basic flow of logic: “Rights originate where existence originates. That which determines existence determines rights” [66]. And all members come from the same place of existence, Mother Earth. Just as humans have rights based on our existence and being, so too does Nature.
Thomas Berry defines rights as the freedom for all beings to fulfill their duties and responsibilities as members of the Earth community. In particular, there are three rights for every member: the right to be, the right to habitat, and the right to fulfill one’s role in Earth’s ever-renewing processes [67]. As co-equal members, humans “have no right to prevent other components of the Earth community from fulfilling their evolutionary role” [68]. Therefore, Earth law establishes Nature’s inherent rights to exist, thrive, and evolve in environmental law and policy.
a. Earth Law as a rights-based movement (the necessity of conferring rights onto nature)
An Earth-rights movement is not merely an attempt to create new laws or change existing laws, it seeks to change our worldview and values.
As legal scholar Christopher Stone writes, a rights-based movement is one that seeks to give rights to a new entity, those traditionally not seen to have any [69]. Only when we confer rights onto a new member of the Earth community, human or non-human, can we guarantee it equal status as other right bearing entities [70].
Consider the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Although the ESA is commonly perceived as the most ecocentric of the major U.S. environmental laws currently on the books, its effectiveness depends heavily on presidential priorities [71]. For instance, under the second Trump administration, the Secretary of the Interior issued orders in early 2025 to “suspend, revise, or rescind” several ESA regulations, thereby easing the approval process for energy projects on habitats protected for endangered species [72].
Given the variability with which different presidential administrations approach ESA enforcement, a truly ecocentric application of the law depends on the ability of non-government actors to use it on behalf of threatened or endangered species. While the ESA explicitly creates a right of action for "any citizen" to bring suit on their own behalf, that citizen must still overcome strict standing requirements to do so. The primary challenge that environmental groups or concerned individuals encounter is that they have not suffered injury directly—even if the animal or ecosystem has.
If animals and plants are given rights, then they themselves will have standing, allowing citizens to speak on their behalf to ensure their rights are not violated–and such a move would allow proxies or guardians to advocate for species well in advance of their needing a threatened or endangered designation. Rights for species or ecosystems may seem absurd or unthinkable, but throughout history, the extension of rights to a new entity has always seemed crazy to some (e.g., extending the right to vote to African-Americans or women, or expanding marriage equality to the LGBT community) [73].
There will always be resistance to considering a historically viewed “object” as a co-equal part of the Earth community [74]. Therefore, the emerging Earth-rights movement seeks to illustrate nature as valued for itself, no longer viewed as an object or property, but as a subject with rights [75].
b. Addressing the economic system
Another essential component of Earth Law is the qualitative, not quantitative, difference in rights. All rights are species-specific (i.e., rivers have river rights, insects have insect rights, and humans have human rights), but one is not superior to another. As a result, economic considerations (e.g., cost-benefit analysis) are left out of policy discussions. Unrestrained economic growth can be attributed to the present decline in our natural systems [76].
Particularly, the use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) reinforces our assumptions that nature is a resource to be controlled. CBA requires that we convert the benefits of nature (e.g., clean water, biodiversity) into dollars. It does not allow nature to be valued for itself. Earth Law addresses this fundamental flaw by advancing economics in a way that improves relationships (i.e., ecological economics).
By changing the language of “natural capital” and “ecosystem services” to “natural worth” and “ecosystem integrity,” economics stops reinforcing nature as a resource and property. As a result, the economic system serves the law, not the other way around.
c. Earth Law Center Ocean Initiative: Earth Law in practice
Significant progress has been made in applying the holistic principles of Earth Law to ocean health, but there is more work to be done.
Ocean Vision Legal, the first international law firm to specialize in ocean protection, published in 2025 an Ocean Rights Communications and Advocacy Toolkit [77]. The toolkit supports capacity-building for the Ocean Rights movement, stressing the need for inclusive and collaborative dialogue that honors the experiences of Indigenous and coastal communities. Recognizing the Ocean as a living, interconnected being with inherent rights and intrinsic value, the toolkit promotes language and legal frameworks that reflect recognition rather than permission (e.g., suggesting the language “recognizing” rather than “granting” rights to the Ocean, stressing that it already holds inherent rights). Aside from the toolkit, Ocean Vision Legal provides information and resources to support policymakers, advocates, and legal professionals advance ocean litigation, rights, guardianship, and literacy [78].
The Earth Law Center has played a leading role in advancing Ocean Rights globally, co-developing the campaign for a Universal Declaration of Ocean Rights (UDOR) presented to the UNGA in 2023 [79]. The ultimate goal of the Ocean Rights movement is to achieve the UN’s passage of UDOR by 2030. The Earth Law Center also worked with The Leatherback Project to develop Panama’s 2023 Sea Turtle Law, which recognizes the inherent rights of sea turtles and their habitats [80].
Safeguarding coral reefs and deep-sea species and ecosystems remain a key priority of the Ocean Rights movement. The Earth Law Center published the three-part legal toolkit “A Voice for Coral Reef Ecosystems Through the Rights of Nature and Ecocentric Law,” which offers legal strategies, model laws, and guidance to protect coral reefs through rights-based and ecocentric approaches [81]. Although the deep-sea ecosystem and its species are still relatively untouched, they are significantly threatened by the prospect of industrial-scale extraction of seafloor minerals. Deep-sea mining presents serious risks to ancient marine ecosystems, including biodiversity loss, habitat destruction for deep-sea species, and potentially irreversible harm from the release of toxins and carbons. Legal rights for deep-sea ecosystems and species would help protect them from these risks. The Earth Law Center’s concept note “A Voice for the Deep: Rights and a Seat for Deep-Sea Species and Ecosystems” highlights the legal campaigns that seek to recognize the intrinsic rights of deep-sea species and ecosystems [82]. The “Voice for the Deep” initiative calls for a legal paradigm shift to recognize these ecosystems and species as rights-bearing entities, supporting the larger Ocean Rights movement.
IV. Conclusion
The CWA set the goal of attaining water quality standards by 1983. This date is over 40 years past due.
There is an estimated 75 to 199 million tons of plastic waste in the ocean in 2025 with an estimated 33 billion pounds of plastic entering the ocean each year [83]. As a result, plastic pollution is degrading water quality, affecting biodiversity and posing potential human health impacts [84].
The CWA set the goal of attaining water quality standards by 1983. This date is over 40 years past due. Of the water bodies assessed in the 2017 report, 46% of rivers and streams were in poor biological condition, 21% of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs were hypereutrophic, 18% of coastal and great lakes water’s were in poor biological condition, and 32% of wetlands were in poor biological condition [85]. The assumption that certain levels of pollution are acceptable as long as it is “permitted,” underscores the flaws of our current governance system.
By establishing legal systems that recognize that the health and welfare of humans is dependent on our interconnected relationships within the Earth community, systemic problems, such as plastic pollution will be addressed. It’s time to further evolve the protection of the ocean. Our lives, health and well-being depend on the health of the environment.
Endnotes
[1] Chisa Higuchi & Atsuhiko Isobe, Reduction Scenarios of Plastic Waste Emission Guided by the Probability Distribution Model to Avoid Additional Ocean Plastic Pollution by 2050s, 207 Marine Pollution Bull. 116791 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.116791.
[2] George Leonard & Andreas Merkl, Confronting Ocean Plastic Pollution at the Global Scale: New Insights and Strategic Opportunities, 3 (2015) (internal document).
[3] American Chemistry Council, Marine Litter Solutions: The Declaration of the Global Plastics Associations for Solutions on Marine Litter (June 15, 2020), https://www.americanchemistry.com/better-policy-regulation/plastics/resources/marine-litter-solutions-the-declaration-of-the-global-plastics-associations-for-solutions-on-marine-litter.
[4] Jenna R. Jambeck et al., Plastic Waste Inputs from Land into the Ocean, 347 Science 768, 768 (2015) (Global plastic resin production increased by 620% from 1975 to 2012); Ocean Conservancy, Stemming the Tide: Land- based Strategies for a Plastic- Free Ocean, 4 (2015), available at https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-indonesia-stateless/2019/02/152bf3f1-152bf3f1-full-report-stemming-the.pdf (With current production at 250 million tons this trend is expected to continue to 380 million tons produced by 2025).
[5] Leonard, supra at 3.
[6] Ocean Conservancy, supra at 3 (2015)
[7] For more information on the plastic products found in freshwater ecosystems see Martine Wagner et al., Microplastics in Freshwater Ecosystems: What We Know and What We Need to Know, 26 Environmental Sciences Europe 12, (2014).; Jessica Midbust et al., Reducing Plastic Debris in the Los Angeles and San Gabriel River Watersheds, Algalita Marine Research Institute (2014), available at. https://bren.ucsb.edu/projects/reducing-plastic-debris-los-angeles-and-san-gabriel-river-watersheds ; For more information on plastic products found in marine ecosystems see Chris Wilcox et al., Threat of Plastic Pollution to Seabirds is Global, Pervasive, and Increasing, PNAS Early Edition 1, (2015). Ocean Conservancy, supra.; Donald C. Baur & Suzanna Iudicello, Stemming the Tide of Marine Debris Pollution: Putting Domestic and International Control Authorities to Work, 17 Ecology L.Q. 71, (1990).; Jambeck, supra at 768.
[8] José G.B. Derraik, The Pollution of the Marine Environment by Plastic Debris: A Review, 44 Mar. Pol. Bol. 842, 842 (2002).
[9] G.G.N. Thushari & J.D.M. Senevirathna, Plastic Pollution in the Marine Environment, 6 Heliyon e04709 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04709.
[10] Matthew Cole et al., Microplastic as Contaminants in the Marine Environment: A Review, 62 Mar. Pol. Bul. 2588, 2589 (2011).
[11] Ocean Conservancy, supra at 6.
[12] Winnie W. Y. Lau et al., Evaluating Scenarios Toward Zero Plastic Pollution, 369 Science 1455 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba9475.
[13] F, S.C Gall & R.C. Thompson, The Impact of Debris on Marine Life, 92 Mar. Pol. Bul. 170, 170 (2015).
[14] Baur, supra at 82. (An estimated 50,000 fur seals from the Pribilof Islands population in the North Pacific Ocean die each year from entanglement).
[15] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, How Long Does Marine Debris Stay in the Environment?, NOAA’s Nat’l Ocean Serv., https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial-coastal/marine-debris/md03.html (last visited June 3, 2025); WWF-Australia, The Lifecycle of Plastics, https://wwf.org.au/blogs/the-lifecycle-of-plastics/ (last visited June 3, 2025); National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, A Guide to Plastic in the Ocean, NOAA’s Nat’l Ocean Serv., https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/marinedebris/plastics-in-the-ocean.html (last visited June 3, 2025); Lisa Sheppard, ‘Plastics Don’t Ever Go Away’—ISTC Scientist John Scott Studies Impact of Microplastics, Prairie Rsch. Inst. News (Feb. 16, 2021), https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/7447/752802634.
[16] Peter Kershaw et al., Plastic Debris in the Ocean, UNEP Year Book. 21, 26-28 (2011) (Studies link plastics to physiological stress, liver cancer, and endocrine dysfunction (female fertility and male reproductive tissues growth) in fish that ingest the plastic).
[17] Murray R. Gregory, Environmental Implications of Plastic Debris in Marine Settings- Entanglement, Ingestion, Smothering, Hangers- on, Hitch- Hiking and Alien Invasions (2009), available at http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1526/2013.; Derraik, supra at 844. (Plastic on the seafloor provides a barrier that inhibits gas exchange processes between the water and seafloor which leads to hypoxia (oxygen deficiency) and dead zones).
[18] Gregory, supra..; Derraik, supra at 844. (Plastic on the seafloor provides a barrier that inhibits gas exchange processes between the water and seafloor which leads to hypoxia (oxygen deficiency) and dead zones).; Cole, supra at 2592 (2011) (Plastics significantly alter the composition and properties of the seabed by increasing the permeability of sediment while decreasing its heat absorbance. Therefore sediment with plastics reaches lower maximal temperatures. This temperature difference may affect sex- determination in animal eggs, such as turtles); Olivia Lai, The Detrimental Impacts of Plastic Pollution on Animals, Earth.Org (May 4, 2022), https://earth.org/plastic-pollution-animals/.
[19] Juliana A. Ivar do Sul & Monica F. Costa, The Present and Future of Microplastic Pollution in the Marine Environment, 185 Mar. Pol. Bul. 352, 352 (2014).
[20] Id. at 353; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ocean Pollution and Marine Debris, NOAA, https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-pollution (last visited June 3, 2025).
[21] Cole, supra at 2589.
[22] Kershaw, supra at 25-27.
[23] Ivar do Sul, supra at 353.; Chris Wilcox et al., Threat of Plastic Pollution to Seabirds is Global, Pervasive, and Increasing, PNAS Early Edition 1, 4 (2015); Michaela E. Miller, Mark Hamann & Frederieke J. Kroon, Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification of Microplastics in Marine Organisms: A Review and Meta-Analysis of Current Data, 15 PLOS ONE e0240792 (2020), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7567360/.
[24] Shepherd, supra; Miller (2020); Derraik, supra at 846.
[25] Charles James Moore, Synthetic Polymers in the Marine Environment: A Rapidly Increasing, Long- Term Threat, 108 Env. Res. 131, 133 (2008).
[26] Baur, supra at 81.; UNEP & NOAA, The Honolulu Strategy: A Global Framework for Prevention and Management of Marine Debris, 9 (2011), available at https://marine-debris-site-s3fs.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publications-files/Honolulu_Strategy.pdf?VersionId=5yDlrwGB_s2m8YFE1SKZWI73KK5ZL474.
[27] Moore, supra at 133..; Kershaw, supra at 28.
[28] Baur, supra at 78.
[29] United Nations, Resumed Review Conference on the Agreement Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, 3 (2010), available at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/reviewconf/FishStocks_EN_A.pdf.
[30] Derraik, supra.
[31] UNEP & NOAA, supra at 8.
[32] Kershaw, supra at 28.
[33] Ocean Conservancy, Trash Travels: From our Hands to the Sea, Around the Globe, and Through Time 2010, at 17, https://oceanconservancy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2010-Ocean-Conservancy-ICC-Report.pdf.
[34] American Chemistry Council, Marine Litter Solutions, supra note at 4.
[35] Cole, supra at 2590.
[36] Baur, supra at 78..; Leonard, supra at 2.
[37] Derraik, supra at 843; UNESCO Ocean Literacy Portal, Plastic Pollution in the Ocean: Data, Facts, Consequences, https://oceanliteracy.unesco.org/plastic-pollution-ocean/ (last visited June 3, 2025).
[38] Statista, Global Plastic Waste – Statistics & Facts, https://www.statista.com/topics/5401/global-plastic-waste/ (last visited June 3, 2025).
[39] Marc van Zuylen, World’s Biggest Plastic Polluters, Aquablu, https://www.aquablu.com/stories/world-8217-s-biggest-plastic-polluters (last visited June 3, 2025).; Maddy Lauria, Plastic Pollution, by Country, One5C (Dec. 13, 2023), https://one5c.com/plastic-pollution-by-country-136931514/.
[40] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Summary of the Clean Water Act, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act (last visited June 3, 2025).
[41] Jambeck, supra at 770; Wilcox, supra at 1.
[42] Jambeck, supra at 770.
[43] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Implementing Case-by-Case Technology-Based Effluent Limitations in NPDES Permits for Pollutants of Emerging Concern (Jan. 2025), https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-01/case-by-case-tbel-factsheet.pdf.
[44] Id. at 2.
[45] Baur, supra at 84.
[46] Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 534, 127 S.Ct. 1438, 167 L.Ed.2d 248 (2007) (“EPA [cannot] avoid its statutory obligation by noting the uncertainty surrounding various features of climate change and concluding that it would therefore be better not to regulate at this time.”).
[47] Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311 (2018).; 40 CFR § 414.11; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Trash Free Waters, https://www.epa.gov/trash-free-waters (last visited June 3, 2025).
[48] Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b, e) (2018); Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b) 2018; Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A) (2018).; Christine A. Ribic, Seba B. Sheavly & David J. Rugg, National Marine Debris Monitoring Program: Citizen Science Observations from 1997–2007, U.S. Forest Serv. Res. Data Archive (2022), https://doi.org/10.2737/RDS-2022-0035.
[49] Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1312(b)(2)(A) (2018).; Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. EPA, 804 F.3d 149, 151 (2d Cir. R. 2015).
[50] Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Microplastics, https://epa.illinois.gov/topics/water-quality/microplastics.html (last visited June 3, 2025), Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-114, 129 Stat. 3129 (2015), https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ114/PLAW-114publ114.pdf.
[51] Organic Chemicals and Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Category Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards, 52 FR 42522-01 (1987), WL 40 CFR 414 and 416.
[52] Moore, supra at 137.
[53] Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, 1342 (2018).
[54] National Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin., The Marine Debris Act, NOAA Marine Debris Program, https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/who-we-are/marine-debris-act (last visited June 3, 2025).
[55] Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c) (2018).
[56] Stormwater Discharges from Industrial Activities, U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency (Apr. 3, 2025), https://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater-discharges-industrial-activities (last visited June 17, 2025).
[57] Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1314(a)(1) (2018).
[58] Cal. Ocean Prot. Council, Statewide Microplastics Strategy: Understanding and Addressing Impacts to Protect Coastal and Ocean Health (Feb. 2022), https://opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/agenda_items/20220223/Item_6_Exhibit_A_Statewide_Microplastics_Strategy.pdf.
[59] Id.
[60] Id.; Cal. Reg’l Water Quality Control Bd., L.A. Region, Trash Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Los Angeles River Watershed (draft Nov. 27, 2000), https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/board_decisions/basin_plan_amendments/technical_documents/2001-013/00_1127/00_1127_lar_DraftLAR_Trash_TMDL.pdf (describing California’s implementation of full or partial capture systems with 5 mm mesh screens to comply with trash TMDLs and noting that approximately $7 million has been spent installing these devices to date).
[61] State Water Res. Control Bd., Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (2025), https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/laws_regulations/docs/portercologne.pdf. (last visited June 3, 2025).
[62] Id. at 167.
[63] Id.
[64] Judith E. Koons, At the Tipping Point: Defining an Earth Jurisprudence for Social and Ecological Justice, 58 Loy. L. Rev. 349, 368 (2012).
[65] Earth Law Ctr., What Is Earth Law?, https://www.earthlawcenter.org/what-is-earth-law/ (last visited June 3, 2025).
[66] Thomas Berry, The Origin, Differentiation, and Role of Rights (Jan. 11, 2001), https://www.ties-edu.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Thomas-Berry-rights.pdf (last visited June 17, 2025).
[67] Id.
[68] Id.
[69] Christopher D. Stone, Should Trees Have Standing?—Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects, 45 S. Cal. L. Rev. 450, 455 (1972).
[70] Cynthia Giagnocavo & Howard Goldstein, Law Reform or World Re-form: The Problem of Environmental Rights, 35 McGill L.J. 345, 345 (1989–90).
[71] Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. § 1531–1544 (2018).
[72] Marianne Lavelle, Trump Administration Proposes Rule to Weaken Endangered Species Protections, Inside Climate News (Apr. 17, 2018), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/17042018/trump-administration-endangered-species-protections-harm-definition/.
[73] Micheline Ishay, What Are Human Rights? Six Historical Controversies, 3 J. Hum. Rts. 359 (2004), https://doi.org/10.1080/1475483042000224897.
[74] Stone, supra at 455.
[75] Id.
[76] Marina Requena-i-Mora, Dan Brockington & Forrest Fleischman, Eco-Paradox USA: The Relationships Between Economic Growth and Environmental Concern Generally, and by Different Income Groups, 218 Ecol. Econ. 108322, 1 (2025), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108322.
[77] Bender, Michelle, Ocean Rights: Advancing an Ethical Human-Ocean Relationship, Communications and Advocacy Toolkit (2025), Ocean Vision Legal, www.oceanvisionlegal.com.
[78] About, Ocean Vision Legal, https://www.oceanvisionlegal.com/about (last visited June 18, 2025).
[79] Concept Note: Towards a Universal Declaration of Ocean Rights, (May 17, 2025), https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55914fd1e4b01fb0b851a814/t/646523cd9c8b6d4f55abaa3c/1684349908559/UDOR_Concept%20Note%20%281%29.pdf (last visited June 18, 2025).
[80] Earth Law Ctr., Panama Passes National Sea Turtle Law Recognizing Their Rights, Earth Law Center (Mar. 22, 2023), https://www.earthlawcenter.org/elc-in-the-news/2023/3/panama-passes-national-sea-turtle-law-recognizing-their-rights.
[81] Earth Law Ctr., Coral Reefs Initiative, https://www.earthlawcenter.org/coralreefs (last visited June 18, 2025).
[82] Earth Law Ctr., A Voice for the Deep: A Concept Note on Legal Rights for Coral Reef Ecosystems (2025), https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55914fd1e4b01fb0b851a814/t/683f256543b6817716eb4fc1/1748968809452/A+Voice+for+the+Deep+-+ELC+Concept+Note.pdf.
[83] Chloe Fisher, Plastic Pollution in the Ocean – 2025 Facts and Statistics, Recycle Track Sys. Blog (Dec. 30, 2023), https://www.rts.com/blog/plastic-pollution-in-the-ocean-facts-and-statistics/.
[84] Clean Water Action, The Problem of Marine Plastic Pollution, Clean Water Action (n.d.), https://cleanwater.org/problem-marine-plastic-pollution.
[85] U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress, EPA 841-R-16-011 (Aug. 2017), https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-12/documents/305brtc_finalowow_08302017.pdf