How Was Sustainable Development Introduced?

The lynchpin of U.N. Agenda 2030, originally U.N. Agenda 21, is Sustainable Development (SD) with its 17 SD goals established by the United Nations’ globalist cabal.

The concept of Sustainable Development (SD) was introduced in 1987 at the conference of the World Commission on Environment and Development, chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland, 29^th prime minister of Norway. She served three terms.

To achieve SD, a vague definition was introduced: “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” It is quite vague, leaving room for abuse and constant changes predicated on a hidden agenda - what needs, whose needs specifically, who decides, for how long, and what ability of future generations. It can literally and figuratively be anything the cabal decides in secret. The rest of the world must obey.

The blueprint for SD in 1987 became U.N. Agenda 21 in 1992, signed by 179 nations at the U.N. Conference on Environment and development in Rio. The document was 300 pages long, now more pages have been added.

To “Americanize” this SD blueprint, President Bill Clinton formed the President’s Council on Sustainable Development by Executive Order #12852 on June 29, 1993, with 12 cabinet secretaries, six environmental organizations, i.e., the Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and executives from Enron, Browning Ferris, and S.C. Johnson.

Federal government grants spread Sustainable Development (SD) to all 50 states by creating a huge group of Sustainable Development NGOs (non-governmental organizations) and by giving grants directly to cash starved state and local governments.

The federal grants provided the funding; NGOs provided the leadership; local governments provided the targets for change without the knowledge or vote of the population affected by SD changes.

EPA and other federal agencies awarded “visioning” grants and “challenge” grants to develop a plan of action to transform communities across the country into sustainable development communities.

Universities also received grants dispersed to individual colleges within each university to teach students about SD.

NGOs (non-governmental organizations) received grants to work with local governments to create county-wide or region-wide plans such as Your Town 2024 or Sustainable Your Town or SD Region X, Y, Z Plan.

Visioning meetings developed comprehensive plans which included:

-         Nature preservation

-         Save the wetland

-         Improve the wetlands

-         Restrict development in sensitive areas (they decided what was sensitive)

-         Sustainable agriculture and farming (no fertilizer, no chemicals)

-         Never compromise wetlands or wildlife to the detriment of humans living in the area

-         Preservation of scenic views

-         Designate scenic highways

-         Development must be clustered and high rise

-         Rural village concept (it worked in Sovietized Europe after the Communist Party confiscated all agricultural land)

-         Smart growth, planned developments such as 15-minute cities

-         Walkability, 5 minutes from work, play, and school

-         Increased population density

-         Limit mobile homes

-         Zoning to encourage infill

-         More codes to be enforced

-         Conservation easements on agricultural land (a contract that forbids the landowner to do anything with the land without the NGO’s permission)

-         Sidewalks, bike paths, and walking paths

-         Multi-use trails and corridors that are landscaped

Comprehensive planning in SD cannot be initiated by the landowners but by the local community who are told what they need and want by a coalition of international organizations.

Smart Growth implies Land-Use control by the government:

-         1976 U.N. Conference on Human Settlements “D(1)(d) Governments must maintain full jurisdiction and exercise complete sovereignty over land with a view to freely planning development of human settlements…”

-         1992 U.N. Conference on Environment & Development “7.30(c) Develop fiscal incentives and land-use control measures, including land-use planning solutions for a more rational and environmentally sound use of limited land resources.’

Urban boundary zones appear in comprehensive master plans – municipal services such as water, sewer, fire, and police protection are not provided even though locals pay taxes for such.

Consensus of civil society (who is this civil society always quoted by the U.N. cabal every time they meet in tropical and very expensive locales where they issue new and revised documents and regulations) never includes locals who are affected by these comprehensive plans developed by outsiders.

Farmers know their land and treasure it. They know how to protect their resources because their livelihood depends on it. They don’t need outsiders telling them how to farm and where.

Government-managed societies end in environmental degradation, misuse of resources, greater division of economic classes, and hopelessness for the government-dependent poor. I know because I have experienced it. “Life is always better when people cooperate rather than a few try to dominate and control.”

Global governance using environmentalism as a tool started probably in 1891 when Cecil Rhodes asserted that the entire globe should be governed by the British Empire. How convenient to colonize the entire planet! Which is exactly what the globalist cabal wants to do.

Two weeks after Pearl Harbor Roosevelt used the term United Nations for the first time in his “Declaration of the United Nations.”

At about the same time, Professor Quincy Wright predicted the U.N. when he described in the Baltimore News Post a “Commission to Study the Organization of Peace”. United Nations became everything but an organization of peace.

Rachel Carson, another doomsayer, wrote Silent Spring and her infamous book convinced an entire generation that we are poisoning and destroying the earth.

In my 21^st century America, I hear and see thousands of birds every year in the vicinity of our suburban home. Incidentally, the U.N. Agenda 2030 cabal wants to forbid suburbia while busy cutting down forests to make paper and carboard boxes and burying CO2 pipelines (to mitigate the faux global warming), denying the gas of plant life to billions of trees that need to be replenished after so much paper use instead of the much-maligned plastics.

The real goal of SD is to reduce and control the earth’s population drastically because they are producing too much carbon. How paying a tax for said carbon is going to save the planet and offsetting CO2 production is never explained. But, one of the cabal members spoke openly that those citizens who cannot afford to travel anywhere can sell their potential carbon footprint to those citizens who are rich and can afford to go places and spew more carbon in the atmosphere with their jets and yachts.

Obviously, SD is a huge scam for power and control by the rich globalist cabal. It has nothing to do with the environment. If it did, the rich would be out there cleaning the environment polluted by China, India, and other poor countries that do not have a functioning garbage disposal plan, they use rivers and oceans to dispose of their trash.

If the cabal cared about the environment, they would not pay billions of dollars to spray daily our atmosphere with chemicals and chalk on their belief that blocking out the sun will mitigate the damage done by their global warming/climate change industry. In the process, they are harming mother nature, the weather, the climate, the food, water, and oxygen supply of the planet, killing animals and people.

 

 

 

Bicycles and The Great Leap Backwards

Photo: Wikipedia, Danish female bike

Americans hold constitutional elections in order to choose, among many positions in government, the local mayor. But a non-governmental organization (NGO), Bycs, which created the bicycle mayors’ program, wants to change that. How can an unelected ‘mayor’ be constitutional? “It is nice to have one, centralized voice,” … “And, honestly especially in the U.S., it’s so much easier to do as a party of one, than a committee, meeting, month to month. It’s a great way to speed things up. We have to catch up, to provide alternative transportation.” I’ve heard that ‘party of one’ tune before under totalitarian communism. https://bycs.org/

The nonprofit Bycs “wants to use the network to aim for an ambitious goal of moving half of all local trips to bikes by 2030 as a way to address climate change, air pollution, health, and other urban challenges.” https://www.technocracy.news/sustainable-mobility-half-of-all-city-trips-by-bicycle-by-2030/

Adam Stones, strategy and communications director for Bycs, advocates to use the Dutch bike control experiment around the world by 2030 in line with the 17 Sustainable Development (SD) goals of U.N.’s Agenda 2030.

The Dutch who already have a bike-obsessed culture, have chosen in 2016 a “bicycle mayor – a person who serves as a connecting point between city departments, nonprofits, and other bike advocates in order to make Amsterdam even more bikeable.”

The NGO Bycs wants to bring “bike mayors to 200 cities by the end of 2019. And they are already in nearly 30 cities, from São Paulo to Istanbul.”

Can you not envision thousands of people biking to work on the busy interstates that crisscross our nation’s capital and its surrounding suburbs? And these bikers would try to take their children to school, “bike-pooling,” lugging sacks of groceries on a bike, carrying everything else home on a bike, including perhaps perishables such as ice cream?

It would be so much fun biking in snow and on ice, especially for people with prosthetics, artificial knees, and other handicaps. It is indeed fun to have the option to bike in some picturesque areas, but the bike lanes are springing up all over the nation to the tune of billions of dollars, yet I see scarce few actually riding a bike on them because Americans love their cars and the freedom of mobility it affords.

Bikers can only travel so far, maybe 15 miles, if they are in good physical shape and young, before collapsing from the effort. Perhaps the idea is to keep people close to home so that the land can be re-wilded and protected from the encroaching humans.

The millennials who helped push this bike craze are actually driving alone to work in their expensive electric cars with a smug look on their faces and no idea where the electricity that powers their vehicles is coming from other than recharging stations popping up like mushrooms overnight, taking up parking spaces for the handicapped. They just know that they are saving the planet from an impending manufactured climate doom caused by the greedy humanity itself.

On the other hand, if they are unable to bike, humanity should move into the U.N. planned high-rise, walkability-designed urban areas, where everyone would be neatly stacked and packed in high-rises within five minutes walking or public transportation distance from home, work, shopping, and entertainment. Such a shrunken megalopolis would be a dream for globalists to control the population. To me, it will be The Great Leap Backward, the American version of China’s failed Great Leap Forward to total global control of the population.

We had public transportation under communism, only the elites had cars, and we never got to travel very far, only as far as our biking, walking, buses, or the train took us, if we could afford the tickets that were already subsidized by the government. The salaries were so low and equal, that things had to be subsidized by the communist government for people to afford basics such as transport, shelter, and food.

The bike “craze” began with United Nation’s 17 Sustainable Development (SD) goals, specifically number 11, Sustainable Cities and Communities. https://www.government.se/government-policy/the-global-goals-and-the-2030-Agenda-for-sustainable-development/goal-11-sustainable-cities-and-communities/

If your roads are narrower, bike paths are springing up alongside roads, and parking lots have been taken out of existence, it is owed to the work of the “civil society” of the United Nations and its NGOs staffed by Americans who just know what is better for the planning of your community, where you live, where you go to school, what you study, where you go for recreation, and how you live your life in general and do business.

United Nation’s NGOs comprise a shadow government by proxy, unelected, but nevertheless quite powerful. Their Visioning Committees are working around the country to change your local and state governments and their zoning laws.

The 17 Sustainable Development (SD) goals were adopted at the U.N. Summit on September 25, 2015, committing the signatory countries to a world of “sustainable and equitable future” as part of U.N. Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development. It is a multi-faceted, well-moneyed effort to globalize the world for better control and redistribution of wealth under the aegis of the United Nations. https://www.government.se/government-policy/the-global-goals-and-the-2030-Agenda-for-sustainable-development/

The SD brainwashing encompasses everything around you. In April 2019 National Geographic dedicated an entire special edition to walkable Cities of the Future, sustainable land, rethinking cities (whose vision?), and Urban Hubs. “In a densely developed hub, sustainable land use within and outside its borders helps people thrive by providing water, food, and recreation. High-capacity transit reduces emissions and speeds commute times.”

The progressive argument is that an urban area is a good and safe place to raise a family. Is a large metropolis a nice place to raise children and a better place for them to live? As a parent, my answer is NO. I prefer country living and suburbia, much maligned by the progressive left as “suburban sprawl.”

Hong Kong, pictured in the Nat Geo next to the verdant Victoria Park, with its other vast and undeveloped land areas while people live-in high-rise spaces the size of cages like animals, is certainly no urban model to emulate.

Susan Goldberg questioned in National Geographic, “Should we live in dense urban areas with public transit and walkable amenities? In sprawling suburbs created by our infatuation with the car? In high rises like those envisioned by Le Corbusier, now dotting urban districts across China?” Some of these buildings, malls, and towns in China are still empty.

Charles-Édouard Jeanneret-Gris, known as Le Corbusier, a Swiss-French architect and Bauhaus urban planner, considered the pioneer of modernism, argued in 1925 that everything on the right bank of the river Seine in Paris should be demolished – statues, homes, monuments, streets, and identical glass towers, 650 feet tall, should be built instead. A quarter of a mile apart, these towers would be surrounded by grass for pedestrians and elevated highways for automobiles.

Referring to his perceived war between “lovers of antiquities” and “progressive thinkers,” he allegedly stated that “progress is achieved through experimentation; the decision will be awarded on the field of battle of the ‘new.’” https://www.famous-architects.org/le-corbusier/

If we look at the amount of money and effort, mass indoctrination, including the most recent video, spent by the United Nations, academia, public schools, mass media, Hollywood, environmentalists, and “civil society” (I am still not sure to this day who the members of this ‘civil society’ are, although I have a pretty good guess – the globalist elite who know better what is good for us, like a kind and benevolent dictator.) to bring about world-wide compliance with its 1992 Agenda 21 now morphed into Agenda 2030, it seems that we are at war with the United Nation’s progressive plan called Agenda 2030.  This new “social contract” with 17 SD goals that no American citizen has voted on, “is good for us,” assures us Jeffrey Sachs of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. https://youtu.be/ElJDadfkhEo

The stakes are high – will we be able to keep our much envied “antiquated” American way of life, our very freedom and mobility which defines who we are?

Startup Societies and Sustainable Development

The Startup Societies Summit Puerto Rico is taking place at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C. on January 19-20, 2018.  This summit will “discuss solutions for Puerto Rico and raise funds for the Foundation for Puerto Rico, a non-profit dedicated to rebuilding the island.

“Our goal is to make self-sustaining economic zones in Puerto Rico focused on 21^st Century solutions, putting Puerto Rico at the forefront of the green-tech revolution. We aim to not only raise funds for the rebuilding of Puerto Rico, but to set the stage for state of the art infrastructure and an entrepreneur-friendly environment. With some help, Puerto Rico can foster startup cities to rival Silicon Valley.”

Advertised attendees are investors, green tech entrepreneurs, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), policy makers, media leaders, policy experts, Georgetown students, SEZ developers, and “block chain” experts.

Block chain experts are crypto currency developers. https://blockchain.info/

Special Economic Zones (SEZ) are located within a country’s national borders and their business and trade laws differ from the rest of the country. The explanation is that such zones include “increased trade, increased investment, job creation, and effective administration.” It is creating a mini-country within a country, independent of the sovereign laws of the land.

Joe McKinney wrote a blog on December 20, 2017, Rebuilding Puerto Rico, Tragedy Strikes, which described the financial and economic situation of Puerto Rico following the disastrous Hurricane Maria from September 2017, which had caused property damage estimated at over $100 billion and tremendous loss of life during and after the hurricane.

According to McKinney, Puerto Rico was destitute prior to the hurricane, due to its sovereign debt of $70 billion and unfunded pension liabilities exceeding $50 billion. The U.S. federal government’s $94.4 billion “care package” offset the hurricane damage. Housing assistance received $31 billion, $17.7 billion for the power grid, and $14.9 billion for healthcare. https://startupsocieties.com/ssf-blog

Acknowledging Puerto Rico’s “government lack of fiscal conservatism,” McKinney wrote how a $300 million contract with a Montana power company to restore the power grid fell through. He admits that “governance” is the main issue. “When rebuilding the economy, the problems of governance which originally caused it must be addressed.”

The Startup Societies Foundation (SSF) believes that “a green infrastructure must be built in Puerto Rico and the population must be made wealthier in knowledge, skill, and resources.” Humanitarian aid and financial help coming from U.S. taxpayers is expected.

Proposing to decentralize Puerto Rico, SSF suggests using special economic zones, eco-conscious societies, sea steading, and other means to control the island.

“Sea steading is a concept of creating permanent dwellings at sea, called sea steads, outside of the territory claimed by a government.” Proposed sea steads are modified cruising vessels, refitted oil platforms, decommissioned anti-aircraft platforms, and custom-built floating islands. https://www.seasteading.org/

“Eco-conscious societies” are environmentally friendly, nature-friendly, and green societies where sustainable development (SD), the lynch-pin of United Nations Agenda 2030, governs all decisions about human activity, services, laws, policies, and business activity, with reduced, minimal, or no harm upon ecosystems or the environment.

The immediate assessed needs for Puerto Rico were as follows:

1.      Electrical energy networks by turning to renewable energy sources.

2.      Infrastructure that will resist natural disasters.

3.      A stable, attractive business environment.

4.      Fiscal freedom from accrued debts, a.k.a. debt forgiveness.

According to SSF, “100 % green energy [possible by 2027] in the form of biomass, wave energy, and solar power remain untapped.” Immediate efforts to provide “communication should come by deploying temporary telecommunication balloons to establish basic telecom services such SMS and web browsing.” Puerto Rico could become a poster child of a “startup society.”

Through the powerful decentralization proposed by SSF, new property rights, new free markets, and new trade, “Startup societies will essentially be competing for patronage from citizens worldwide. What will happen in the long term in the startup societies' paradigm is that individual societies will specialize in their comparatively advantageous fields.” But countries are already using comparative advantage in international trade. www.startupsocieites.com/ssf-blog/2017/11/18/the-dutch-disease-the-resource-curse-and-other-dirty-economics-words

On the list of SSF problems are urban sprawl and farms. “Urban ecosystems are parasitic upon nearby nature by definition and are thus a large detriment to the environment at large. Megacities, megalopolies, and their sprawling suburbs and farms are a problem in the transition to startup societies.”

SSF proposes the use of CO2-binding concrete, artificial photosynthesis, and vertical integration such as the laudable architectural high rises in Hong Kong, “using height to create solutions for societies.” “Vertical farming, padding external building walls in specially engineered pollutant-recycling moss, the third dimension is an oft-neglected aspect of environmental sustainability.”

Eco-villages and eco-tech startups will “reformat the current settlements large and small” by a “handful of strong-willed people who may shake people out of the stupor of modern urban life.”

“The establishing of smaller, more localized jurisdictions will help speed up the competitive pressure mechanisms that will make citizen begin to convert their current structures into something resembling nature.” https://startupsocieties.com/ssf-blog/2017/12/11/environmental-impacts-in-the-startup-societies-world-what-can-and-should-be-done

According to SSF, startup societies may locate in disputed border territories, the wide-open sea, and even Antarctica. The chosen land must respect jurisdiction and follow U.N.’s Law of the Sea or the Antarctica Treaty. Then a status for the startup society must be created within the current legal framework of the current authority via sanctuary city or special economic zone. The current authority may be local, federal, individual (president), or a group (Chamber of Commerce). Lobbying and political maneuvering, persuasion through legal or fiscal means, will eventually help found a startup society.  “The essence of government is fluid. It can be remade and reshaped into an infinitely more complex but also streamlined version of itself.” https://www.startupsocieties.com/ssf-blog/2017/12/1/how-you-yes-you-can-build-a-startup-society

Quoting data from the United Nations, the SSF blog mentions that half of the richest 10 countries in the world (GDP per capita) are city states such as Liechtenstein, Monaco, and Luxemburg and are easier to manage. The truth is that these city states produce absolutely nothing of economic value other than as beautiful domiciles for the rich, the famous, and the titled. https://www.startupsocieties.com/ssf-blog/2017/12/4/on-top-of-the-world-explaining-the-statistical-success-of-modern-city-states

Startup Cities is eyeing Terra Australis, Antarctica, the southernmost continent, with 5.5 million square miles, driest and coldest, populated by 4,000 people in the summer and 1,000 in winter, appealing to the frontier spirit of Americans to establish the SSF vision of tomorrow. The only problem is, the dreamers of IT, financial technology, and other visionaries, do not have what it takes to be a frontier man or woman.

According to SSF, Chile, U.K., New Zealand, Australia, France, and Norway use certain areas of Antarctica for scientific research but cannot exercise territorial sovereignty over the borders per Antarctic Treaty System of the 1960s.

Russia and the U.S. have a “Deep Freeze” unclaimed area between New Zealand and Chile. Abandoned but maintained stations in this “unclaimed area” are utilized in the summer months. Startup Societies might use untapped opportunity to colonize this area. There is plenty of “powerful winds, extensive sunlight, and possible mineral deposits [which] may make energy a trifling matter, with the right technology.”

SSF is convinced that Startup Societies are the “future” through “competitive governance, secession, sea steading, decentralization, and e-government.”

Competitive governance is “decentralized experimentation driven by entrepreneurs and mobility of people and ideas, new structures that solve protracted social challenges peacefully.”

The author, Aleksa Burmazovic, extolls the virtues of frontier exploration - “barren land out there ripe for people to turn into beautiful gardens of human achievement,” https://www.startupsocieties.com/ssf-blog/2017/11/16/terra-australis-is-antarctica-the-next-frontier

I was thinking about all the deserts on the planet with green oases and civilizations that had died years ago, and all the mirages generated from too much heat and hot air. I see Startup Societies as the techies’ newest scheme of U.N.’s Sustainable Development, Green Growth, Smart Growth re-engineering of our society’s future.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oceans, Climate Change Hysteria, and More Wealth Redistribution

Wikipedia photo

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) held a “side event” on June 6, 2017 during the “first-ever” United Nations Ocean Conference. This side event’s topic was “Ocean Health, Climate Change and Migration: Understanding the Nexus and Implications for People on the Move.”

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the Permanent Mission of Madagascar and Ecuador partnered with IOM to promote the implementation of Sustainable Development, Goal #14 of U.N.’s Agenda 2030, “to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.” https://www.iom.int/news/iom-highlights-ocean-health-climate-change-migration-inaugural-un-ocean-conference

The idea of all these U.N. sponsored conferences around the globe is that, if the United Nations is in control and is the ultimate decision-maker, all the goals of the Agenda 2030 can be easily implemented and the wealth redistributed to all third world nations while protecting Mother Earth from hysterical Armageddon.

The Permanent Mission of Fiji noted that “the ocean is part of everyday life in Fiji – they are not only linked to livelihoods but are also an integral part of our cultural heritage.”

The event was moderated by Rosiland Jordan, U.N. Correspondent for Al Jazeera, and the audience was composed of “member state representatives, civil society, academics, scientists, journalists, and NGOs.”

Presentations were made by John Tanzer (WWF), Jean Randriannatenaina (Regional Maritime Information Fusion Center, Madagascar), Francoise Gail (Scientific Advisor, Ocean and Climate Platform), and Mariam Chazalnoel (IOM) on “direct consequences that climate change-related modification to the global ocean have on island and coastal populations as the environment, economy and livelihoods of many of these communities depend on oceans” and examples were given of changes that influence the “migration patterns of affected communities as well as the daily lives of communities receiving migrants.”

Ashraf El Nour, Director to the IOM Office of the U.N., discussed displacement of communities and the impact on human settlements located near or who depend on the world’s oceans for their survival. According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center, 24.2 million people were displaced in 2016 due to natural disasters in the world, mainly floods and storms, clearly weather events, claiming that “many of them were made worse by the climate change impacts in oceans’ coastal areas.”

We do know that such claims of global warming/anthropogenic climate change effects are false and were debunked by scientific data, many studies that contradict U.N.’s IPCC computer modeling and fear-mongering.

This IOM side-event also noted that “slow environmental degradation in coastal areas, such as sea level rise or coastal erosion, are also expected to have long-term impact on migration, as people move preemptively to find alternative livelihoods or are forced to relocate inland.”

The topics discussed were specifically chosen to harmonize with the Partnership Dialogues of the Ocean Conference which must support Agenda 2030’s Goal 14:

-          Managing, protecting and conserving marine and coastal ecosystems (PD2)

-          Ocean acidification (PD 3)

-          Making fisheries sustainable (PD 4)

-          Increasing economic benefits to small islands developing states and least developed countries (PD 5) – more wealth redistribution schemes

There are many stakeholders in this environmental fearmongering. Additionally, the Ocean Conference was promoted as an opportunity to push migration and oceans in preparation for the COP23 climate change/fossil fuels negotiations in Bonn, Germany, in November 2017.

Instead of vilifying the gas of plant life, carbon dioxide (CO2), the discussion should have focused on the garbage pollution of the world’s oceans by the top eight countries in Asia, China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Malaysia, and Bangladesh.

Millions of tons of plastic trash float into the world’s oceans yearly. A 2015 study published in the Science journal found that “Population size and the quality of waste management systems largely determine which countries contribute the greatest mass of uncaptured waste available to become plastic marine debris. Without waste management infrastructure improvements, the cumulative quantity of plastic waste available to enter the ocean from land is predicted to increase by an order of magnitude by 2025. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/768

China, for example, with its heavily coastal population, dumps approximately 1.3 million to 3.5 million metric tons of plastic into the oceans per year, mostly because of its mismanaged waste. According to the study, if the top 20 countries would cut their mismanaged waste by half, the mass of floating plastic would drop by 41 percent.

Sea mammals, fish, and even smaller invertebrates can gulp pieces of plastic or become entangled in fishing nets or plastic debris. Eventually some of the broken plastic trash sinks to the bottom.

“Quantifying the precise amount that ultimately washes out to sea is problematic, though, since there is a dearth of reliable data.”

“Few of the top contributing countries have adequate infrastructure for handling trash disposal, the study authors noted. Even with a well-developed infrastructure to handle solid waste, the U.S. contributed 40,000 to 110,000 metric tons per year, and ranked 20th, they found.” http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-tons-of-plastic-trash-in-oceans-20150213-story.html