Silly article. Surely you're not so idiotic that being informed of the global plastic problem is deterring you from changing the way you use plastic bags because of the local problem in Moreton Bay? Do you seriously think anyone is?

A quarter of a century ago, environmental activists were warning of the possibility of methane release from melting tundra if we failed to address the problem. We did fail to address the problem, and now it's happening - and yet people like ttbn are claiming "'Activists' have been crying 'wolf' for so long, and the wolf has never turned up"! Surely it's important to inform the public of what's really going on, otherwise they're going to keep dissing environmentalists for making predictions that turn out to be true!

And (ttbn please take note) plastic bags do break down. Not fast enough to avoid harming the turtles which mistake them for jellyfish, but exposure to UV does gradually break them up into flakes. And they do biodegrade in the ocean, albeit very very slowly. If Seath had kept watching instead of switching off, he might have discovered that the amount of plastic in the Pacific Gyre has started to stabilise, and if we take more care with our use of plastics we will probably be able to start reducing the problem.

BTW ttbn, you won't find environmental activists living in caves. Caves are for dinosaurs like you!

The answer lies in your second final paragraph.
Responsibility in that us humans must reduce our out of control population.
Our only problem.

For all the fools and gullible who religiously believe the scientific research to be correct.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/paper-about-how-microplastics-harm-fish-should-be-retracted-report-says

Paper about how microplastics harm fish should be retracted, report says

It took more than 10 months, but today the scientists who blew the whistle on a paper in Science about the dangers of microplastics for fish have been vindicated. An expert group at Sweden’s Central Ethical Review Board (CEPN) has concluded that the paper’s authors, Oona Lönnstedt and Peter Eklöv of Uppsala University (UU), committed “scientific dishonesty” and says that Science should retract the paper, which appeared in June 2016.

Science published an editorial expression of concern—which signals that a paper has come under suspicion—on 3 December 2016, and deputy editor Andrew Sugden says a retraction statement is now in preparation. (Science’s news department, which works independently of the journal’s editorial side, published a feature about the case in March.)

The report comes as a “huge relief,” says UU’s Josefin Sundin, one of seven researchers in five countries who claimed the paper contained fabricated data shortly after it came out

The deficiencies are so great, the CEPN team suspects the research wasn’t even performed as stated, and that the scientists fabricated much of the evidence.

I am waiting for someone to write an article on the deaths from the big freeze that Europe has received ever since the warmist claimed an eradication of snow. Oh well it does not fit the flawed warmist narrative.

The author of Poisoned Planet features an essay on this topic:
http://www.sciencealert.com/a-widely-reported-study-on-the-effects-of-microplastics-in-fish-is-about-to-be-retracted

But before all of the usual suspects start cheering I suggest that they check out the two references featured in the 4th last paragraph re the very real problem of plastic in the ocean - especially that of plastic micro-beads

What a load of codswallop.Personal responsibility? What vote with the feet and don't use coal fired power?

Back to cave dwelling and hunting our food down with a stone tied to a stick?

We can do so much better than that! And start by observing the evidence and the proffered solutions, all of them!

With the best walking out the door on simple economic outcome grounds!

And here I'm talking about utilising the most energy dense material in the world. Thorium!

Yes we will need some lead time. But most of our coal fired power stations have got around ten or so years to run, before maintainence costs become prohibitive.

And that's enough lead time to settle on an option, which ideally won't include the great white elephant of an extremely vulnerable, gold plated national grid!

What is wrong with mass produced, walk away safe, molten salt thorium reactors, and carbon free ultracheap power?

And from material so abundant in our dirt, so as to power the planet with carbon free power for the next 1,000 years! And thousands more if we mine igneous rock!

Modules can be trucked virtually anywhere and connected to very local micro grids, to provide the world's cheapest safest cleanest energy. and more modules can be bolted on with demand! To be reticulating power within days!

On a final note, (firebug)cool burning doesn't improve the environment anymore than less harmfull clear felling. At least with the latter, thousands of tons of scarce nutrient and minerals aren't sent skyward with every burn to wind up in our oceans, where they do nothing but harm!
Alan B.