To create “Washed Up: Transforming a Trashed Landscape”. Alejandro Duran gathers plastic trash that is washed up on the beaches of Sian Karan, Mexico’s largest federally-protected reserve. The site is also a UNESCO World Heritage site.

Yet every day, plastic pollution from around the world is washed up onto its shores. These materials inspired Duran to create a series of environmental art pieces, which he re-cords with photos and videos.

Duran was born in Mexico City and is now based in Brooklyn. He said that he had been collecting materials and creating photographs for the past five years, and the work was ongoing. “The project will tell me when to stop.”

Each piece can convey a vastly different mood, from the calm greens of soda bottles to the playful rainbows of toothbrushes. “I’m making art,” said Duran. “It comes from the context and my moods. You can’t say only something dark.” The work reflects and plays with natural forms, exploring how humans influence the environment. The colorful and playful images can be much attention-grabbing. “Beauty is a hook (钩子) to attract people’s attention,” said Duran.

In addition to promoting awareness of the plastic pollution problem, Duran is also involved in educational programs and helps to organize beach clean-ups. He has also made a study of the types of products that are washed ashore in Sian Ka’an, and has identified objects from 50 different countries. Although there’s no way to know where or how these objects were dropped into the sea, their labels show the global nature of the problem.

Masks that helped save lives during the coronavirus pandemic are proving a deadly threat for wildlife.

Macaques (猕猴) have been spotted chewing the straps off old and tossed-aside masks in the hills outside Malaysia’s capital Kuala Lumpur — a potential choking threat for the diminutive monkeys. And in an incident that captured headlines in Britain, a gull (海鸥) was rescued by the RSPCA in the city of Chelmsford after its legs became tangled (缠绕) in the straps of a disposable (一次性的) mask for up to a week. The animal welfare charity was alerted after the bird was spotted, motionless but still alive, and they took it to a wildlife hospital for treatment before its release.

The biggest impact may be in the water, with green groups alarmed at the flood of used masks, latex (乳胶) gloves and other protective gear finding their way into already polluted seas and rivers. Conservationists in Brazil found one inside the stomach of a penguin after its body washed up on a beach, while a dead pufferfish was discovered caught inside another off the coast of Miami.

French campaigners Operation Mer Propre found a dead crab trapped in a mask in a saltwater lagoon near the Mediterranean in September.

Masks and gloves are “ particularly problematic” for sea creatures, says George Leonard, chief scientist from US-based NGO Ocean Conservancy.“When those plastics break down in the environment, they form smaller and smaller particles. Those particles then enter the food chain and impact entire ecosystems,” he added.

There has been a shift towards greater use of reusable cloth masks, but many are still choosing the lighter single-use varieties. Campaigners have urged people to throw them away properly and cut the straps to reduce the risk of animals becoming trapped. Oceans Asia has   also called on governments to increase fines for littering and encourage the use of washable masks.

Cowboy or spaceman? A dilemma for a children’s party, perhaps. But also a question for economists, argued Kenneth Boulding, a British economist, in an essay published in 1966. We have run our economies, as he warned, like cowboys on the open grassland: taking and using the world’s resources, confident that more lies over the horizon. But the Earth is less a grassland than a spaceship-a closed system, alone in space, carrying limited supplies. We need, according to Boulding, an economics that takes seriously the idea of environmental limits. In the half century since his essay, a new movement has responded to his challenge. “Ecological economists”, as they call themselves, want to revolutionize aims and assumptions of economics. What do they say—and will their ideas achieve lift-off?

To its advocators, ecological economics is neither ecology nor economics, but a mix of both. Their starting point is to recognize that the human economy is part of the natural world. Our environment, they note, is both a source of resources and a sink for wastes. But it is ignored in conventional textbooks, where neat diagrams trace the flows between firms, households and the government as though nature did not exist. That is a mistake, say ecological economists.

There are two ways our economies can grow, as ecological economists point out: through technological change, or through more intensive use of resources. Only the former, they say, is worth having. They are suspicious of GDP, a crude measure which does not take account of resource exhaustion, unpaid work, and countless other factors. In its place they advocate more holistic(全面的) approaches, such as the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), a composite index(复合指标) that includes things like the cost of pollution, deforestation and car accidents. While GDP has kept growing, global GPI per person peaked in 1978: by destroying our environment we are making ourselves poorer, not richer. The solution, according to Herman Daly, a former World Bank economist and eco-guru, is a “steady-state” economy, where the use of materials and energy is held constant.

Mainstream economists are unimpressed. The GPI, they point out, is a subjective measure. And talk of limits to growth has had a bad press since the days of Thomas Malthus, a gloomy18th-century cleric who predicted, wrongly, that overpopulation would lead to famine. Humanbeings find solutions to some of the most annoying problems. But ecological economists warn against self-satisfaction. In 2009 a paper in Nature, a scientific journal, argued that human activity is already overstepping safe planetary boundaries on issues such as biodiversity(生物多样性) and climate change. That suggests that ecological economists are at least putting forward some important Questions, even if their answers may turn out to be wrong.