Likely due to volume vs pieces.

By volume, I believe fishing nets are the largest polluter, but likely if you counted the pieces, cigarette butts might be higher.

That does seem like a faulty metric to identify the worst pollution problems. By pure count there are probably more microbeads than cigarettes in the ocean. So this article is basically saying that of the countable pieces of pollution in the ocean, there are more pieces of cigarette butts than anything else.

I have a hard time trusting reputable news sites when they have this type of sensational reporting.

So, which is worse? I think fishing nets by light years, since they are actively designed to harm marine life, and succeed at exactly that.

But people are looking for a means to act, and if they can participate in reduction, in any way, it's good to know that they have a target they can take aim at.

Only commercial fishing is going to ultimately impact fishing nets, and likely only when forced by punitive measures.

The article is really about trash on beaches (and pieces vs volume).

If it was the same article I read, it was talking about garbage in the Great Garbage Patch. This article is talking about either the whole ocean or about the garbage that washes up on shore.

Came here to say this. Honestly, the shows over folks. We are truly in the Anthropocene moving to a Blade Runner trash world. We've caught up with end-of-days sci-fi.