@GeoffMany thanks for your reply.
Significant is a matter of scale, in several different ways.
Being surrounded as I am by thousands of acres of wet peaty land used for Grouse shooting and a few Sheep makes me realise that the area used for extraction is a small fraction of the total peat lands, one might say an insignificant part.
I am obviously in favour of biodiversity but every environment and every species cannot be preserved. The species rich areas such as rain forest or deciduous woodlands have to have priority. The number of species living uniquely in the areas suitable for peat extraction must be very small, one might say they are insignificant.
Of course it's the lowland raised peat bogs which are under greatest threat. Only a tiny fraction of what we once had in the UK remain. Surely ending peat use to preserve these for the benefit of future generations - and just for themselves - outweighs any short-term desire to continue with using peat in our gardens? The idea of knowingly using materials that are causing ecological destruction is surely at odds with what gardening, at its heart, is all about?
How can you be in favour of biodiversity (it's not obvious why you are, by the way) and then say not all species and environments can be preserved? Why not - wouldn't it be better to change our habits in the garden and elsewhere to protect and preserve as much as we possibly can? Humans do, after all, depend entirely on the health of the ecosystems around us - for which they offer their services free of charge.
Why should rainforests and woodlands get priority? Are you saying some species have less worth than others? Is a panda any less worthy of preservation and protection than say the great sundew which inhabits peat bogs? Isn't their beauty in both that we just can't afford to risk losing? I'm inclined to think we must do our best for both, and if that means changing the way we do things in our gardens, I'm happy to oblige.
Do you know for a fact that the number of species that live in peat extraction ares are very small, or is it just an inkling? I don't understand why only a small number of species (if that's the case) should be thought of as 'insiginificant'. Does that mean you wouldn't be bothered if they were to disappear for good, and you would consider it a price worth paying in order to go on using peat compost?
The contribution by peat breakdown to CO2 emissions has been stated elsewhere to be very small.
Where has the contribution to CO2 emissions from peat been stated as 'very small'? Do you have a reference? The UK government figures tell a rather different story:
As well as depleting the carbon store and impacting on biodiversity, archaeology and the landscape, extraction activities result in annual greenhouse gas emissions of at least 400,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) from UK extraction sites. This is equivalent to 100,000 cars on the road each year and does not take account of the peat that we import from overseas, principally from Ireland (which supplies 60% of our horticultural peat) and the Baltic States (8%). Current estimates of emissions from domestic extraction activities are also likely to be underestimates as they exclude emissions associated with the initial drainage of peat and subsequent emissions from the bare peat surface. In the context of the Climate Change Act 2008, and the Government‟s legally-binding carbon budget and target to reduce the UK‟s emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, all emission reductions are important.
Source (pages 8/9) NB PDF file:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consu ... condoc.pdfWhatever organic matter we use in cultivation will break down to CO2 so if we make compost from stuff that historically would have gone into landfill we are releasing its CO2 instead of that from peat. It can be argued this is current CO2 rather than historical CO2 but I think if the sums were done correctly they would confirm the peat contribution to CO2 emission is very small, one might say insignificant.
Yes, you're right. Non-woody plants are just swapping CO2 between the air and their tissues on an annual basis (they grow and absorb it, then rot down in the compost heap and release it, with a little becoming more stable as garden compost then humus). It's the 'fossil' CO2 released by peat that's the problem - as is the CO2 released by the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
Peat is a fossil fuel, so the same climate impacts apply when the carbon it stores is released.
What sums do you think aren't being 'done correctly'? Government figures (above) show 400,000 tonnes of CO2 are released each year from UK extraction alone (remember this doesn't include emissions from the 70% of peat which is imported). Do you still think the emissions of peat are 'insignificant'?
(By the way I think you paragraph "The science on this is very clear i.e. harvesting peat bogs releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (previously stored in the peat) which is the primary driver of climate disruption" is simply journalistic exaggeration implying for the quick reader that peat extraction is a major driver of climate change which is simply untrue.)
There's no exaggeration at all. I'm referring to carbon dioxide as being the main cause of global warming, and pointing out that harvesting peat contributes to that (as evidenced by the government figures given above). It's worth remembering that peat extraction goes on on a vast scale in other countries, so the overall contribution to climate change by gardeners worldwide must be phenomenal. My earth-friendly ethos means I'm doing all I can to minimise the negative impacts of what I do in my garden on the wider natural world. I'm naturally uncomfortable with the idea of using a material that is known to be making a direct contribution (by releasing CO2) to climate disruption. I don't want my gardening to cause hardships elsewhere, which is what our changing climate is doing.
So lets minimise the use of peat for soil improvement, where other materials can do a good job, but continue to use it for propagation where it is uniquely successful with everything else being pale substitutes.
I agree, green waste products are ideal for soil improvement, but I think I would rather stick to my earth-friendly principles, go for the top-performing peat-free composts and learn to get along with them better - they are after all improving all the time. It's simply misleading to suggest none of them perform as well as or even better than peat composts.
