I'm sorry if you feel admonished, I was merely trying to chivvy you along
I suggested (not instructed) you might telephone the RSPB, merely as a friendly suggestion. That way you can check that they've actually got your email (you haven't indicated anywhere that you've been emailing them persistently, so I have to assume you only made the one stab at it) and establish a point of contact you can go back to to chase up a response and ask for any further clarifications.
I agree it's good to have the information in writing, and that's exactly what we're all waiting for. You took specific issue with some of the RSPB's information and so the onus now rests with you to follow it through. You said you would post the RSPB's clarification here.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who's looking forward to reading it.
john, you have obviously failed to understand my previous post. i will endeavor to make it clearer for you. i am not disputing that the somerset levels have been drained... indeed i mentioned that its been going on for centuries so i find your comments that the picture of the horse and cart must prove to me that the bogs have been draind at the least rather childish ( i was tempted to say offensive but i wouldnt want to upset you). the entire levels , hundreds of square miles , have been drained for agriculture... whatever co2 was released during this draining should not be included in any co2 calculation of the impact of industrial peat extraction.which occurs on a very small area of the already drained levels . whiilst whoever made the calculation ignores this simple concept, the calculation of the co2 released by the peat industry that you were parading as a (if not the) principle reason for banning it , remains as i said before simple garbage, personally i wouldnt continue to promote a concept that was proven to be based on a falsehood, but we all have our own standards and ethics.
It looks like we might indeed have crossed wires - sorry for any confusion on my part. I think part of the problem is that the Somerset Levels were not mentioned on this thread until you mentioned them. I'm wondering if you've somehow inadvertantly jumped threads?
However, it seems the only way we will get to the bottom of this is if you can be specific about which "calculation" it is you are referring to and where exactly it can be found?
Please can you also explain what you mean when you talk about a concept "proven to be based on a falsehood". Which concept are you referring to and who has proven it to be 'false'?
At the end of the day, the carbon released by draining bogs and extracting peat for gardening use, wherever it takes place in the UK, has to be taken seriously and factored into overall carbon emissions. The carbon released historically by drainage and other land use changes is already present in the atmosphere and is contributing to climate change on a global scale. And why shouldn't the carbon release through drainage be factored into the equations anyway? Indeed the UK government suggest that
"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."
Just because the carbon released by peat extraction might appear to be small in comparison to other sources, it doesn't make it any the less important to reduce and stop the emissions caused by the destruction of peat bogs, which also destroys natural habitat and reduces the ability of peat bogs to offer 'ecosystem services' . We have to cut carbon emissions on all fronts.
I will readily admit that a number of my contributions to the various peat threads have been by way of devil's advocacy - attempts to penetrate the self-assured convictions of the anti-peat campaigners. I think I have failed on that score!
I do appreciate the arguments in favour of reducing/banning peat use in England. But I am in no position to accept or reject the figures put forward.
One of the effects of these discussions has been to overcome the guilt I am urged to feel about using peat compost. Sure "we have to cut carbon emissions on all fronts." I have reduced my annual van mileage from 12,000 a year to less than 5,000. I consider the emissions saved by this serve as some kind of carbon offset for my continued use of a few hundred litres of peat compost imported from Northern Ireland for my use here in Wales - and bought from our local garden centre 2 miles up the road.
[edit] Oh yes, I forgot to mention that we have not been on an aeroplane for well over twenty years. That should be good for a few more years' peat use
Last edited by alan refail on Fri Apr 01, 2011 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I hope you don't take this in the wrong way, and obviously the moderator should remove it if it is out of order, but I keep wondering exactly what your scientific and other qualifications are.
One of the big problems nowadays is that the very nature of the web spreads information exponentially, and it can often be mere rumour and worthless. Even when there are quoted sources, not just yours, but everyones, it is often difficult, if not impossible to trace it back to source. So the veracity the quote is in doubt and this is what I suspect to be the case with the RSPB.
As my garden backs on to a very large peat bog I have a keen interest in peat and bogs. And some 4 years ago a certain well-known house-builder sought planning permission to remove the bog, or rather half of it, and build houses there. As it would probably have meant the collapse of the grade two listed church which stands above the bog, it wasn't thought to be a good idea. Fortunately, with the aid of the vicar, who just happened to be a geologist, we were able to present the facts in a way which changed the minds of the planners who, obviously not understanding the technical details, were happy to say yes even up until the morning of the planning meeting. Then, a year or so ago, another group tried again, but this time it was thrown out before even going to a planning meeting. Why, well by then peat and bogs had become the in-things, CO2, etc., etc. Hooray for peat you might say. Well, yes, but I have to say that there were other very good reasons for refusing planning and in all honesty I thought the CO2 argument a bit iffy as the total volume of peat was unknown, and the assumptions well....
But, to make life more interesting, the company resubmitted their application 2 weeks ago. This time, hey presto, they aren't going to remove the bog, they are going to build on top of it. Bearing in mind that in places it is more than 15ft deep and 3 companies pulled out when trying to clear and survey the site and in one place on the drawings there is the legend ' unable to survey' it is all a bit imaginative to say the least. They are proposing a grid and tensar method whereby they pile down (depth unknown) and put a sort of mesh over the place. Fine for roads, etc., but a housing estate? Bog gardens or none at all presumably.
But I digress. One thing that this has taught me, along with a somewhat similar exercise with an attempt to build a waste composting unit nearby, is that when figures are spouted with an air of authority then people often accept them. But look behind the figures at the facts and they are often very different, sometimes plain wrong, as are some of the statements.
My own background is that I did chemical engineering, then switched to computers and have written programs for all manner of computers, both commercial, engineering and scientific for the past 50 years. I have also kept weather records on and off since the mid-fifties, have my own weather station and recently installed one in the National Botanic Garden of Wales. So I have a keen interest in Climate Change and in particular the data and methodology used. I know, for instance, just how difficult it is to manually read thermometers accurately to better than 1F and on time (and hope they are accurate), and how much better and easier it is now with electronic instruments - assuming they are correctly calibrated and suitably placed. And I write my own computer weather program and am an amateur astronomer, so keep an 'eye' on Sun-spots and the influence of the Sun on weather.
So when I look at the data on which the claims are based and the way that it is processed, I am more than a little sceptical about the end results. When I see the quality of the temperature data, particularly regarding the weather stations situation, when I see that the data has been adjusted to cater for the urban island heat effect I think, oh yes? When I look at the climate computer models and see that certain elements are 'poorly understood' and the wide range of values that different ones give and then look at the various factors that keep coming to light, I wonder how many further unknowns there are that we don't know about. It is an enormously complex subject such that any one discipline is inadequate. There may be a consensus regarding the effect of CO2, but the science is far from settled.
As to our efforts to combat climate change, whether it relate to peat, saving CO2 or what, we all know that in reality that our efforts in this country are merely token gestures, maybe aimed at atoning for our early industrialisation. Will it influence China, India or the rest of the developing world? What do you think?
I am sure my gardening activities support more life than they destroy. My garden was created from poor quality marginal agricultural land similar to upland peatlands. It is now insect and bird rich in a way it was not before I started. I incorporate several times more organic matter than I use as peat based potting compost. That I am able to successfully raise and grow so many plants (many of these perennials, trees and shrubs) must mean I capture more CO2 than I release.
Quite simply really. I purchased the corner (bare, no trees) of a poor quality field, I haven't got a photo in the original state but here is the rest of the field today
Field.jpg (116.03 KiB) Viewed 3226 times
I have planted numerous trees so the captured carbon is there for all to see. I have, for example, a Heather bed which is today alive with Bumble Bees and many other insects. I have a pond currently full of frogs and spawn. There are many nest boxes in the trees that are regularly occupied, last year's highlight was Pied Flycatchers which must say something about the insect population. There is a stick stack area which I think is used by Hedgehogs, there is an area of Nettles, etc. It looks like this today.
April_PAN_640.jpg (138.51 KiB) Viewed 3226 times
I seem to remember from your other posts that you are against supermarkets, large garden centres and big business in general. Your only solution offered so far to reduce peat extraction is to buy, on trust, the products of these businesses. The problem is that most people who have tried them seem to have had their trust broken. If you were a real gardener with practical solutions you would be contributing to my topic about making your own composts. I started the topic as, although I cannot see the argument for it, it looks inevitable that using peat in the future will be restricted and it seemed to me the best way to cope would be to become independent of the dodgy alternatives being offered.
Hi Alan, I am totally overwhelmed with the two postings and have been awaiting a comment from the person they were meant for. Sadly, it appears that as usual, the comments are not forthcoming because they show that we, as a group, are not the load of clucks we are taken for. Both postings show that a lot of thought and work has gone into their production and they deserve a reply. My advice to both Geoff and Colin; do not to hold your breath whilst awaiting a reply because I do not think that there will be one. JB.
Johnboy wrote:Hi Alan, I am totally overwhelmed with the two postings and have been awaiting a comment from the person they were meant for. Sadly, it appears that as usual, the comments are not forthcoming because they show that we, as a group, are not the load of clucks we are taken for. Both postings show that a lot of thought and work has gone into their production and they deserve a reply. My advice to both Geoff and Colin; do not to hold your breath whilst awaiting a reply because I do not think that there will be one. JB.
They seem to have got a reply, Johnboy, but not here where one might have expected. I think this is a sort of reply -
Like JB I was going to ignore these peat threads but now I have got to decide whether to create a presence on that other place to refute the gratuitous insults and partial truths JW has posted there. Disagreeing with bad science has now become some dreadful crime, it reminds me of the time somebody tried to convert me to a Jehovah's Witness using a publication that quoted Darwin on one side of the argument and somebody from something like the Chicago Courier on the other.
Geoff wrote:Like JB I was going to ignore these peat threads but now I have got to decide whether to create a presence on that other place to refute the gratuitous insults and partial truths JW has posted there. Disagreeing with bad science has now become some dreadful crime, it reminds me of the time somebody tried to convert me to a Jehovah's Witness using a publication that quoted Darwin on one side of the argument and somebody from something like the Chicago Courier on the other.
Hi Geoff,
Sorry to bring you back into the thread, but it did seem that three posts, mine, Colin's and yours deserved at least some response. I thought it lamentable that they should only be used as the basis for a rant on a fringe forum elsewhere.
JW seems to be using KG forum discussions as the basis for further insults on this other fringe site LINK
Just one quote - no comment from me:
"This stuff seems to emanate from some presumably white males of accumulated years."
...oh, yes, and if you have arguments he doesn't like, you're "childish"
What strikes me is the thoughtful, considered and respectful way that a wide variety of people have joined in with what is a robust but healthy conversation. This is a great example of just how good a virtual conversation can be.
There is a a peat-based compost approvedby the Soil Association.It is called "Moorland Gold",produced by West Riding Organics.It isn't mined ,it is carried in water from upland peat bogs.The water is channelled into entrapment pits slowing down the water and allowing the peat to sink to the bottom and when the water level drops the peat is extracted and processed.Strange that this product hasn't been mentioned by the environmentalists posting on this Forum. Might be something to do with the cost.Stockists are quoting £5-99 for 40 litres retail.I won't be buying it but it does see to be a good product according to the blurb on the West Riding Organics web site.
Regards snooky
--------------------------------- A balanced diet is a beer in both hands! WARNING.!!... The above post may contain an opinion
