Peat & methane

[Elle's Garden]

Sorry, no new facts to bring , but can anyone explain what this means from the Steve Yandell article:

Simply that the restoration of UK bogs is likely to increase the World's methane load,

I have no agenda here - I simply don't understand the processes/mechanics .

Thank you,

Elle

[Johnboy]

Hi Elle,
The replanting of Peat Bogs and the planting of new Peat Bogs were mentioned by me in an earlier posting (on a different thread) posing the doubt that they were a good thing. Peat bogs may store CO2 but give off Methane which is, we are told, 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas that CO2 but where is the balance to be set. Do we actually know that what this country is doing is not worse for the environment.
I have seen no satisfactory explanations and I suspect the reason is that those in power simple do not know. At what level does Peat become saturated and can take no more CO2 for storage and again there are no statistics and I would have thought that before DEFRA go any further I suggest that further studies are needed. I would suggest that the studies should be carried out by Government Scientists and not the usual field studies carried out by untrained under graduates. Now I have nothing against under graduates except that they are open to all manner of misconceptions because they are in pursuit of knowledge and I am suggesting studies should be carried out by experienced research scientists. When the studies have concluded then their findings will be in the public domain and these are the figures to be used.
JB.

[alan refail]

Hi Elle

Far be it from a non-scientist like me to give you a full answer And apologies if you know most of this already

What I do know is that methane (CH4) is produced by the anaerobic (=absence of oxygen) decomposition of organic matter. That includes in such places as marshes, the sea floor, coal mines, the stomachs of ruminants such as cattle and sheep, etc. It is a principal component of what used to be known as marsh gas (in wetland areas) or fire-damp (in coal mines).

Peat bogs produce methane in their saturated state, so it follows that the restoration or creation of more peat bogs will produce more methane into the atmosphere.

That's the limit of my science. For more have a look at the wikipedia article:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane

[Elle's Garden]

Thank you, that is very useful and I understand what he was saying now.

I do apologise for starting a new thread, , I had thought I was just replying to the peat thread so I was a bit confused just now when I saw the thread had moved on without my comment.

[John Walker]

@Elle's Garden

We actually had an interesting discussion on the main peat thread (viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9202) about methane emissions, where it was suggested that restoring peat bogs might add to climate change by producing more methane.

Dr Mark Reed added this useful comment on 5th January 2011:

Interesting discussion - there has been a lot of work done on the effects of peatland restoration on methane emissions. For a long time the jury was out, with conflicting evidence from different studies, but consensus is now emerging amongst the academic community that the climate benefits of restoration outweigh the disbenefits of methane production over the long-term, and with a targeted approach to restoration, not necessarily restoring everything everywhere. For the two latest independent reviews on this topic led by key experts in this field, see:
http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/Peatbogs_ ... 255200.pdf
http://iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/co ... matechange
Hope this helps,

Mark Reed
Acting Director, Aberdeen Centre for Environmental Sustainability
Senior Lecturer, School of Geosciences, University of Aberdeen

At the start of the second link given above, the IUCN UK Committee Peatland Programme states:

Ten million tonnes of carbon dioxide are lost to the atmosphere from the UK’s damaged peatlands each year. There are also concerns about emissions of highly potent greenhouse gas methane from rewetted peatlands. However, evidence suggests that it is possible to halt the loss of carbon from peatland through habitat restoration, and that methane emissions are likely to be small in relation to the overall greenhouse gas benefits from restoring peatlands.

It's worth remembering that extracting peat also releases the 'fossil' carbon dioxide previously locked away, that all peat bogs produce methane naturally, and that carbon dioxide (and it's global warming effect) persists in the atmosphere for centuries, whereas methane lasts for around a decade. Extraction destroys habitat, reduces 'ecosystem services', despoils the landscape and contributes directly to climate change.

The bottom line is that methane emissions from peat bogs - untouched, restored or recreated - is negligible set alongside the increasing amount of methane generated by human activities such as landfill and agriculture (especially meat production). The evidence I have seen suggests that where peat bogs can be restored (and it isn't as easy as some would have us believe) then the gains in carbon lock-up as the peat is once more laid down more than outweigh any methane production (which would occur naturally in bog habitat anyway).

It's unfortunate that the article by Steve Yandall was seized upon by those determined to muddy the arguments for ending peat use. I'm sorry to say his article is largely incoherent, muddled and ill-devised, and shows a lack of understanding of even the basic discussion points. Much of it is ill-informed opinion parading as fact and he is simply wrong. Restoring the UK's peat bogs is not going to add to the 'methane load'. Ceasing extraction and restoring bogs, where feasible, will keep carbon safely in the ground and start locking it away again.

This is what the science tells us.

[alan refail]

It's unfortunate that the article by Steve Yandall was seized upon by those determined to muddy the arguments for ending peat use. I'm sorry to say his article is largely incoherent, muddled and ill-devised, and shows a lack of understanding of even the basic discussion points. Much of it is ill-informed opinion parading as fact and he is simply wrong.

A lot of emotive language here, John!

May I translate?

"seized upon" = quoted/referred to

"those determined to muddy the arguments" = people who do not entirley share your firm convictions

"his article is largely incoherent, muddled and ill-devised, and shows a lack of understanding of even the basic discussion points. Much of it is ill-informed opinion parading as fact and he is simply wrong" = he expresses opinions different from you

He does actually admit to his own ignorance and confusion on the issue and does claim a plausible "CV":-

Apprentice Brighton Corp/Gardener/H.Gardener/Estate manager/Nursery owner/Nursery Landscape partner/responsible for up to 80 GC's/Plant breeder(Ber.Starburst/Passiflora White Lightning/Abutilon's Waltz,Tango,Flamenco/Ophiopogon Blackbeard/Lophomyrtus Black Pearl/Ugni Butterball/Callistemon Inferno/Luma Rainbow Gold etc.

Worked for 8 years for founder member of WWF(WWFN now) - Operation Tiger and 2 years for a member of the Nature Conservancy Council who both taught me to question everything on the basis that this is my grandchildren's environment.

For you to dismiss his opinions and questioning out of hand makes me even more firmly in his "agnostic" camp.

[John Walker]

@ alan refail

A nice try Alan, but there's nothing remotely 'emotive' about my comments and it's telling that this element of my last post is the only one you choose to try and pick holes in. Here's what emotive is defined as:

'Arousing or able to arouse intense feeling'

My comments on Steve Yandall's article are not based on my feelings but by comparing what Yandall says with what the current scientific facts are - which I tried my best to capture in the rest of my comment. They are also based on being as well informed about this topic as I can be, which is gleaned from an investment in reading around the subject and asking lots of questions.

In citing Steve Yandall's article you yourself brought a very confused line of thinking to the discussion about peat/methane (exemplified by Elle's Garden's opening question), which had already been addressed in our main peat thread by a scientist specialising in peatlands (and which oddly seemed to have been forgotten).

If Steve Yandall had bothered to do even a bit of reading around (which this whole topic requires, whatever your view), he would not have made the erroneous and muddying claim that restoring peat bogs adds to the 'methane load'. He is, as I've said, simply wrong. My use of the term 'muddying' has nothing to do with me not sharing anyone else's convictions, but it is based on looking at whether what they say stands closer scrutiny. Unfortunately, Yandall's comments largely don't. Why would someone who admits to their own 'ignorance and confusion' do something like this anyway (and why would anyone publish such a muddled piece without applying even a hint of critical analysis or basic editing?).

I certainly do not dismiss his opinion and questioning out of hand, but based on what the facts are he is clearly very muddled on this whole topic (which is somewhat surprising given the experience claimed on his CV). Steve Yandall's problem is that opinion is largely all he is expressing, without bothering to back any of it up. I don't intend to get into an endless two-way argument on this (maybe we could get back to methane).

With respect, your claim of 'emotive language' is groundless.

[Tony Hague]

carbon dioxide (and it's global warming effect) persists in the atmosphere for centuries, whereas methane lasts for around a decade.

Glad you mention that. It has been puzzling me for a while, the issue of methane being a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 - whilst I can understand that, I have always wondered how long methane can actually persist before it is oxidised to C02 and water, if anything I'm quite surprised that it is decades and not days.

[Elle's Garden]

John Walker, thank you for your post. I have followed all the threads but I must confess that my mind was not in a good place back at the turn of the year and although I was reading I am not sure I was digesting!

Anyway, your explanation of the methane process makes sense for me and answers my question. I don't wish to provoke further debate or rancour, but suffice to say that I shall now do my own side by side tests and see how the results inform me as to the quality of substitutes as I think that quality, reliable substitutes will take care of the debate in the long term.

[Johnboy]

Hi Elle,
The last part of your last sentence of your posting makes perfect sense.
It is all very well wishing to ban something but to do so without there being something of good quality to take its place is really what the entire argument has been about.
I have suggested to those who are for banning the use of Peat that if they also would try very hard to get a British Standard on the non-peat replacement products their case would be won almost automatically.
They simply say that the replacements are perfectly adequate and quote various brands. These brands simple do not make it to this neck of the woods and even to go to B&Q involves a 55 mile round trip, for people in this area, which defeats the whole object of the exercise because we will be using more fossil fuel and pushing out more carbon than we are saving.
If there was a Kite mark on Peat Substitutes then we would all know where we are. As it is the only non peat potting compost on sale hereabouts is absolute rubbish and in order to get anything like a seeding compost it must be riddled and then nutrition added in the form of chemicals and then those against the use of peat will create about the use of man made fertilizers. I suspect this is why many people simply do not want to give up peat and will fight for its retention irrespective of whatever is said by the anti peat lobby.
JB.

[Johnboy]

John Walker.

Quote:
Ten million tonnes of carbon dioxide are lost to the atmosphere from the UK’s damaged peatlands each year. There are also concerns about emissions of highly potent greenhouse gas methane from rewetted peatlands. However, evidence suggests that it is possible to halt the loss of carbon from peatland through habitat restoration, and that methane emissions are likely to be small in relation to the overall greenhouse gas benefits from restoring peatlands.

John,
You make out that everything you tell us has scientific backing.
I do not think that the part of the quote below to be particularly scientific. What is said in that quote implies that they simply do not know.
I also question the given statistic of Ten Million tonnes of Carbon dioxide.
How many tonnes of Peat are extracted each year?

and that methane emissions are likely to be small

If they can tell us the amount of Carbon Dioxide lost why can they not tell us the amount of methane given off. This is the reason why there is great resistance to this whole anti peat lobby because people simply do not know the truth of how these statistics are gathered.
How was the statistic of 'only 1% of raised peat bogs in England are pristine' arrived at?
I think that when a statistic is quoted there should also be the source quoted.
JB.