Alan Titchmarsh on peat use

[alan refail]

He said he would carry on using peat-based compost until a “perfect substitute” is discovered.



http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/240 ... se-of-peat

[Monika]

Hear, hear!

[Johnboy]

Hi Alan,
There is a very similar article in Horticulture Week and also another interesting article by Peter Seabrook who is always worth a read.
The Peat debate on this forum, if it could be called a debate, has died a natural death and I guess that the conclusion is that we seem mostly to agree with Alan Titchmarsh. I certainly do. We could have had a good debate but those who quote statistics had not got the information to hand to defend them. It is no good grabbing statistics from elsewhere, but if you do quote them, then you must be able to explain how they are derived and this was certainly not the case on this forum. To quote DEFRA, who openly admit that that their published statistics are incorrect, and them build a case against Peat digging is really outrageously foolish.
JB.

[alan refail]

Reaction from Friends of the Earth

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_rel ... 42011.html

To call peat use "planet-wrecking" is a bit nonsensical!

[Johnboy]

Hi Alan,
I suggest the FoE concentrate on Sweden, Finland and The ROI who burn between then thousands upon thousands of tons of Peat to generate electricity each year and leave our very modest peat digging alone.
I say three cheers for Alan Titchmarsh who has had to guts to speak out against these bully-boy conservationists and their statistics that they cannot or will not substantiate.
JB.

[Colin Miles]

Hi Freddie,

Facts are all we ask for.

[John Walker]

Reading some of the comments on this thread has me wondering what threads others have been reading. On the contrary, I think our various peat-related threads have, bar a few blips, been pretty good examples of informative and diverse conversation and exchanges of views/questions and answers, accompanied by a good sprinkling of scientific facts plus links to further information (often to support quoted facts/figures) for those interested in reading into the subject. I've certainly found the conversation illuminating, but also disturbing in respect of finding out more about the attitude of some of my fellow gardeners to the natural world.

To suggest otherwise does anyone who's contributed rather a disservice. And it's disingenuous to imply that no one has been able to back up the figures they've brought to the conversation, or have failed to provide 'facts'.

With just short of 2,500 views and 99 replies the thread 'Government consultation on phasing out peat use' can hardly be deemed to have "died a natural death". Other spin-off threads have attracted good levels of comment/views. I'd suggest this is merely a good and mostly positive start to a hopefully better-informed peat conversation. It's clearly never been more urgently needed following Alan Titchmarsh's misguided and ill-informed comments on peat use (strictly his opinion, of course - I've found no facts anywhere in his articles to back up what he says).

I agree FOE's use of "planet-wrecking" seems a bit OTT, but climate change is already wrecking people's lives, especially those of the poor, and like it or not using peat compost is contributing to that (no matter how much 'biodiversity' it encourages) by increasing carbon dioxide emissions. But it's a hugely positive move by FOE to challenge Alan Titchmarsh to go and look at the destruction of lowland peat bogs for himself. It remains to be seen if he has the gumption to take them up on it.

[John Walker]

@Johnboy

To quote DEFRA, who openly admit that that their published statistics are incorrect, and them build a case against Peat digging is really outrageously foolish.

You've alluded to this a few times now. Please could you give us some credible information to back it up i.e. where do DEFRA "openly admit" that their statistics are "incorrect"?

[alan refail]

@Johnboy

To quote DEFRA, who openly admit that that their published statistics are incorrect, and them build a case against Peat digging is really outrageously foolish.

You've alluded to this a few times now. Please could you give us some credible information to back it up i.e. where do DEFRA "openly admit" that their statistics are "incorrect"?

John Walker

Follow link HERE

It takes you to http://www.hortweek.com/news/1055188/In ... misleading with the following quote:

"Responding to the concerns, Defra soils policy specialist Judith Stuart said: "We realise there are gaps in our evidence base and we are looking for more data."

Defra soils policy team leader Jenny McClelland added: "Please do tell us if you don't agree with any costings or any evidence, because the more information we have the better for us.""

I am sure that this is what Johnboy is referring to.

[Colin Miles]

Hi John Walker,

Thought you had been a bit quiet - and ignoring my peat comments!

If you have read the consultation impact assessment, as I am sure you have, you will see that in many of the sections, particularly under key assumptions/sensitivites/risks they frequently start with the comment, The analysis assumes that the voluntary target will be achieved and estimated costs to industry are based on limited data and should be treated with caution. And continues in this vein.

But I would particularly draw your attention to section 4 where CO2 emissions are considered. These are based on a 1997 study and throughout this section you will find the words, limited data, should be treated with caution.

And in particular, section 4.16 which states
This project examined the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the harvesting, processing, transport and end use of different growing media ingredients using available data. The project was a preliminary assessment of the subject and has revealed a number of methodological and interpretation issues which will require further research to resolve and, as a consequence, results and conclusions should be treated with caution at this stage. Studies of this type are heavily reliant on data, but the quality of available on emissions was very variable and in some cases quite poor.

Little wonder that they admit to gaps in their evidence base.

[Johnboy]

John Walker.
Quite frankly I am very busy with my family affairs and do not wish to enter into any dialogue with you because I feel that it is a complete waste of my valuable time.
I stand by what I have written and if that is not enough for you then tant pis!
JB.

[John Walker]

"Gaps in our evidence base" and "treated with caution" are a world away from:

To quote DEFRA, who openly admit that that their published statistics are incorrect...

So I ask the question again, please provide some credible information to back this statement up i.e. where do DEFRA "openly admit" that their statistics are "incorrect"? Where was the admission made and what statistics are referred to?

[John Walker]

Emma Cooper, author of The Alternative Kitchen Garden, has recorded an excellent 10-minute podcast following Alan Titchmarsh's recent 'defence' of peat use. She starts by explaining when peat first came to be used for compost, why we use it, and why ending it's use is a matter of urgency. The podcast includes some solid facts and figures and what's really refreshing about it is that it comes from a young and enthusiastic gardener who's NEVER used peat since she started growing. She's also upfront and honest enough to admit that some peat-free composts are better than others, and that they take a bit of getting used to. It's recommended listening:

http://coopette.com/akg/akg116-peat

Mark Diacono, who runs Otter Farm (the UK's first climate change farm) and is who leads the Garden Team at Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's River Cottage, has written a piece that puts some more illuminating thoughts into this discussion, such as this:

This isn't a minor issue - it is estimated that, globally, peat stores around twice the carbon that forests do. If Alan T [Titchmarsh] and Jamie O [Oliver] were cutting down the rainforest to line their pockets or raise a few tricky ornamental plants there'd be an outcry.

The rest is well worth a read - as are the comments that follow it.
http://www.otterfarmblog.co.uk/2011/04/yawn.html

[Colin Miles]

John Walker,

I admire your persistance as a propagandist and I can appreciate Johnboy's reluctance to engage with you.

None of the stats that Emma Cooper's quotes give their sources. They could Chinese whispers for all we know. Still no answer to my questions.

[John Walker]

@Colin Miles

I admire your persistance as a propagandist...

I'm afraid that ongoing attempts to smear my contributions to this forum - here by wrongly accusing me of 'propaganda' - are lame at best. Propaganda is defined as 'derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicise a particular political cause or point of view'. My contributions to the various conversations on why we need to end peat use have been based on looking at the best scientific information available, and asking questions of some of those responsible for providing it. Bringing science-based information and facts into the discussion has nothing to do with propaganda.

Do you agree we might have a more constructive discussion if we stick to the topic of this thread - and you refrain from constantly trying to undermine me?

... I can appreciate Johnboy's reluctance to engage with you.

I have simply asked him a straightforward question. The level of engagement required is minimal - an answer would suffice. If he can't substantiate what he says then he's putting words into the mouth of an organisation (DEFRA) that's not here to defend itself.

Anyone constantly demanding that others back up what they say shouldn't shy away from being prepared to provide answers themselves when politely asked.

None of the stats that Emma Cooper's quotes give their sources. They could Chinese whispers for all we know.

Emma gives the sources for all the statistics mentioned, on the same page as the podcast (link in my previous post above).

Still no answer to my questions.

I'm sorry if I've omitted answering any sensible and relevant question that might require a response. I'll look through them again as and when I can.