Alan Titchmarsh on peat use

[John Walker]

Garden Organic's Chief Horticultural Officer and KG magazine contributor Bob Sherman, has written to BBC Gardeners' World magazine in response to Alan Titchmarsh's comments on using peat and weedkillers:

http://www.organicinthegarden.com/forum ... html#msg87

[alan refail]

For information: Garden Organic’s Peat Manifesto


http://www.gardenorganic.org.uk/e-news/peat.php

[alan refail]

I have great respect for Bob Sherman and his work over the years. But here again we have the throwing about of "big numbers" in the hopes of impressing the audience.

Bob Sherman

We know that horticulture alone causes 400,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions through peat extraction every year.

Garden Organic campaign

The UK peat industry alone is responsible for 630,000 tonnes of carbon emissions a year

Se my comments on dissonant figures here: - viewtopic.php?p=92682#p92682

If you want a successful campaign, you must get your figures right, or people will discount even the ones that may be accurate.

[JohnT]

If you want a successful campaign, you must get your figures right, or people will discount even the ones that may be accurate.

Whilst agreeing that there is indeed a difference in those figures; my own reaction has to be the same as Nature's Babe's response to your 'dissonant figures' post...

"Even taking ther lower figure, that is way too much to be adding into the equasion if we value our planet and I for one have no wish to cause more harm."

Perhaps Alan; the same post on the Garden Organic member's forum, might get a response "from the horses mouth"??

[Colin Miles]

JohnT, personally I rather suspect that these figures are pure guesswork. They could be much much more, much much less. And do these apply worldwide, to the UK only, or what?

The problem here, and this is increasingly so with the green movement, not to mention 'elf and sadie', that constant alarms turn people off. The danger then is that they don't do the things that really will make a difference. Mind you, I am not too sure nowadays exactly what those things are. With the Sun apparently sulking and thinking about a Maunder minimum, and the CO2 warming hypothesis looking more and more fragile, we could actually be in for colder rather than warmer weather.

[alan refail]

If you want a successful campaign, you must get your figures right, or people will discount even the ones that may be accurate.

Whilst agreeing that there is indeed a difference in those figures; my own reaction has to be the same as Nature's Babe's response to your 'dissonant figures' post...

"Even taking ther lower figure, that is way too much to be adding into the equasion if we value our planet and I for one have no wish to cause more harm."

Perhaps Alan; the same post on the Garden Organic member's forum, might get a response "from the horses mouth"??

John T

I have followed up your suggestion.

As Colin Miles says: "The problem here, and this is increasingly so with the green movement, not to mention 'elf and sadie', that constant alarms turn people off. The danger then is that they don't do the things that really will make a difference. "

If campaigners throw around "big scary figures" and they can be seen to be dissonant, guesswork or whatever, why not discount all the assertions they make as pure propaganda?

[JohnT]

The problem here, and this is increasingly so with the green movement, not to mention 'elf and sadie', that constant alarms turn people off. The danger then is that they don't do the things that really will make a difference.

Point taken Colin; but I'm not sure that Garden Organic - for all its faults - can actually be accused of 'constantly alarming' on this particular topic. In fact; my own view is that they have kept themselves in the background on this issue, for far too long. However, the alternative; to do nothing - achieves exactly that!

I'm not a scientist; nor do I have time or desire to study the 'science' behind the various claims. I instead, put an amount of trust in certain organisations such as GO, which although some would no doubt argue otherwise, do not have the same 'vested interest', as might have an agrochemical company (or indeed a peat extraction company); but nevertheless have the experience and can call upon those who do have the 'science'.

Equally; although I care not to have the 'science', I have my own experience. I see the undoubted change in climate; I see the natural habitat destruction all around us; and I see the self-interest and hypocrisy of those who are supposedly 'leading' us. I also see the total disinterest of the average 'man in the street'; more interested in the latest designer label, or what particular footballer may be having an affair with whatever reality-show clone. He is not 'turned-off' by information overload - it never gets anywhere near him!

I can't do anything to change the situation globally (or indeed society as a whole!); so I have to think of what and where I might make a (minuscule) difference - not for myself - but for my children and grandchildren, who will hopefully still be here in 60+ years time, when I'm long-gone. It is they, who will have to live with the consequences of what we are doing now.

If one way of doing *something*, is to lend support to moves to reform an industry (at least in the UK!) that exists by the destruction of irreplaceable habitats and ecosystems; simply to provide a product that (very many will say) has no real purpose; then that seems - to me - a totally logical thing to do. I can see that peat extraction is *wrong* with my own eyes - I don't need it to be proven to be wrong. Add to that, the current actions of William Sinclair as a representative of supposedly one of the 'greener' compost producers - and the measure of 'wrongness' just goes off the scale.

[alan refail]

A reply from Garden Organic

At least they reply swiftly, unlike RSPB, who remain silent!

Thank you for your comments, you are correct that two different figures have been quoted, however both figures are accurate. One figure - the one in the peat appeal - relates to the peat industry as a whole (extraction for all industries from horticulture through to fuel), whilst that quoted in Bob Sherman's response to Alan Titchmarsh relates specifically to the emissions caused by the horticultural use of peat.

I hope that this clarifies the use of the two figures.

[peter]

Clearly explained as well.

[Nature's Babe]

I agree with John T, I love my grandchildren too, that is why I don't pollute any more than I can possibly help, I gave up my car, and forgo flying away on any holidays... to keep my emissions down. I can't believe there are still people who doubt we have global warming. Have they not heard of the severe droughts all over the place? Europe, Australia, Russia, China, Syria to name a few, perhaps when world food prices start to soar again because of shortages of production, and it hits their pocket, they will consider taking some action. Also those figures don't include the emissions from customers going to the garden centre to pick up the peat. Although now 70 I make my own seed compost, so I guess anyone can, if they put in a bit of effort, the bonus is it's cheap as chips, and stuff grows well in it.
No matter how well peat works for one person, perhaps we should think of humanity and the planet. I am reminded of this saying...
Ralph Waldo Emerson
there can never be good for the bee which is bad for the hive.

[freddy]

Is this thread STILL running ? What a bore !

[Parsons Jack]

Hi NB,

I don't think anybody doubts global warming. It is the causes that people doubt.
Climate change has been occurring for millions of years. It was only about 10,000 years ago that there was an ice age.
Was that due to human activity too?

[Colin Miles]

Hi NB. Am just a teeny-weeny little bit younger than you and I am sure that, like all KG readers we do share your concern for the world in which we live. However, as Parsons Jack says, no one doubts that there is climate change. Indeed, Change itself is the probably the one constant in life. Nowadays, instant communication means that we hear of disasters when they happen and this gives the impression that they are increasing whereas the evidence shows otherwise. Similarly, the latest temperature reports would appear to show that any global warming has stopped since 2001. But this is a very small time-period so means very little. Similarly three score years and ten is a very small time-period on which to judge what is happening - (for the purposes of climate change they use 30 years!!).

As for the reasons for Global Warming, the CO2 hypothesis is looking more and more doubtful. We shall no doubt hear more about that in the next year or two. But back to the topic of peat use and I would suggest that Alan's test is perhaps more relevant. I'm afraid I regard the quoted figures - so precisely imprecise (round numbers) - as pure guesswork.

[JohnT]

But back to the topic of peat use and I would suggest that Alan's test is perhaps more relevant. I'm afraid I regard the quoted figures - so precisely imprecise (round numbers) - as pure guesswork.

Oh come on! How can you not use round numbers? Nobody is actually sitting there measuring CO2 at every peat bog, or every power station, or whatever. Of course they are estimates and of course rounded. Similarly; I imagine a translation of CO2 emissions to 'vehicles' may be open to some interpretation. Are we talking Fiat 500s, 44 tonne lorries, or some kind of 'British Standard Vehicle'? Quite honestly; I do not care that much - the figures are pretty huge, however you look at them.

Regardless of how you may or may not interpret figures on what cannot be seen; the habitat and ecosystem destruction carried-out in the name of peat-extraction, is there for all to see - and highlighted (as is the company's total disregard for planning regulations) by the current Chat Moss debacle. (Interesting video interview:here)

As a relative newcomer to this forum; I have to say I find it amazing that so much effort seems to be being put into trying to demolish the anti-peat arguments; looking to gain-points on every figure or 'fact' that cannot be substantiated by 'authority'.

Surely; the argument for retaining peat in (at least, retail) composts has already been lost. Is it not more a matter of 'when', rather than 'whether'?

Is there not more to be gained by detailed discussion of the practical alternatives, problems, etc?

Is that not what 'gardening' is actually about; innovation and working with nature - rather than being a pure 'science'?

[Nature's Babe]

Colin, I am old enough to realise that even our skies have changed, now most commonly we get cloud and what I call greenhouse haze, humidity is generally higher. The sky when blue is a paler hue, not the deeper blue it was when I was a child. The seasons have changed too. This is not selective memory either, or failing memory: I have a better memory than my partner who is 13 years my junior, and my three children now in their late forties. Statistics can be manipulated to prove a desired view, and old science has been disproved. I agree with John T, his comments make sense,
there is a lot to be said for common sense, it's often undervalued though