Government consultation on phasing out peat use

[Elle's Garden]

Thank you!

[Johnboy]

Hi Alan,
With regards to Kent CC claim that their waste is organically accepted with Soil Association Approval seems strange to me.
In this district we had a scheme where green waste from Ludlow and Church Stretton was collected and put through a digester and because it was publicly collected the Organic Organizations created because the waste from the digester was to be put back on the land and they said it potentially could be full of impurities so after building special buildings and I understand that the digester it is now redundant. It is redundant because without being able to get rid of the waste they cannot operate.
So I would think waste passed through a digester would be far superior to that simply municipally composted. So what is so special about Kent's compost?
JB.

[alan refail]

Vegetable propagator warns David Cameron over dangers of Defra peat phase-out proposal

http://www.hortweek.com/channel/Edibles ... -proposal/

UK vegetable propagators use around 74,000cu m of peat a year. If we assume all this came from the UK, not using this peat would contribute to reducing UK greenhouse gas emissions by less than 0.005 per cent.

[Cider Boys]

I read in today's Daily Trlegraph that conservationists are proposing a £1 per bag tax on quality compost to protect peat bogs.

These unelected conservationists are a nuisance to decent gardeners.

Barney

[Johnboy]

Hi Barney,
Conservationists are the bane of the country. It matters not what the subject is there is always some group of know-it-all conservationists that spout their theories and what is more annoying the government listens to them mistaking them for the grass roots with votes on the end of it!
There is a shortage of firewood in this area of abounding forests because the local trust for nature, who's committee is a bunch of total amateurs, complain if trees are felled. As a result a logging company in this area is importing cord-wood from Lithuania. Just pause and think of the implications behind that one! There is a grove of Oak trees planted at the begining of the 19th century in this county and these trees are in their prime for timber but the local trust want the area for a nature reserve and now the local authority is poking it's nose into it as well. These trees were planted to be harvested and are on private ground and have never had public access and the owner should be the person who says what goes but apparently owning something is no longer good enough!
This is what conservationists are responsible for and it is totally wrong.
I know that the wood will never become a nature reserve and so do the nature trust but the fiasco goes on.
Conservationists are holding this country back and it is about time their activities are curtailed or at least kept in check and restricted to matters that are within their remit.
JB.

[John Walker]

I'm a 'decent' gardener, conservationist and environmentalist all rolled into one, so it looks like I'm in a rather precarious position. But maybe not. Gardening pundits have been trying to drive a wedge - often successfully - between gardeners and those nasty 'greens' for many years, primarily to prop up the peat and chemical industries. More folk are seeing through the folly of this as each day passes.

I'm curious: are 'decent gardeners' elected, then?

The proposed tax on peat being suggested in a report by meddling conservation bodies such as the RSPB, Plantlife, BugLife, Butterfly Conservation and the Wildlife Trusts, sounds a positive and long overdue move. Money usually talks and taxing peat to reflect the environmental impact of its extraction (habitat destruction, erosion of biodiversity and contributing to climate disruption) will help fund faster improvement of good peat-free composts which can be even better than some are now.

Does anyone seriously think these organisations are know-it-alls that are merely trying to catch the ear of government? (the ConLib coalition did of course pin back its lugholes over the recent retreat on flogging off our forests and woodlands, so getting them to listen up obviously works).

The Telegraph article is well worth a read (you can ignore the uninformed bit at the start). RSPB conservation director Mark Avery just about sums up where we are with peat:

“We have got rid of lead in our petrol, CFCs in our aerosols and DDT in our countryside – so why is this dinosaur [gardening] industry still lumbering along causing untold damage to our environment?”

Dinosaurs eventually became extinct.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/83 ... -peat.html

[Parsons Jack]

Money usually talks and taxing peat to reflect the environmental impact of its extraction (habitat destruction, erosion of biodiversity and contributing to climate disruption) will help fund faster improvement of good peat-free composts which can be even better than some are now.

Are you seriously suggesting that the tax on peat extraction will be used to fund improvement of peat free compost. What a lovely thought

At least you have admitted that peat free compost needs improving though.
I'm sure many gardeners, me included, would go back to peat free compost if it was anywhere near as good as peat based. Perhaps the industry needs to get the alternatives right first in respect of quality and price.

[alan refail]

To bring the discussion back, if I may, to what I thought was the significant point in my previous post, the article I linked to ended: (my bold)

In its latest fortnightly newsletter to members, the NFU said: "With the vegetable propagation sector alone, which has no practical alternative to peat, Defra's phase-out proposals would not only threaten the future of propagation businesses in the UK but would also threaten to seriously compromise a vegetable sector (all the leafy, headed and flowering brassica crops, almost all the leafy salad crops and other crops like celery and some leeks) worth nearly £800m per year that depends on this propagation.

"For what? UK vegetable propagators use around 74,000cu m of peat a year. If we assume all this came from the UK, not using this peat would contribute to reducing UK greenhouse gas emissions by less than 0.005 per cent."

That final figure, if correct, would suggest that Defra's argument on the grounds of emissions is grossly misleading.

Interestingly, in another article from Horticulture Week, questioning Defra's figures, we see this surprising admission from Defra: (my bold again)

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."

Full article HERE.

That leads me (cynical as I sometimes am) to wonder what validity the rest of Defra's figures have.

[Cider Boys]

John Walker cynically asks if decent gardeners are elected, no of course not John, but they are not propsing to TAX people carrying out a long established pastime.

All these so called unelected conservationists you quote, who just want to bully decent gardeners into their way of thinking, are not experts they are just pressure groups.

Many of the academic research studies do not support the so called conservationists pontifications.

Let decent gardeners use decent compost made from decent peat and that means Sedge Peat. Anycase I'm of this afternoon to start up by old pump still running on leaded petrol (yes I can still get it locally) to pump out some water so I can get my digger in to scrape up some good old sedge peat before the bully boys get their way.

Barney

[John Walker]

The RSPB have grasped the nettle and are taking a hugely positive step toward reducing climate-damaging peat use. They've launched a campaign to phase out peat composts by asking the government to put a levy on peat-based composts so they become more expensive than peat-free:

A levy on peat compost would increase its price and encourage consumers to switch to the more effective peat-free alternatives. These would remain the same price. This would help create a market where business no longer needs to extract peat from lowland bogs, and could instead focus on investing in alternatives. This in turn would boost UK recycling, and make better use of our waste

Full details of who to write to/email to nudge the government in the right direction can be found at the link below. The RSPB have done their homework and there's also a good summary of all the very good reasons why we need to keep peat in the ground. It's also good timing for the upcoming consultation on reducing peat use (and well worth citing if you are planning to respond).

You can also download a PDF of 'Greening UK Gardens', the joint report by the RSPB, Plantlife, Buglife, Vital Earth, Irish Peatland Conservation Council, Butterfly Conservation and The Wildlife Trusts explaining why we need a levy and how it would work.

http://www.rspb.org.uk/supporting/campa ... sharelinks

[alan refail]

For "levy" read "tax".

I'm sure I'm not alone in assuming that such a move would have little, if any,
effect on peat usage. After all an effective 175% levy/tax on petrol and diesel doesn't stop many people driving their vehicles and emitting incalculably more CO2.

[alan refail]

...and would the peat levy/tax not apply in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - which are not the subject of the Defra consultation?

[Johnboy]

John Walker,
I am beginning to think that your days must be spent thinking of ways to ban this and that and taxing or applying levies to the things you obviously dislike.
If you were to fight for a vast improvement in the quality of peat substitutes your battle would be won. Fight for a British Standard and a Kite Mark on every bag of non-peat compost and everybody would know where they are with regards to quality, but as it is you know that there is some real rubbish on the market but prefer to quote the very best which is not available nationwide and there is only so much an individual company can produce and certainly not enough to supply the nation.
Somehow this seems to be beyond you. But why?
JB.

[richward]

I am beginning to think that your days must be spent thinking of ways to ban this and that and taxing or applying levies to the things you obviously dislike.

It's clear from John Walker' s post that he's talking about something the RSPB and seven other organisations are proposing.

[Cider Boys]

Some interesting points of view regarding the use of Peat.

http://www.glendoick.com/index.php?page=faq-peat

Barney