The peat debate - a plea for clarity/honesty

[alan refail]

Apologies for starting yet another peat thread. But I notice that in the main thread various pertinent questions remain unanswered - or ignored.

My specific concern here is the regularly repeated assertion that peat use must be stopped because "Only 1% of pristine lowland peat remains intact" (RSPB words).

Now, I am not doubting the truth of this statement (though I have seen no evidence offered to substantiate it). It is clearly a very cleverly selected "fact" which offers a succinct and emotive rallying-cry for campaigners to use without needing to query its underlying implications.

As I say, a handy slogan, but one whose every element begs questions.

Pristine/intact - What exactly is the pristine condition of a bog? And what is the percentage of lowland bogs that remain largely intact?

Only 1% - What is the base date for the start of the degradation of the 99%? The use of the slogan in the present context is left to imply, to those who wish to believe so, that 99% have been destroyed by extraction for horticultural use over the past half century or so. This is clearly not true. The use of lowland peat, I assume, dates back thousands of years, as does the removal of forest cover.

Lowland peat - Why is no mention made of the extensive upland peat bogs? Which exactly is the dividing contour line between "lowland" and "upland" bogs? Vast amounts of peat remain undisturbed in upland areas of Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England.

I would be genuinely grateful for some answers from the anti-peat campaigners on these points and look forward to reading them. I would rather form my opinions on peat use on the basis of full and honest facts rather than rallying cries.

[John Walker]

@alan refail

Have you read the 'Greening UK Gardens' report or the information in the government's 'Consultation on reducing the horticultural use of peat in England'? These might just have answers, in whole or in part, to your questions.

Failing that, have you thought about asking the RSPB (or others) the questions directly? Your comments are largely directed at the RSPB, so there's every logic in talking to them directly about their choice of words and how they use them.

For the RSPB try emailing [email protected] or call 01767 680551 (RSPB media people in their conservation office). [email protected] and [email protected] are listed as conservation media officers.

I'm interested to hear how you get on and I'm sure other forum members will be, too.

Greening UK Gardens:
http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/Greening% ... 271944.pdf

Consultation on reducing the horticultural use of peat in England
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consu ... condoc.pdf

[alan refail]

Have you read the 'Greening UK Gardens' report or the information in the government's 'Consultation on reducing the horticultural use of peat in England'? These might just have answers, in whole or in part, to your questions.

John Walker

I have, and as far as I can see they don't. Indeed the foreword to "Greening UK Gardens" asserts Currently, less than 6% of the UK's raised bog habitat remains undamaged. Yet elsewhere they state Only 1% of pristine lowland peat remains intact, the figure picked up by campaigners.

I had thought to follow your advice and send my queries to RSPB, but I doubt there will be reliable reply if they can't agree on their base figures!

In fact, my comments were not "largely directed at the RSPB"; I merely referred to them as attribution of the statement "Only 1% of pristine lowland peat remains intact".

I am genuinely puzzled and I was seeking enlightenment from campaigners such as yourself who use the phrase as part of your argument. I thought they might have the answers. I gather from your reply that you do not.

[John Walker]

@alan refail

I had thought to follow your advice and send my queries to RSPB, but I doubt there will be reliable reply if they can't agree on their base figures!

Hmm. Isn't that rather the point of contacting the RSPB and asking them - to find out why their figures, in your view, don't match up?

But what you're actually saying is that you doubt the reliability of their information so much that you can't even be bothered to pick up the phone or type an email to ask the question (despite the fact that I gave you the relevant contact information). Why not settle your doubts?

That rather begs the question as to what's the point of me or anyone else doing the legwork for you if, as you say, you doubt the reliability of their figures? Why even risk a 'campaigner' putting any spin on what the RSPB and others say?

Don't you agree that pure logic dictates that it's surely better to put your questions/concerns directly to the author's of the text where the figures appear?

The only way to get to the bottom of a puzzle and become enlightened is to ask questions. I'm doing it myself all the time.

I'm afraid your response suggests you are, sadly, more focused on undermining the reasons for ending peat use than you are on enriching an informed debate around why it needs to happen.

[alan refail]

As no opinions appear to be forthcoming on the forum I have now e-mailed RSPB.

I have read your concerns about continued use of peat in horticulture and understand many of the arguments. However I am particularly concerned to understand the regularly repeated assertion that peat use must be stopped because "Only 1% of pristine lowland peat remains intact" (RSPB words).

Now, I am not doubting the truth of this statement (though I have seen no evidence offered to substantiate it). It is clearly a very cleverly selected "fact" which offers a succinct and emotive rallying-cry for campaigners to use without needing to query its underlying implications.

As I say, a handy slogan, but one whose every element begs questions.

Pristine/intact - What exactly is the pristine condition of a bog? And what is the percentage of lowland bogs that remain largely intact?

Only 1% - What is the base date for the start of the degradation of the 99%? The use of the slogan in the present context is left to imply, to those who wish to believe so, that 99% have been destroyed by extraction for horticultural use over the past half century or so. This is clearly not true. The use of lowland peat, I assume, dates back thousands of years, as does the removal of forest cover.

Lowland peat - Why is no mention made of the extensive upland peat bogs? Which exactly is the dividing contour line between "lowland" and "upland" bogs? Vast amounts of peat remain undisturbed in upland areas of Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England.

I would be genuinely grateful for your clarification on these points and look forward to reading them. I would rather form my opinions on peat use on the basis of full and honest facts rather than rallying cries.


I will post their response when I receive it.

[alan refail]

A week so far and no reply from RSPB

[alan refail]

Nature's Babe and Compo

If you reread my original post, you will see that I was addressing a specific point, rather than getting into another general debate about peat usage.

I was concentrating on the statement:

"Only 1% of pristine lowland peat remains intact"

So far no-one seems able or willing to answer the three questions I put:


Pristine/intact - What exactly is the pristine condition of a bog? And what is the percentage of lowland bogs that remain largely intact?

Only 1% - What is the base date for the start of the degradation of the 99%? The use of the slogan in the present context is left to imply, to those who wish to believe so, that 99% have been destroyed by extraction for horticultural use over the past half century or so. This is clearly not true. The use of lowland peat, I assume, dates back thousands of years, as does the removal of forest cover.

Lowland peat - Why is no mention made of the extensive upland peat bogs? Which exactly is the dividing contour line between "lowland" and "upland" bogs? Vast amounts of peat remain undisturbed in upland areas of Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England.

[peter]

Moderator comment.

All, please keep on topic, we have enough emotional threads on this topic already and the original objective of the starter of the thread was to clarify the context and detail of the oft quoted 1% figure, rather than argue over old ground again.

[Compo]

Hi Peter although opionated, there are lots of facts in my answers and Alan invited answers as we read below.

I would be genuinely grateful for some answers from the anti-peat campaigners on these points and look forward to reading them. I would rather form my opinions on peat use on the basis of full and honest facts rather than rallying cries.[b][b][i][/i][/b][/b]

[alan refail]

Peter

Thank you for attempting to get the thread back on topic. I did try my best to suggest that my concern was a specific set of questions. But it is hard to avoid thread-drift once the word "peat" becomes an emotional rather than a rational stimulus.

Nature's Babe and Compo

I appreciate your points of view, but in this thread I am attempting to get beyond the uncritical emotion and down to facts. If you read the link I posted yesterday, you will have noted a similar approach:

"My recent Devil's Advocacy in the recent peat debate lead me to realise how little I actually know. How parochial responses are and how much the 'players' rely on emotive rather than analytic responses to galvanise public opinion."

I am not suggesting that the Somerset Levels be ravished; the whole point of the link I posted was that to concentrate on a single limited area, be it Sedgemoor or England, is to emotionally unbalance the facts on a global level.

I think my answer was plain Alan, and I do know what I believe, whether your answer is more or less than 1% , for me it makes no difference, personally I feel that nature deserves a break from loss of natural habitat, we have a responsibility to future generations, Well said Compo.

With respect, this illustrates precisely what I am saying about emotion taking over from facts. As regards the questions I put, your answer was not "plain" at all.

Here is the link again.

http://www.landscapejuice.com/2011/03/p ... .html#more

[John Walker]

At this point can I humbly suggest that, in the interests of constructive and respectful debate, it might be better to hold fire on posting further comments until Alan hears back from the RSPB and posts their clarification here for us to digest? That is after all what this thread was started for.

Then, depending on whether the information enriches the discussion, we can continue on from there. How about it folks?

Alan, you'll just have to be persistent, like anyone seeking information has to be.

[alan refail]

At this point can I humbly suggest that, in the interests of constructive and respectful debate, it might be better to hold fire on posting further comments until Alan hears back from the RSPB and posts their clarification here for us to digest? That is after all what this thread was started for.

Then, depending on whether the information enriches the discussion, we can continue on from there. How about it folks?

Alan, you'll just have to be persistent, like anyone seeking information has to be.

Thank you John - I'll second that proposal.

[peter]

John Walker & Alan, excellent course of action.

BTW I have marked the diary as follows, "Today Alan & John Walker agreed on something." then feeling faint I went for a little lie down.

[peter]

Off topic comments split out (to viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9477) and thread locked until Alan Refail has an update to post, hopefully from the RSPB.