60% of Irish peat ends up in English country gardens.

Hondo75

Quite shocking as the UK makes efforts to protect it bogs, we are helping English gardens grow.

<div id="fb-root"></div><script>(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));</script><div class="fb-post" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/AnTaisce/posts/10156620686365457:0&quot; data-width="500"><div class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore"><blockquote cite="https://www.facebook.com/AnTaisce/posts/10156620686365457:0"><p>Did you know horticulture accounts for two thirds of the UKs peat use. 60% of this comes from Ireland equating to...</p>Posted by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/AnTaisce/">An Taisce The National Trust for Ireland</a> on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/AnTaisce/posts/10156620686365457:0">Friday, February 19, 2016</a></blockquote></div></div>

mickdw

Hondo75 wrote: »

Quite shocking as the UK makes efforts to protect it bogs, we are helping English gardens grow.

<div id="fb-root"></div><script>(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));</script><div class="fb-post" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/AnTaisce/posts/10156620686365457:0&quot; data-width="500"><div class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore"><blockquote cite="https://www.facebook.com/AnTaisce/posts/10156620686365457:0"><p>Did you know horticulture accounts for two thirds of the UKs peat use. 60% of this comes from Ireland equating to...</p>Posted by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/AnTaisce/">An Taisce The National Trust for Ireland</a> on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/AnTaisce/posts/10156620686365457:0">Friday, February 19, 2016</a></blockquote></div></div>

I guess the headline should be 60 percent of irish peat harvested ends up in uk gardens.
I wouldnt worry. We have plenty.

ted1

mickdw wrote: »

I guess the headline should be 60 percent of irish peat harvested ends up in uk gardens.
I wouldnt worry. We have plenty.

But at what cost? Harvesting of peat bogs damages the environment, lots of natural fauna disappearing and all that

gctest50

ted1 wrote: »

But at what cost? Harvesting of peat bogs damages the environment, lots of natural fauna disappearing and all that

midges ?

Nekarsulm

Perhaps if we stopped burning it in power stations we would have more bog lands.
If we stopped burning fossil fuels altogether, paid private windfarm operators for what they produce, and build several small nuclear power plants, then we could say we are making some effort to improve our environment.

Capercaillie

mickdw wrote: »

I guess the headline should be 60 percent of irish peat harvested ends up in uk gardens.
I wouldnt worry. We have plenty.

2% of raised bog (relatively intact) are left, other 98% are destroyed.

AngryHippie

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Pseveral small nuclear power plants

That escalated quickly !

mickdw

Capercaillie wrote: »

2% of raised bog (relatively intact) are left, other 98% are destroyed.

Destroyed for hippies that like to come and see the wild flowers. To me it looks like a great raw material that has provided thousands of jobs in bord na mona for many many years.
Surely is enough to keep a portion of any landscape intact.
And don't start on this carbon bullsh1t.

L

mickdw wrote: »

Destroyed for hippies that like to come and see the wild flowers. To me it looks like a great raw material that has provided thousands of jobs in bord na mona for many many years.
Surely is enough to keep a portion of any landscape intact.
And don't start on this carbon bullsh1t.

I'll just leave this here. We could do with more than a portion being maintained.

The things you mentioned are important as well but need some context.

We've burnt through 98% of a non renewable resource to create jobs that are largely government/energy consumer funded by hook or by crook (PSO levy for peat plant for example) - we'd have been better off funding thousands of jobs doing useful things for the longterm development of those communities instead. Whether you lean hippie or not, we haven't done a great thing by wrecking our boglands for temporary jobs.

That's before we get to the "carbon bull****" that the scientific consensus (97% or so of qualified experts) think is going to ruin us in the next 50 years or so.

mickdw

L wrote: »

I'll just leave this here. We could do with more than a portion being maintained.

The things you mentioned are important as well but need some context.

We've burnt through 98% of a non renewable resource to create jobs that are largely government/energy consumer funded by hook or by crook (PSO levy for peat plant for example) - we'd have been better off funding thousands of jobs doing useful things for the longterm development of those communities instead. Whether you lean hippie or not, we haven't done a great thing by wrecking our boglands for temporary jobs.

That's before we get to the "carbon bull****" that the scientific consensus (97% or so of qualified experts) think is going to ruin us in the next 50 years or so.

Never underestimate the ability of science to arrive at conclusions to suit those who fund them.
There is absolute evidence taken from ice cores that can detail events for thousands of years that co2 increases and decreases over time but it can also be seen that it happens following temperature change.... a result of temperature change more than a cause.
I firmly believe in natural cycles and we have very little ability to effect these cycles, only learn to live with the conditions that occur. Considering a signified change will only be noticeable over multiple generations of people, surely the solution is to work with these cycles.
After all, we had an ice age yet we are now in a different age. If in millions of years we have a water world, so be it, that will be the norm.
I'm just thankful that all those people during the ice age had the foresight to jump into their porsches and cause enough damage to bring about the end of the ice age.
The cut away bog could easily be engineered to hold water in a different way to the original bog. Thousands of acres of cut away could be developed become flood overflows as opposed to the natural soak that is the bog. Sure it would be different but an advantage could be that water could be recovered from these areas when needed or control released to allow capacity for times of flood.
Carbon is just being used to push taxation. Id far prefer to see toxic emissions being taxed but it suits business to spew out cancer causing chemicals yet be green because they have bought a few trees and are carbon neutral

L

mickdw wrote: »

Never underestimate the ability of science to arrive at conclusions to suit those who fund them.

Colour me curious, who do you think is funding them and how corrupt/"for hire" do you think science is as a field? The vested interests, and serious deep pockets, are fossil fuel companies for the large part. I'd point to the history of health studies on smoking as a similar case here.


As a side note, typically science has confirmation bias against rather than for new theories/data (this works against your climate change corruption idea here). If you're interested, there's a nice bit on the Millikan experiment drift here which covers a more likely confirmation bias.


I'll skip covering the CO2 lag stuff in detail (it's basically a positive feedback loop that turns small temperature shifts into big ones) but it's widely covered by a range of studies and articles 1,2,3.

There's a lot on this subject but never underestimate people's willingness to ignore or disbelieve inconvenient truths.

mickdw wrote: »

The cut away bog could easily be engineered to hold water in a different way to the original bog. Thousands of acres of cut away could be developed become flood overflows as opposed to the natural soak that is the bog. Sure it would be different but an advantage could be that water could be recovered from these areas when needed or control released to allow capacity for times of flood.

This all costs money though - more pragmatic, and cheaper in the long term, to have left the bogs alone and shifted the state funding into proper local industries and infrastructure projects.

mickdw wrote: »

Carbon is just being used to push taxation. Id far prefer to see toxic emissions being taxed but it suits business to spew out cancer causing chemicals yet be green because they have bought a few trees and are carbon neutral

Can you name one? As a general rule, health harming emissions are already being taxed (or outright banned and monitored). CO2 is harder to move on as people see it as largely harmless day to day.

djpbarry

Folks, the thread for climate change discussion is here.

Back on topic please.