This turf cutting row - will Europe ever know?

jonon9 wrote: »

I may sound abit mad but I reckon the EU gov are doing this law is because eventually oil will run out so what next?.... they turn to the bogs and cut it to sell to people thats what. Its all about money money money. They way I see it is were getting raped right up the back side. why not take from this country and cut turf them greedy b*****ds are getting enough as it is. The only way to stop turf cutting is the simpliest answer 'DROP FUEL COST'

Yeah - and following that logic, the rest of the Habitats protected under the habitats directive must be protected for a similar reason yeah? Coastal Lagoons, estuaries, reefs, sandbanks, atlantic and inland salt meadows, around 10 different types of dunes, lakes, turloughs, different types of heathland, different types of scrubland, loads of different types of grasslands and meadows and many many many more habitat types!

So do you think all those habitats are protected so they can eventually be burned by the EU when the oil runs out too?

Or maybe they're only being protected so the protection of raised bogs looks less suspicious?

:rolleyes:

Can't say this enough:- if you can't see a reason to protect the bogs, do some research into the benefits, both economic and otherwise, of biodiversity and it will become clear that stopping turfcutting in a few bogs is a small price to pay!

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

My issue is that stopping turf cutting on 5% of bogs makes a tiny difference in terms of biodiversity but impacts on many families. I would prefer to see turf usage limited to a few months of they year and subsidies for using another fuel for the rest of the year.
Wood for the same price as turf for 3 seasons and turf used only in the winter (when a hot fire is needed)

With a habitat as rare as intact raised bogs, and when the protected ones are chosen to maximise the biodiversity benefits, then it makes a big difference in terms of biodiversity though!

I think Ming suggested that the TCCA be allowed pick the bogs that would be protected, and that it'd be slightly more than the 5% picked already, but then we'd be protecting areas that have already been significantly damaged or that are too small to sustain populations of species - so we'd be saying "yeah we have loads of bogs protected", but it'd just be a token gesture and it'd be pointless! Surely picking a small % of bogs based on the scientific evidence is the best way to do it? It means that the protection should actually conserve what its meant to conserve, and it means that the bogs protected were done independantly and not because they're far away from certain politicians or not in the stronghold area for a certain lobby group!

I don't think limiting turf usage to certain seasons would be in any way police-able?
Also if you're still allowed cut turf, even if the cutting period is also reduced to a certain time period, it seems probable that the same amount of turf will be cut but those cutting it will put more effort into selling it to other people!
Finally, its when the bog is drained a few years before cutting that the killer blow is essentially landed in terms of biodiversity and a pristine habitat - as long as cutting is still allowed, draining will continue and the same damage is being done!

Dont forget that we dont have loads of raised bog - we have a small amount of it and only a tiny proportion of that hasn't been significantly damaged! If we dont cop on now it'll be too late soon!

Edit: And turf is a pretty poor fuel to the best of my knowledge? It's not the fuel you'd want when a hot fire is needed!