This turf cutting row - will Europe ever know?

OpenYourEyes · 16-07-2012 11:50PM

allanpkr wrote: »

do you read what i say or do you just pick an arguing point then stick to that no matter what lol. i said,,,, if you dont think pumping 1000s of gallons in the bedrock full of mud and chemicals will be harmful to the water table , then i think you either have no independant thought process. or you are at the least just playing devils advocate. i would hope its the last. i dont need a scientist to tell me it is...do you? they may confirm it yes ..and governments all over world have lobbyists paid high salaries to tell the tds mps senators ect what to think. and how to vote, im not a conspiracy theorist but im not naive either.

Yeah I do think it would be harmful, but I'd prefer to have my thoughts backed up my scientific evidence. If the scientific evidence said that mitigation measures in place were sufficient to deal with any problems, then I'd have to reconsider my position on the matter. I'd read the data published, look at who financed and conducted the experiments, examine their conclusion and see from there.

The way you're talking it seems that you'd be happy if the scientific evidence backed up your notions, but you'd ignore it if it didn't. I prefer to think critically rather than have a one track mind like you seem to be proud to have. And that type of comment and that form of thinking further my thoughts that you are a conspiracy theorist, at least with regards the turfcutting and fracking issues.

Again, I think discussions about fracking are best left to a thread of their own and have little relevance to this discussion.

allanpkr · 17-07-2012 12:10AM

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Yeah I do think it would be harmful, but I'd prefer to have my thoughts backed up my scientific evidence. If the scientific evidence said that mitigation measures in place were sufficient to deal with any problems, then I'd have to reconsider my position on the matter. I'd read the data published, look at who financed and conducted the experiments, examine their conclusion and see from there.

The way you're talking it seems that you'd be happy if the scientific evidence backed up your notions, but you'd ignore it if it didn't. I prefer to think critically rather than have a one track mind like you seem to be proud to have. And that type of comment and that form of thinking further my thoughts that you are a conspiracy theorist, at least with regards the turfcutting and fracking issues.

Again, I think discussions about fracking are best left to a thread of their own and have little relevance to this discussion.

well i must admit even if the scientific evidence told me fracking was ok, im sorry but i would say do it in your backyard not mine. and i would be ok if you were happy with that,as long asyou didnt live near me.

Johro · 17-07-2012 01:07AM

ilovesleep wrote: »

I don't get it.

First of all. This is our country. Our land. Why the hell is the EU telling us what to do with our land? What right do they have?

Secondaly, turf grows back after cutting it. At which rate, I don't know.

Lastly, we're living in a world where oil is running out. For many homes in ireland they have either one or two of the following - open fire, oil burner. Should we all just move to the boilers and use up as much oil as possible.

First, peat extraction from boglands releases massive amounts of carbon dioxide, so it's a global warming issue, bogs are also home to a range of specialized plants and animals which are declining rapidly due to habitat loss, and bog land should really be protected.
Second, a peat bog is basically a wetland site with poor drainage. Peat bogs are fed by rainwater and the soil builds up its own water table and acidity. Sphagnum mosses grow and decay, eventually forming layers of peat, then peat mounds many metres deep.
This process takes thousands of years, which is why sustainable large scale peat extraction is impossible.

Johro · 17-07-2012 01:12AM

ilovesleep wrote: »

I don't get it.

First of all. This is our country. Our land. Why the hell is the EU telling us what to do with our land? What right do they have?

Secondaly, turf grows back after cutting it. At which rate, I don't know.

Lastly, we're living in a world where oil is running out. For many homes in ireland they have either one or two of the following - open fire, oil burner. Should we all just move to the boilers and use up as much oil as possible.

First, peat extraction from boglands releases massive amounts of carbon dioxide as vast quantities of CO2 are locked up in these bogs, so it's a global warming issue, bogs are also home to a range of specialized plants and animals which are declining rapidly due to habitat loss, and bog land should really be protected.
Second, a peat bog is basically a wetland site with poor drainage. Peat bogs are fed by rainwater and the soil builds up its own water table and acidity. Sphagnum mosses grow and decay, eventually forming layers of peat, then peat mounds many metres deep.
This process takes thousands of years, which is why sustainable large scale peat extraction is impossible.[FONT=arial,helvetica]
[/FONT]

allanpkr · 17-07-2012 10:29AM

Johro wrote: »

First, peat extraction from boglands releases massive amounts of carbon dioxide, so it's a global warming issue, bogs are also home to a range of specialized plants and animals which are declining rapidly due to habitat loss, and bog land should really be protected.
Second, a peat bog is basically a wetland site with poor drainage. Peat bogs are fed by rainwater and the soil builds up its own water table and acidity. Sphagnum mosses grow and decay, eventually forming layers of peat, then peat mounds many metres deep.
This process takes thousands of years, which is why sustainable large scale peat extraction is impossible.

just to answer your first point it can only release the carbon dioxide it has taken out the atmospere. therefore its carbon neutral, same as timber. also if people dont burn turf then they burn oil(proberly) which isnt carbon neutral.i will wait for inyoureyes to correct me lol.

allanpkr · 17-07-2012 10:30AM

sorry open your eyes.

allanpkr · 17-07-2012 10:36AM

just one more point . we are not really saving large scale peat extraction,thats being allowed .we are stopping a few rural households working very hard for winter fuel. its the power of one thing again turn of light bulb and save world ,yet billion dollar company spewing out millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide + .wow i really do sound like a conspiracy theorist,how did that happen.

Son Of A Vidic · 17-07-2012 11:27AM

Johro wrote: »

First, peat extraction from boglands releases massive amounts of carbon dioxide as vast quantities of CO2 are locked up in these bogs, so it's a global warming issue

Do me a favour and check out the ice core research and see the measurements going back hundreds of thousands of years. CO2 has been rising and falling for a very, very long time. I'm all for respecting nature and the natural environment, but you do get sick of reading about global warming and how it's used to justify the carbon tax bullshít. Global warming and cooling is a process that will continue, long after mankind is gone from this planet.

Capt'n Midnight · 17-07-2012 12:27PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Well with the exception of the Canadian tar sands and similar oil fields, an empty oil field looks very much the same as a full one on the surface

Point of information

an 'empty' oil field will probably have two thirds of the original oil still there as what makes it 'empty' is diminishing returns on the cost of extraction. For something like tar sands you use up a third of the energy in the process of extraction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested

Capt'n Midnight · 17-07-2012 12:29PM

Johro wrote: »

First, peat extraction from boglands releases massive amounts of carbon dioxide,

In Indonesia they drain bogs to grow palm oil. It will take over a hundred years of palm oil production to offset the CO2 released by destroying the bogs.

17-07-2012 01:39PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Point of information

an 'empty' oil field will probably have two thirds of the original oil still there as what makes it 'empty' is diminishing returns on the cost of extraction. For something like tar sands you use up a third of the energy in the process of extraction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested

I know...

The point being an exploited underground field looks almost* the same on the surface as it before it was exploited, but tar sands or peat extraction dramatically changes the landscape.

*may be some subsidence.

OpenYourEyes · 17-07-2012 01:53PM

allanpkr wrote: »

it can only release the carbon dioxide it has taken out the atmospere. therefore its carbon neutral

By that logic everything is carbon neutral because its using carbon that used to be in the atmosphere

allanpkr wrote: »

just one more point . we are not really saving large scale peat extraction,thats being allowed .we are stopping a few rural households working very hard for winter fuel.

The Carbon-release is just one part of the argument - we're also preserving a rare and unique habitat, part of our national natural heritage. If the cost of preserving that into the future is that some houses have to claim compensation and have a bit of free time during the spring/summer, and that they have to invest it in a more efficient fuel, or that they have to make their houses more heat/energy efficient then I'm ok with that. To say its easier for these people to destroy our natural heritage rather than to buy a different fuel and insulate their houses using the money they'd be compensated with,is not an argument.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Do me a favour and check out the ice core research and see the measurements going back hundreds of thousands of years. CO2 has been rising and falling for a very, very long time. I'm all for respecting nature and the natural environment, but you do get sick of reading about global warming and how it's used to justify the carbon tax bullshít. Global warming and cooling is a process that will continue, long after mankind is gone from this planet.

Nobody disputes that CO2 and weather patterns have been fluctuating for millenia, but that was a natural process - what humans are doing is obviously not natural, and is happening over a very short timescale, and our species/technologies/societies might not necessarily be able to cope with the rapid change over such a short time scale. Nobodys worried that the planet won't be here, their worried that people won't be here!

Like I said to allanpkr, even without the carbon-release/climate change issue, the bogs should still be protected though.

allanpkr · 04-08-2012 10:40PM

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

By that logic everything is carbon neutral because its using carbon that used to be in the atmosphere

The Carbon-release is just one part of the argument - we're also preserving a rare and unique habitat, part of our national natural heritage. If the cost of preserving that into the future is that some houses have to claim compensation and have a bit of free time during the spring/summer, and that they have to invest it in a more efficient fuel, or that they have to make their houses more heat/energy efficient then I'm ok with that. To say its easier for these people to destroy our natural heritage rather than to buy a different fuel and insulate their houses using the money they'd be compensated with,is not an argument.

Nobody disputes that CO2 and weather patterns have been fluctuating for millenia, but that was a natural process - what humans are doing is obviously not natural, and is happening over a very short timescale, and our species/technologies/societies might not necessarily be able to cope with the rapid change over such a short time scale. Nobodys worried that the planet won't be here, their worried that people won't be here!

Like I said to allanpkr, even without the carbon-release/climate change issue, the bogs should still be protected though.

a few points to throw in what vis a more effiient fuel ,i have a 78% effiecient burner ,tell me a fuel as efficient,my home is well insulated as well.and this so called natural heritage how many times did you leave your home to travel to mayo and look at your natural heritage in the last say 20 yrs.and you cant pickan argument the dismiss any argument cause its going off the subject. you say eu is worried humans may not be here,but yet they would allow fracking .im not going into that arguement again ,but please dont pick and choose your points to fit your arguement. excuse my spelling.

allanpkr · 04-08-2012 10:47PM

also oil is not carbon neutral nor is coal . timber is cause it takes co2 from atmos and bogs are a big co2 sponge ......

OpenYourEyes · 04-08-2012 10:54PM

allanpkr wrote: »

a few points to throw in what vis a more effiient fuel ,i have a 78% effiecient burner ,tell me a fuel as efficient,my home is well insulated as well.and this so called natural heritage how many times did you leave your home to travel to mayo and look at your natural heritage in the last say 20 yrs.and you cant pickan argument the dismiss any argument cause its going off the subject. you say eu is worried humans may not be here,but yet they would allow fracking .im not going into that arguement again ,but please dont pick and choose your points to fit your arguement. excuse my spelling.

I think if you read back over the thread and my posts you'll see that I've presented most of the arguments and counter-arguments that support my viewpoint over the course of the thread thank you very much! Forgive me for not including every single pro-Habitats Directive point in every single one of my comments and trying to have a more focused discussion/argument!

And I've travelled to Mayo and elsewhere countless times to enjoy the scenery and biodiversity. And destroying the bogs in one part of Mayo affects the biodiversity not just in that patch, but elsewhere in Mayo and Connaught, and obviously continued destruction of bogs all over Connaught and elsewhere has ramifications for Ireland as a whole.

OpenYourEyes · 04-08-2012 10:56PM

allanpkr wrote: »

also oil is not carbon neutral nor is coal . timber is cause it takes co2 from atmos and bogs are a big co2 sponge ......

Coal and Oil are ultimately derived from CO2 from the atmosphere too, so should fit your description of carbon neutral! And yeah bogs are a big CO2 sponge, until you cut and burn them!

allanpkr · 06-08-2012 01:05AM

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Coal and Oil are ultimately derived from CO2 from the atmosphere too, so should fit your description of carbon neutral! And yeah bogs are a big CO2 sponge, until you cut and burn them!

please do educate me, fossil fuels co2 is derived from atmos!! wow first time iv heard that, so in your argument fossil fuels are carbon neutral.

OpenYourEyes · 06-08-2012 01:07AM

allanpkr wrote: »

please do educate me, fossil fuels co2 is derived from atmos!! wow first time iv heard that, so in your argument fossil fuels are carbon neutral.

Are you being serious or sarcastic that fossil fuels withdrew carbon from the CO2 in the atmosphere?

And I was implying that you don't seem to have the grasp of the idea of something being carbon neutral!

allanpkr · 06-08-2012 01:13AM

and btw its not my description of carbon neutral..i hope you agree that woods forests ,take up co2 from the atmosphere as is believed throughout the world , also that bogs are believed to soak up co2, ...then if you believe ,agree with them 2 statements they are carbon neutral if they are burned. fossil fuels ,carbon neutral...really.

allanpkr · 06-08-2012 01:15AM

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Are you being serious or sarcastic that fossil fuels withdrew carbon from the CO2 in the atmosphere?

And I was implying that you don't seem to have the grasp of the idea of something being carbon neutral!

hang on you said fossils fuels are carbon neutral , not me your grasp of carbon neutral is wrong
#

allanpkr · 06-08-2012 01:20AM

as i said b4 you pick a discussion the argue no matter what,,in one statement you said "pick a more efficient fuel" then your reply to my answer ignors that point completely,as it doesnt suit you to answer

allanpkr · 06-08-2012 01:27AM

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Are you being serious or sarcastic that fossil fuels withdrew carbon from the CO2 in the atmosphere?

And I was implying that you don't seem to have the grasp of the idea of something being carbon neutral!

quote ULTIMATELY . fossil fuels derive co2 from atmos un quote. ultimately does this word improve your point. ultimately if i cut turf to burn its going to make no difference to the biodiversity or anything else.

OpenYourEyes · 06-08-2012 01:42AM

allanpkr wrote: »

and btw its not my description of carbon neutral..i hope you agree that woods forests ,take up co2 from the atmosphere as is believed throughout the world , also that bogs are believed to soak up co2, ...then if you believe ,agree with them 2 statements they are carbon neutral if they are burned. fossil fuels ,carbon neutral...really.

You seem to be confusing the term "carbon neutral" with laws of physics and chemistry (something along the lines of the conservation of mass or energy).

Burning wood and turf and other fossil fuels doesn't change the amount of carbon that exists, but it does take carbon from the ground and puts it in the air which is where the problem is!

allanpkr wrote: »

hang on you said fossils fuels are carbon neutral , not me your grasp of carbon neutral is wrong
#

No I said by your definition its carbon neutral - you seemed to imply that burning wood/turf is carbon neutral, and if you think burning wood/turf is carbon neutral then you must also think that burning coal/oil etc is carbon neutral!

allanpkr wrote: »

quote ULTIMATELY . fossil fuels derive co2 from atmos un quote. ultimately does this word improve your point. ultimately if i cut turf to burn its going to make no difference to the biodiversity or anything else.

Im not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but the underlined quote is ridiculously incorrect! The biodiversity suffers a huge huge amount and many species will go locally extinct and extinct within Ireland if turfcutting continues. And it'll lead to increased flooding, and all the other points made earlier in this thread!

Like I said before I'm pretty sure I've put forward good arguments for most if not all of your points, but if I havn't its partly because its difficult to sink back into a discussion that's several pages long when replies are coming once a week, if that!

allanpkr · 06-08-2012 02:06AM

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

You seem to be confusing the term "carbon neutral" with laws of physics and chemistry (something along the lines of the conservation of mass or energy).

Burning wood and turf and other fossil fuels doesn't change the amount of carbon that exists, but it does take carbon from the ground and puts it in the air which is where the problem is!

No I said by your definition its carbon neutral - you seemed to imply that burning wood/turf is carbon neutral, and if you think burning wood/turf is carbon neutral then you must also think that burning coal/oil etc is carbon neutral!

Im not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but the underlined quote is ridiculously incorrect! The biodiversity suffers a huge huge amount and many species will go locally extinct and extinct within Ireland if turfcutting continues. And it'll lead to increased flooding, and all the other points made earlier in this thread!

Like I said before I'm pretty sure I've put forward good arguments for most if not all of your points, but if I havn't its partly because its difficult to sink back into a discussion that's several pages long when replies are coming once a week, if that!

my latest replieshave seem to have gone right over your head,either you choose not to understand them or i can only think you have other motives.as for carbon neutral ,i suggest you are playing devils advocate,if not then i am amazed and suggest you read up on it

OpenYourEyes · 06-08-2012 02:12AM

allanpkr wrote: »

my latest replieshave seem to have gone right over your head,either you choose not to understand them or i can only think you have other motives.as for carbon neutral ,i suggest you are playing devils advocate,if not then i am amazed and suggest you read up on it

Honestly, I don't choose to not understand them but some of your grammatical and punctuation errors do make it hard to make sense of some of your replies.

Other motives? Was it you I thought was a conspiracy theorist earlier in this thread or was that someone else?

The devils advocate sentence kind of makes sense in so far as I was taking your "logic" and following it to its further conclusions, but I genuinely think you misunderstand the term and use of the term carbon neutral.

Do you believe that burning of wood and turf is carbon neutral?
If yes, then you must also believe that burning of oil, coal etc are carbon neutral.

allanpkr · 06-08-2012 02:34AM

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Honestly, I don't choose to not understand them but some of your grammatical and punctuation errors do make it hard to make sense of some of your replies.

Other motives? Was it you I thought was a conspiracy theorist earlier in this thread or was that someone else?

The devils advocate sentence kind of makes sense in so far as I was taking your "logic" and following it to its further conclusions, but I genuinely think you misunderstand the term and use of the term carbon neutral.

Do you believe that burning of wood and turf is carbon neutral?
If yes, then you must also believe that burning of oil, coal etc are carbon neutral.

my last reply so even you will understand CARBON NEUTRAL if a tree for eg takes up from atmos 4klgrams of co2 when it is burnt it releases 4 klgrams of co2 therefore carbon neutral. as in turf, what it takes up,when burnt it releases same .it is considered as fossils fuels are in now and for quite a few years do not take up co2 they are not considered neutral. if they ever took up co2 from atmos as living animals and plants is proberly questionable as living animals breather out co2

OpenYourEyes · 06-08-2012 02:48AM

allanpkr wrote: »

my last reply so even you will understand CARBON NEUTRAL if a tree for eg takes up from atmos 4klgrams of co2 when it is burnt it releases 4 klgrams of co2 therefore carbon neutral. as in turf, what it takes up,when burnt it releases same .it is considered as fossils fuels are in now and for quite a few years do not take up co2 they are not considered neutral. if they ever took up co2 from atmos as living animals and plants is proberly questionable as living animals breather out co2

Fantastic! I'm now completely clear, and fully satisfied that you are indeed confused about the term carbon neutral!

The term "carbon neutral" isn't used in this way. Carbon neutral is when you do something to offset the carbon you have released. So if your company revolves around a process that uses a lot of burning or fuel consumption, you would offset this by planting loads of trees or by restoring some damaged bogs.
So the process for something being carbon neutral is:-
Step 1: you burn stuff
Step 2: you do something so that a similar amount of carbon gets reabsorbed from the atmosphere.

The process you're talking about is the CO2 gets absorbed (Step2) and then you burn the wood/fossil fuel (Step1) - so your process isn't carbon neutral - its the backwards version of carbon neutrality - so its releasing carbon!

And turf is a fossil fuel by the way! If you're comparing turf to wood or coal, its more similar to coal! By burning turf you're releasing carbon that was tied up thousands of years ago, which is the major part of the climate change problem!

allanpkr · 06-08-2012 02:56AM

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Fantastic! I'm now completely clear, and fully satisfied that you are indeed confused about the term carbon neutral!

The term "carbon neutral" isn't used in this way. Carbon neutral is when you do something to offset the carbon you have released. So if your company revolves around a process that uses a lot of burning or fuel consumption, you would offset this by planting loads of trees or by restoring some damaged bogs.
So the process for something being carbon neutral is:-
Step 1: you burn stuff
Step 2: you do something so that a similar amount of carbon gets reabsorbed from the atmosphere.

The process you're talking about is the CO2 gets absorbed (Step2) and then you burn the wood/fossil fuel (Step1) - so your process isn't carbon neutral - its the backwards version of carbon neutrality - so its releasing carbon!

And turf is a fossil fuel by the way! If you're comparing turf to wood or coal, its more similar to coal! By burning turf you're releasing carbon that was tied up thousands of years ago, which is the major part of the climate change problem![/QUOT YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG CARBON NEUTRAL MEANS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID .NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH INDUSTRY.ALSO BOGS ARE LIVING, THE CARBON THEY TAKE UP IS HERE AND NOW ,NOT WHAT THEY TOOK UP 1000S OF YEARS AGO,THE PROCESS IS ONGOING. YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS CONFUSED.

OpenYourEyes · 06-08-2012 03:09AM

allanpkr wrote: »

YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG CARBON NEUTRAL MEANS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID .NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH INDUSTRY.ALSO BOGS ARE LIVING, THE CARBON THEY TAKE UP IS HERE AND NOW ,NOT WHAT THEY TOOK UP 1000S OF YEARS AGO,THE PROCESS IS ONGOING. YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS CONFUSED.

No. As I said above, you're misusing the term! You're right that no carbon is created or destroyed in the process, so it is "neutral" in that sense - but that refers to the Law of Conservation of Matter (or similar). It is similarly applicable to all of the other elements.

The term "Carbon Neutral" is used in the context of climate change, and attempting to reduce the impact of burning and releasing CO2 in the air - reducing the impact by "neutralising" it, e.g. planting trees that will absorb CO2 thereby meaning the burning has had no net effect. So the burning has a negative effect, but the following tree planting or bog restoration has a positive effect. positive + negative = neutral!
Burning turf has a negative impact, there is no positive, so its not neutral, its negative!

Also: Yes bogs are indeed living as can be seen with all of the unique vegetation that covers them. When bogs are described as "living" it is predominantly this vegetation that is referred to.
When you go and drain a bog, you kill the bog so it is no longer absorbing CO2. Do you gather up all of the top layers of vegetation and burn that? No you dont. That vegetation is what has soaked up CO2 in recent years.....

...what you and similarly misinformed and/or ignorant people do is burn the lower layers - the dark brown stuff that is made of plants that have decomposed and been compressed over the course of thousands of years to give it its characterstic colour, texture and content. So when you burn this you are releasing carbon that was absorbed thousands of years ago. It is therefore a fossil fuel.

The carbon taken up in the "here and now" was all that vegetation that was killed and scraped away before you went for the fossil fuel underneath. So not only are you releasing the carbon from thousands of years ago, you also put a stop to the process that was absorbing it in the modern day. So it has a very detrimental impact.

allanpkr · 06-08-2012 06:46AM

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

No. As I said above, you're misusing the term! You're right that no carbon is created or destroyed in the process, so it is "neutral" in that sense - but that refers to the Law of Conservation of Matter (or similar). It is similarly applicable to all of the other elements.

The term "Carbon Neutral" is used in the context of climate change, and attempting to reduce the impact of burning and releasing CO2 in the air - reducing the impact by "neutralising" it, e.g. planting trees that will absorb CO2 thereby meaning the burning has had no net effect. So the burning has a negative effect, but the following tree planting or bog restoration has a positive effect. positive + negative = neutral!
Burning turf has a negative impact, there is no positive, so its not neutral, its negative!

Also: Yes bogs are indeed living as can be seen with all of the unique vegetation that covers them. When bogs are described as "living" it is predominantly this vegetation that is referred to.
When you go and drain a bog, you kill the bog so it is no longer absorbing CO2. Do you gather up all of the top layers of vegetation and burn that? No you dont. That vegetation is what has soaked up CO2 in recent years.....

...what you and similarly misinformed and/or ignorant people do is burn the lower layers - the dark brown stuff that is made of plants that have decomposed and been compressed over the course of thousands of years to give it its characterstic colour, texture and content. So when you burn this you are releasing carbon that was absorbed thousands of years ago. It is therefore a fossil fuel.

The carbon taken up in the "here and now" was all that vegetation that was killed and scraped away before you went for the fossil fuel underneath. So not only are you releasing the carbon from thousands of years ago, you also put a stop to the process that was absorbing it in the modern day. So it has a very detrimental impact.[/QUOTE you are wrong .timber is considered a carbon neutral fuel,not because of what is replanted,although i agree mayb it should be.of course turf is not carbon neutral i think that is obvious.. but i digress..my opinion of you is that you care more about the discussion than the subject,which if im wrong then you have failed. now about the subject of turf cutting. the main problem i have with the people in the eu and people like you, is that you have picked on an item or a so called problem that something could be done about, i.e an easy target . on the bog i cut turf ,i would say it is about lets say 500 acres about 10 acres are cut every year,same 10 acres. by about 6 familys. yet we will be banned from cutting.to say the flora and fauna cannot survive on other 490 acres is ludicrous. flora and fauna that mind you survived the ice age and will still be here long after we are not. also if the EU banned synthetic clothing,fracking, insecticides, fluoride, ect then they would have my full backing and i would say these are worthwhile causes , these MANMADE problems. EU on drinking water standards well done,ireland on leading world on banning cigarette smoking in public places well done.but banning turf cutting for a few familys who use it for winter fuel pathetic. to easy
take on big industry first, ban carbon trading.and all of above, then i would hope you would argue from your heart , instead of just trying to prove your interlect, when it comes down to it,i dont and will never believe that a handful of familys cutting winter fuel on a few acres out of 1000s will destroy anything. i wont even ask what you heat your home with,your proberly say timber.

This turf cutting row - will Europe ever know?

Comments