preservation of peat bogs

[almostnormal]

for those who are interested in climate change and carbon emmissions, the link below will take you to the BBC's nature news and an interesting article on peat bog preservation for climate. it makes for interesting reading. its a few days old now, but the principles are sound. it may also be of interest to know that under farm environment grants (stewardship) the payments for this kind of positive management are quite low.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'Preserve peat bogs' for climate

[nightshade]

As a gardener I prefer peat,but not at the price that actually using it
will cost.Good compost is a substitute,one enclosed composter has the
same approximate footprint as a dustbin
Much is said about the carbon sink effect but the eco-cottagers still
all have wood burning stoves burning the wood that also has carbon
locked in and through the summer they will barbque so as not to use
oil based fuels

[ciuk]

Like so many of our unique and valuable habitats (woodlands, hedgerows, heathlands etc) we have been extremely careless with our peat bogs. It unbeleivable that through peat extraction, drainage, burning and pollution we have destroyed over 90% of our peat bogs!!

The problem with peat as a carbon sink is that it cannot be replaced once it has gone. Trees sequester carbon very rapidly and, while buring them does release it again, you can replace them relatively quickly.

Ciuk

Conservation Issues UK

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by nightshade

As a gardener I prefer peat,but not at the price that actually using it
will cost.Good compost is a substitute,one enclosed composter has the
same approximate footprint as a dustbin
Much is said about the carbon sink effect but the eco-cottagers still
all have wood burning stoves burning the wood that also has carbon
locked in and through the summer they will barbque so as not to use
oil based fuels

I don't have a wood-burner but the point is that they are more or less carbon neutral as long as the trees are replaced annually. The tree takes CO2 in growth, releases it when burned, another one takes in the CO2 &c - sure, over a year, this causes a CO2 peak in the summer but that is retrieved next summer ... Better to use a carbon negative source such as solar but far better than using fossil fuels which, as you note, are irreplaceable.

Peat bogs have been estimated to be the third largest sink for CO2 (after boreal and tropical forests). Not only that but they are a very interesting habitat with insects which are found nowhere else.

[almostnormal]

Originally Posted by ciuk

Like so many of our unique and valuable habitats (woodlands, hedgerows, heathlands etc) we have been extremely careless with our peat bogs. It unbeleivable that through peat extraction, drainage, burning and pollution we have destroyed over 90% of our peat bogs!!

The problem with peat as a carbon sink is that it cannot be replaced once it has gone. Trees sequester carbon very rapidly and, while buring them does release it again, you can replace them relatively quickly.

Ciuk

Conservation Issues UK

i was under the impression that with proper management of the degraded sites the key species for peat creation (sphagnum etc) can recover and the peat bog can begin to work better? i realise this will take a long time, but there are a couple of them which are now being managed as such. one of them was previously forestry, but never really worked properly. its now being restored and there are over 15 different species of sphagnum, plus cotton grass and bog rosemary.

[thunder]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

but the point is that they are more or less carbon neutral as long as the trees are replaced annually.

And cut up by hand and not transported huge distances?

thunder

[eeyore]

i agree about the not transported large distances ( mine is all found timber from storm clearance/ woodland management in the course of my job) but as to being cut up by hand this is impractical for anything but the smallest trees - and the carbon foot print of a chainsaw is very small as one tank will do about an hours flat out opperation (enough to clear a large tree or cut up a heck of a lot of logs) while a 40 hr week of opperation usually uses less than 5 litres of fuel

[thunder]

Originally Posted by eeyore

i agree about the not transported large distances ( mine is all found timber from storm clearance/ woodland management in the course of my job) but as to being cut up by hand this is impractical for anything but the smallest trees - and the carbon foot print of a chainsaw is very small as one tank will do about an hours flat out opperation (enough to clear a large tree or cut up a heck of a lot of logs) while a 40 hr week of opperation usually uses less than 5 litres of fuel

OK, maybe chainsaws don't have much of a carbon footprint, but what about usng an axe? And a two-person saw. Just as they did before the invention of the chainsaw.

thunder

[almostnormal]

Originally Posted by thunder

OK, maybe chainsaws don't have much of a carbon footprint, but what about usng an axe? And a two-person saw. Just as they did before the invention of the chainsaw.

thunder

sustainable forestry (although a bit off the point of the thread) is now very difficult to acheive by hand. clear felling, which is the most effective silvicultural sytem currently in use within commercial forestry in the uk, cannot be achieved without machinery in this country. whilst i apprecate the point about short distance travel, this is also impractical. this isn't how it should be, but it is often how it is.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by almostnormal

sustainable forestry (although a bit off the point of the thread) is now very difficult to acheive by hand. clear felling, which is the most effective silvicultural sytem currently in use within commercial forestry in the uk, cannot be achieved without machinery in this country. whilst i apprecate the point about short distance travel, this is also impractical. this isn't how it should be, but it is often how it is.

clear felling may be the most economically effective but it is far from the best for wildlife/ ecosystems and in fact is seldom if ever practiced in hardwood or deciduous woodlands ( and the sitka spruce etc plantations which are clear felled are not generally being harvested for firewood)

the most viable long term firewood production system would be medium rotation coppice of woodland understorey, but although this can be acheived with hand tools doing so increase the labour input to the point where the firewood would be prohibitively expensive (this was not the case in days of yore prior to the availability of chainsaws because labour rates were much lower back then) - so if much of the neglected coppice was put back into production much of the uk could benefit from locally produced sustainable firewood - but only with the small carbon footprint of chainsaw use and also local use of vehicles to collect or deliver the firewood