This turf cutting row - will Europe ever know?

starviewadams

Ignorant,greedy and sighted folk who would rather ruin whats left of a scientifically proven very rare eco-system in order to save a few quid on heating or to make a fast buck selling turf,on top of the money the Govt has already payed them to stop cutting the turf.

Only in this banana republic would there even be debate about a matter like this.

johnr1

This row - like everything else here, is being argued around the extremes, with each side picking the worst possible side of the opposing argument to highlight and to attack.

For balance, I'm going to add a few observations of my own.

1 The turf cutting is being stopped only in "SAC"s which were designated as such, to much furore, about 15 years ago. So people have had time to digest the ramifications of their land being designated as such. There are other limitations on the use of "SAC" land as well.

2 The pro cutting argument relies on sympathy for poor people trying to heat their houses in tough times. Well and good, but they have had at least 15 years to change fuel type, or to rent/lease bogland which is not designated as SAC.
I'm one of these people, and I'm lucky to have bogland in both designated and non- designated areas.
However, I have NO sympathy for contractors who make their living out of selling turf, because this leads to higher usage and supplies run out quicker.

3. It is very interesting to note that not one square metre of Bord na Mona land has been included in the SACs. In places the boundaries bend around BnM lands it appears, to specifically exclude them.

4 As many have posted, bogland IS a finite resouce, as is oil, gas, and many other minerals found underground. It IS important to preserve as much of it as possible, but a balance has to be struck. Allowing a free for all to continue isn't the answer, but neither is a total ban on turfcutting while excluding the organisation who destroy more bogland than everyone else combined.

5. My suggestion: Allow people who own bogland to cut as much turf as reasonably supports one household. Make the sale of turf and turf products illegal. Outlaw certain of the more damaging methods of extraction.
Redraw the SACs to include state and semi state owned lands.
These measures would decrease the damage by a very high percentage, and still not infringe too much on the rights of people who own bogland and wish to use some to heat their homes.

Sadly, It's too late for these measures, - like everything else, the fishing, the oil etc, our governments made a balls of it years ago.

intbn

allanpkr wrote: »

to OPENYOUR EYES. the reason i mentioned FRACKING cause like raised bogs , its an EU directive,but fracking unlike turfcutting will harm humans, so thats ok. double standards i think
but hey lets save our raised bogs cause we dont want to harm the fauna( life) .i.e small insects.plant life( flora) but lets poison our water supply. why MONEY...CLEAR ENOUGH

yer dead on there al, i wonder has the predicted drop in oil prices anything to do with this?
there's new free energy(not over unity) technologies out in different countries like china and no government will let them give it away(never mind sell it) to anyone in the country their governing for the simple reason that they want the money from these energy markets, it's all about the money!

OpenYourEyes

johnr1 wrote: »

3. It is very interesting to note that not one square metre of Bord na Mona land has been included in the SACs. In places the boundaries bend around BnM lands it appears, to specifically exclude them.

4 As many have posted, bogland IS a finite resouce, as is oil, gas, and many other minerals found underground. It IS important to preserve as much of it as possible, but a balance has to be struck. Allowing a free for all to continue isn't the answer, but neither is a total ban on turfcutting while excluding the organisation who destroy more bogland than everyone else combined.

5. My suggestion: Allow people who own bogland to cut as much turf as reasonably supports one household. Make the sale of turf and turf products illegal. Outlaw certain of the more damaging methods of extraction.
Redraw the SACs to include state and semi state owned lands.
These measures would decrease the damage by a very high percentage, and still not infringe too much on the rights of people who own bogland and wish to use some to heat their homes.

Sadly, It's too late for these measures, - like everything else, the fishing, the oil etc, our governments made a balls of it years ago.

First of all, the amount of bog destroyed by Bord na Mona, in hindsight, is tragic! No argument here at all!

For points 4 and 5, as you obviously know yourself, there isn't a total ban on turfcutting - its only around 5% of raised bogs that are protected.

A total ban is needed in these bogs because once the bog is drained the damage is done - how slow the turf is cut after that is largely irrelevant! To allow "some" turfcutting in these areas would mean they arent being conserved properly and so would be pointless because we'd be paying lip service to conservation and thats about it!

With regards redrawing the SACs to include state owned land - the damage has been done on these lands unfortunately, so there's no point in including them! All we can do is hope and pressurise Born na Mona and the government to do something similar to Boora in Offaly so that the barren land can be put to some use re: conservation!

Whilst I have no sympathy for the turfcutters disobeying the ban or who havn't availed of compensation, it could have been handled better by the government alright! And thats not anti-Fianna Fail in any way - I have no doubt that Fine Gael would've made the exact same mistakes unfortuantely!

Blisterman

Tradition or not, a turf fire is one of the least efficient and most environmentally damaging ways to heat a house, and for that reason alone, shouldn't be encouraged.

allanpkr

how come turf burning is inefficient and damaging to envirement?

Capt'n Midnight

allanpkr wrote: »

how come turf burning is inefficient and damaging to envirement?

With an open fire most of the heat goes up the chimney and you have the fire on all day whether you are there all day or not

burning it in a range, and cooking on the range in a house with people there all day and running a back boiler and making sure the house is very well insulated would be far more efficient than most turf users

runawaybishop

allanpkr wrote: »

how come turf burning is inefficient and damaging to envirement?

Because turf takes thousands of years to form and doesn't produce much heat. That's why its inefficient. Timber is far better.

allanpkr

if you look at calorific value of turf and timber they are about the same. so to say it doesnt produce much heat is wrong when comparing to timber,nowcompare it to coal and there is a difference

allanpkr

i also have a multifuel stove i put it on when i need heat 78% efficient i also have a smaller one that is 85% efficient. open fires i agree are ineffient, but that is not the fuel, its the applience.

runawaybishop

Timber doesn't take 1000s of years to produce though. I'd be interested in seeing the heat output of timber versus turf.

allanpkr

point 1: if you need scientific testing to prove that pumping millions of gallons of sludge and chemicals into the ground which must by the laws of nature end up eventually in the water table is detrimental to the envirement, then i can only feel sorry for you, as you need someone or some state body to put thought processes into you. if i jump into a river ,guess what , i get wet.no one told me i know.
2: last point, if you have to pick holes in my spelling , definition of words
then your argument weakens,whether your right or wrong.

allanpkr

allanpkr wrote: »

point 1: if you need scientific testing to prove that pumping millions of gallons of sludge and chemicals into the ground which must by the laws of nature end up eventually in the water table is detrimental to the envirement, then i can only feel sorry for you, as you need someone or some state body to put thought processes into you. if i jump into a river ,guess what , i get wet.no one told me i know.
2: last point, if you have to pick holes in my spelling , definition of words
then your argument weakens,whether your right or wrong.

point 3: quote the post you're replying to.

allanpkr

all web sites i went on actually showed turf as higher value, only just but still higher.all of them. hmm how much time does it take to produce oil, which most homes in citys one way or other use for heating fuel, or even gas. ban them? no ,wont do that ,tax take to high.cant tax turf. and turf is being banned and eventually it will be stopped in all bogs, except bord an mona as they can tax that.......mayb im just cynical.

allanpkr

oops did it again ..they changed site layout i was replying to..im not typing it again..catch it next time lol

runawaybishop

allanpkr wrote: »

all web sites i went on actually showed turf as higher value, only just but still higher.all of them. hmm how much time does it take to produce oil, which most homes in citys one way or other use for heating fuel, or even gas. ban them? no ,wont do that ,tax take to high.cant tax turf. and turf is being banned and eventually it will be stopped in all bogs, except bord an mona as they can tax that.......mayb im just cynical.

Any links, i didnt spot any good ones? Truf isnt banned at all, only certain bogs are protected. So yes, you are being too cynical.

OpenYourEyes

allanpkr wrote: »

2: last point, if you have to pick holes in my spelling , definition of words
then your argument weakens,whether your right or wrong.

Without looking back, I'm pretty sure you corrected my original correction - so you were mistaken originally, and then just plain wrong the second time - at least my corrections were correct, if you're going to correct someone you should double check that you're right

And its you're..

allanpkr

allanpkr wrote: »

all web sites i went on actually showed turf as higher value, only just but still higher.all of them. hmm how much time does it take to produce oil, which most homes in citys one way or other use for heating fuel, or even gas. ban them? no ,wont do that ,tax take to high.cant tax turf. and turf is being banned and eventually it will be stopped in all bogs, except bord an mona as they can tax that.......mayb im just cynical.

I have a multifuel boiler and the buffer tank has a temperature sensor in it and I find that turf can get the tank up to 90c whereas wood only up to 80c, so that appears to say that turf (by volume) produces more heat than wood.

OpenYourEyes

allanpkr wrote: »

.cant tax turf. and turf is being banned and eventually it will be stopped in all bogs, except bord an mona as they can tax that.......mayb im just cynical.

If you wanted to tax turf, you'd just go about it the same way they're going about the ban i.e. determine who owns what, see what state the bog is in on date X, check back on date Y and determine if it has been cut, and if so how much and then tax it

So the process would be the same to ban it or to tax it, but they're choosing to ban it - because its not for the purposes of tax, its for the environment! That simple!

I don't know of anyone who is in favour of the ban who also supports Bord na Mona, but they're two seperate things, two different arguments. And Bord na Mona are cutting on their last bog now so will be finished on bogs in the near future.

allanpkr

runawaybishop wrote: »

Any links, i didnt spot any good ones? Truf isnt banned at all, only certain bogs are protected. So yes, you are being too cynical.

like i said in my post at the moment they banned cutting on a few bogs eventually it will be all, my opinion. as for links.sorry im not computer iliterate, but i just went on about 10 sites that were shown. good ones??what you looking for, lets just ignore the point about oil and gas shall .

allanpkr

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

If you wanted to tax turf, you'd just go about it the same way they're going about the ban i.e. determine who owns what, see what state the bog is in on date X, check back on date Y and determine if it has been cut, and if so how much and then tax it

So the process would be the same to ban it or to tax it, but they're choosing to ban it - because its not for the purposes of tax, its for the environment! That simple!

I don't know of anyone who is in favour of the ban who also supports Bord na Mona, but they're two seperate things, two different arguments. And Bord na Mona are cutting on their last bog now so will be finished on bogs in the near future.

your argument is totally unreal; sending an inspector around on every bog to measure and see how much people have cut is a laughable point your making,we can all work out how it can be done, but feasible get real. SIMPLE.

OpenYourEyes

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

If you wanted to tax turf, you'd just go about it the same way they're going about the ban i.e. determine who owns what, see what state the bog is in on date X, check back on date Y and determine if it has been cut, and if so how much and then tax it

I'd love to know how you quantify the amount of turf cut! It's very difficult to see how much turf has actually come out of the ground and contractors don't have to lay it in the same field as they cut it.

allanpkr

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Without looking back, I'm pretty sure you corrected my original correction - so you were mistaken originally, and then just plain wrong the second time - at least my corrections were correct, if you're going to correct someone you should double check that you're right

And its you're..[/QUOTas i said sorry about my mistakes one up to you,now you must be so happy ,jumping in the air.." i won i won " lolol

OpenYourEyes

allanpkr wrote: »

your argument is totally unreal; sending an inspector around on every bog to measure and see how much people have cut is a laughable point your making,we can all work out how it can be done, but feasible get real. SIMPLE.

Admittedly it was more of a thought experiment than an actual plan - but the point still stands that if taxes and control was what the government wanted, it would be possible to go down that route. But its about protecting a very important and rare habitat, not any of your conspiracy theories!

last point, if you have to pick holes in my spelling, definition of words type SIMPLE in capital letters at the end of your posts
then your argument weakens,whether you're right or wrong.

OpenYourEyes

allanpkr wrote: »

point 1: if you need scientific testing to prove that pumping millions of gallons of sludge and chemicals into the ground which must by the laws of nature end up eventually in the water table is detrimental to the envirement, then i can only feel sorry for you, as you need someone or some state body to put thought processes into you. if i jump into a river ,guess what , i get wet.no one told me i know.
.

Fracking is a completely different issue. Even so, I don't see how you can argue with an approach that bans it until sufficient independant scientific testing has been done, and then deciding to allow it/continue to ban it based on that.

Feisar

I for one am delighted about this and hope they ban the cutting of turf on all bogs ASAP.

At home we are in the process of "babysitting" our turf, it was fairly well on and the weather has it destroyed. Turf has gone way back, pools of water lying on the bog. We had to wheel barrow some of it off that had been bagged before the weather wrecked it. Wheeling three bags of turf of a bog is pure hardship. as is bagging the top few sods off a footin' and making up new footin's out of the half ones.

Caliden

ilovesleep wrote: »

Ah, ok, that would explain the EU ruling so.

And yet we're sucking up oil that takes a lot longer to be created without any question being asked.

Caliden

Caliden wrote: »

And yet we're sucking up oil that takes a lot longer to be created without any question being asked.

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.

As it is, many of the older giant fields are approaching the point of accelerating decline which will not be replaced by newer discoveries. This is one of the main reasons that the economy isn't doing what the economists predict it will do.

People simply don't have an answer to the oil issue.

allanpkr

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Admittedly it was more of a thought experiment than an actual plan - but the point still stands that if taxes and control was what the government wanted, it would be possible to go down that route. But its about protecting a very important and rare habitat, not any of your conspiracy theories!

last point, if you have to pick holes in my spelling, definition of words type SIMPLE in capital letters at the end of your posts
then your argument weakens,whether you're right or wrong.

the point does not still stand as you say.your point was nonsense.it would be impossible to tax turf cut by the public whether you believe in conspiracy theories or not. never . end of.

allanpkr

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Fracking is a completely different issue. Even so, I don't see how you can argue with an approach that bans it until sufficient independant scientific testing has been done, and then deciding to allow it/continue to ban it based on that.

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.

OpenYourEyes

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

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

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

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

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

sorry open your eyes.

allanpkr

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

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

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

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.

Capt'n Midnight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
#