23/11/2020

Burning question not as simple as some might suggest (Our letter to The Telegraph)

Sir,

In the face of oversimplification, it is encouraging to see Sir Edward Leigh explain the important distinction between the ways in which our uplands are managed (Grouse shooting under a 'sustained attack' as ministers back RSPB over peatland burning ban, 20 November). The RSPB and others, including MPs, have allowed the debate around burning to overlook the simple fact that controlled burning of vegetation, undertaken under strict regulations, and ‘peat burning’ are not the same thing. With the livelihoods of many rural constituents, endangered wildlife and a globally important heather landscape under threat, we must all be better in promoting the facts before making any rash decisions. 

James Swyer
GWCT Press & Publications Manager

Please donate today and help us undertake leading research, challenge misinformation and promote what works

Comments

Controlled Burning of Vegetation on Grouse Moors -MP's stated position

at 12:05 on 24/11/2020 by Graham Campbell

Is it possible that our illustrious, and empirically thinking, MP's are confused about the emissions from anything being burnt and its adverse effect our challenging emissions targets as a country ? The inclusion of the words "burning" and "peatland" no doubt adds to the confusion of their scan reading, vote deciding, process . These two words alone would have likely allowed most MPs to make a decision before reading the substance behind any debate . It would appear that even excreted, post rumination , animal gas poses a first degree threat to our planet through global warming- according to those who's policy advice is taken by our honourable and right honourable friends . It could be argued however that the amount of "hot air " emitted in the Houses of Parliament is vastly more damaging than both the aforementioned activities ? Yours .

Make a comment