Skip to main content

Peatland fires undermine UK commitment on climate change

Is the UK government serious about action on climate change? Recent decisions suggest not.  

Over one hundred fires have been reported on carbon-rich peatland in Northern England in the last four days despite a new government ban and just weeks before the UK is due to host a major climate summit, COP26.

Most of the fires have taken place inside the North York Moors, Peak District and Yorkshire Dales national parks.

Wild Moors, the campaign group that collected the data and shared it with Unearthed, has recorded 109 peatland fires as of 10 October, raising questions about the effectiveness of the government ban.

Dramatic drone footage captured by Unearthed shows vast smoke clouds rising from moorland in North Yorkshire.

Peatland is the UK’s largest natural carbon store on land, ‘locking in’ an estimated 3.2 billion tonnes, as well as providing nesting and feeding grounds for many wading birds and important habitats for rare insects and plants.

Landowners deliberately started Peatland fires to provide younger, more nutritious heather to grouse reared for shooting.

Last May, the government introduced a ban to curb the controversial practice, but it has been widely criticised for being riddled with loopholes. For example, it only applies to areas of deep peat – more than 40cm in depth – that sit within specially protected areas. These restrictions mean that only 8% of England’s peatland is subject to the ban.

In July, 105 organisations called on Boris Johnson to introduce a comprehensive ban on burning vegetation on all peat soils and extracting peat for use in compost, ahead of the COP26 climate summit.

Commenting on the latest figures, Luke Steele, Executive Director of Wild Moors, said:

“Since Thursday, over 100 fires have been started by grouse moors on carbon-rich peatlands — an unprecedented increase of five times the number of incidents recorded this time last burning season. It’s illogical to keep this outdated, intensive and environmentally-destructive practice afloat for the sake of a cohort of unscrupulous grouse moors who can’t break their burning habit. That’s why we’re calling on the Government to introduce an immediate and complete ban on the burning of peatland.”

Kate Blagojevic, Greenpeace UK’s head of climate, said:

“Just days before the UK is due to host a major climate summit, our largest terrestrial carbon store is on fire. And this is not a natural disaster, but an entirely avoidable one caused by grouse moor owners setting fire to their own land. It’s obvious that the government’s regulations are worse than toothless and completely failed to stop this absurd practice that damages both the climate and wildlife. A comprehensive ban should be introduced immediately along with concrete measures to fully or highly protect at least 30% of our land and seas by 2030. Anything less would be a major embarrassment for the UK government. There are better ways to welcome world leaders to a crucial climate summit than the sight of smoke and flames engulfing our largest carbon store.”

Wild Moors is working on the ground and with members of local communities to monitor the ongoing grouse moor burning season. Incidents of burning are reported to their monitoring service by eyewitnesses on an almost daily basis. Their dedicated investigators also attend moorland locations to log incidents of burning taking place. They can catalogue the scale, frequency, and location of burning on northern England’s peat moors through these channels.

Source: Greenpeace


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha