ABSURDITY IS... DESTROYING CARBON SINKS IN THE NAME OF KYOTO
THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT IS BEING DONE IN SCOTLAND

Natural, undisturbed peat is a major sink for atmospheric CO2. In case of oxidation, as a result of cutting, upturning, or draining, the stored CO2 goes back to the atmosphere. This is why the signatories to the Treaty of Kyoto pledged to protect their peat. But now the UK is violating its commitment.

Blanket peat is also a "priority habitat" protected by European law. But that too is being disregarded .

.
.
.
.
.
OBJECTION TO THE PAIRC WINDFARM PROJECT - PEAT INTEREST

ISLE OF LEWIS, SCOTLAND

PROMOTER : SCOTTISH AND SOUTHERN ENERGY


Sent by email to : energyconsents@scotland.gsi



Dear Scottish Ministers,


Please register my objection to the above project, for the following reason :


The site is covered in active blanket peat, which is a natural carbon sink. The nature of the work involved will cause substantial quantities of this valuable ground cover to oxidise and to release its carbon into the atmosphere. The Treaty of Kyoto calls for the protection of carbon sinks, not their destruction.

In addition, peat is a priority habitat listed under Annex I of Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (the Habitats Directive). Governments have an obligation to maintain or restore blanket bog at favourable conservation status (Article 2 of the Directive).

It is doubtful that the authors of the Directive, when they wrote the words « maintain or restore », meant that pristine priority habitats could be ravaged with a promise to partially restore – which is the case at Pairc. This would be farcical, and the Tribunal of Luxembourg could impose heavy fines to Scotland on that score .

And when I say « promise to partially restore », I weigh my words :

a) « Promise »: indeed it is only an ( empty ) promise. For when the peat is laid by the developers to « restore » some of the damage, it will be dead . It will not function as carbon sink, or as habitat for wildlife.

b) « Partially » : it is self-evident that the access tracks, the site tracks, and the working platforms will not be restored, i.e. covered in peat. Yet they form the bulk of the ruined habitat.

c) Real life situation : the restoration contemplated by the ES will only convince members of the public that haven’t walked through a peat-sited windfarm, and seen the damage done to the bog - particularly alongside the tracks where one can see the peat « bleeding » ( and releasing C02 in the process ) for kilometers on. This cannot be restored .
It is a sad spectacle indeed .



Should a cumulative study be carried out that would include all Scottish windfarms either built or projected on blanket peat, the total amount of damage done to priority “Annex I” peat habitat, and of C02 released into the atmosphere, would be staggering.


I am publishing my objection on Internet because the public at large has a right to know about violations of environmental law ( by virtue of the Aarhus convention ), about violations of the Treaty of Kyoto, and about disregard for the rule of law.

The European Commission is being advised concurrently.


Yours, faithfully

Mark Duchamp...................................... 22 July 2007

>> Autor: Mark Duchamp (22/07/2007)
>> Fuente: Mark Duchamp

(C)2001. Centro de Investigaciones y Promoción de Iniciativas para Conocer y Proteger la Naturaleza.
Telfs. Información. 653 378 661 - 693 643 736 - correo@iberica2000.org