Though I don't know enough to be able to quantify the carbon budget of
active peatland, it seems to me that carbon (obtained from atmospheric
CO2) is being continually sequestered in the peat, and even if *some* of
this carbon resurfaces as methane, the rest of it is surely best left
where it is, doing no one any harm. Any activity that disturbs the peat
(drainage, forestry, extraction) will liberate huge quantities of carbon
as CO2.
OK, methane is a more active greenhouse gas than CO2, but before anyone
can put the pros and cons of changing the landscape by destroying
peatlands they have to consider the whole cycle. What will replace the
peatland in their brave new world? It might be possible to reclaim it
for forestry, which is ultimately "greenhouse-neutral", but bearing in
mind the climatic and topographic controls it is more likely that there
would be reversion to peatland or marsh, which would go on producing
methane. Reclamation to grassland would add further to methane
production by livestock.
Isn't peat a part of the solution, not the problem?
--
Kevin Gilman
http://www.wetlands.demon.co.uk
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|