[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: peat
I wrote:
> At least here in Canada, peat is accumulating at a rate 70 times faster
than
> it is being harvested, and all peat lands that have been harvested are
"back
> in business" so to speak within 5-20 years. While your concern for not
> contributing to the damage of natural ecosystems is commendable, Mother
> Nature would be better served if you got rid of your automobile and
started
> using a bicycle.
Paul Sears responded:
"There are nevertheless local problems (at least here in the boonies
of Eastern Ontario), where wetlands are being drained to harvest the stuff.
I gather that some of the threatened wetlands are of considerable
significance."
I don't doubt that for a second. Mankind's mismanagement of natural
resources is full of stories of economic necessity overtaking any perceived
ecological concerns. I notice on the Canadian Peat Moss Association web site
that they do not say that the harvested bogs WILL be returned to "bog"
status, they may, in certain instances, be used for alternate uses,
supposedly agricultural. But to avoid or decry the harvesting of peat on a
commercial scale ignores the basic fact that it can grow back and at least
here in Canada the potential supply is growing far faster than current
consumption (if those posted figures are true). If we avoided _all_ use of
natural resources, we'd still be living in the stone age (of course, I also
believe that if we continue to abuse natural ecosystems, we might end up
back in the swamp, destined to become fossils alongside the dinosaurs). I
still stand by my original comment that it would be better for the
environment to replace the automobile than to avoid the use of a renewable
resource like peat. If local concerns regarding ecologically sensitive areas
are addressed properly, both sides can be satisfied.
James Purchase
Toronto