YOUR VIEWS: Devastating wildfire in Highlands is now just matter of time without change
Our rural land produces goods we consume including food and forest products.
As we move away from fossil fuels, we expect our rural land to provide us with more energy and other products such as clothing. Synthetic fibres made from fossil fuels currently contribute 69 per cent of today’s textile production and contributes to microplastic pollution.
Reducing production of these goods we consume here in the UK does not reduce the amount we consume; it moves production elsewhere.
The world wars 1914 to 1945 highlighted our lack of self-sufficiency in the essentials we consume. The Forestry Commission was established in 1919 primarily to make Britain more self sufficient in forest products. In 1905 approximately 4.5 per cent of Scotland was covered in trees, today it is around 19 per cent.
This increase was achieved by planting and fencing herbivores away from immature trees. In 1913 Britain imported 93 per cent of the forest products we consumed. Today we still import 81 per cent of the forest products and around 60 per cent of the food we consume.
Britain is one of the world’s largest importers of forest products. The breakup of the Soviet Union established countries such as Ukraine, Latvia and Estonia that could supply us with cheap forest products.
This persuaded our government to rely more on imports from elsewhere. Since 1990 we have continued to increase the area covered in trees in Scotland but we have not increased our long-term ability to produce the forest products we consume.
The war in Ukraine reminded us why security of supply is important. In 2021 we were paying around £265 per tonne for nitrogen rich fertiliser, in 2022 this price had increased to around £800 per tonne, three times the price.
Wood pellets for domestic boilers increased from £250 per tonne to £550 per tonne, over two times the price.
This is because Britain imports over 200,000 tonnes of these wood pellets per year from Russia, Belarus and Ukraine.
Sourcing so much of what we consume from elsewhere has resulted in the UK contributing only around one per cent of the total greenhouse gases emitted in the world annually from our activities here in the UK, but five per cent if we include what we import from elsewhere.
Between 1997 and 2018 the estimated CO2 emissions associated with UK imports from China increased by 64 per cent.
South America does not destroy the Amazon rain forest to produce beef, soya and timber for their own consumption. It is to meet the demand from countries such as Britain for cheap food and forest products.
Britain’s imports of goods from elsewhere is a significant contributor to global warming.
Top Stories
-
VisitScotland staff ‘betrayed’, says union as proposed compulsory redundancy policy approved
-
Grantown’s YMCA does Abba’s Mamma Mia!
-
Highland politician has been highlighting the role Scotland’s whisky industry to the local economy
-
Cairngorms National Park fire warning signs are ‘patchy, outdated and even absent’
Planting or regenerating native species of trees at relatively high elevations to obtain carbon credits, increases the area we cover in trees but will contribute little to reduce global warming.
Carbon emitting organisations buying carbon credits does not reduce the net carbon these organisations emit.
The net amount of carbon absorbed by growing trees is proportional to their rate of growth, slow growing native species of trees planted at high elevations may not absorb more than they emit over their life cycle.
If they cannot be harvested economically; they will not contribute to the forest products we consume.
Many of the trees planted to obtain carbon credits, are planted on sites where excavators have turned over the soil to create mounds to facilitate planting.
This releases greenhouse gases from the soil into the atmosphere in addition to gases emitted from the machines used to carry out this operation. Where possible we plant directly into the undisturbed soil or encourage trees to seed themselves.
Wildfires are now a significant contributor to greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Wildfires globally are becoming more frequent and intense, ravaging communities and ecosystems.
With global temperatures on the rise, the need to reduce wildfire risk is more critical than ever. In 2021 wildfires are estimated to have emitted 1.76 billion tonnes of carbon globally.
The damage caused by wildfires in 2023, along with their contribution to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, is already more than in 2021.
Elsewhere in the world the worst damage has occurred where fuel loads of rank and dead vegetation have been allowed to build up, adding to the intensity of wildfires when they occur.
In May this year a wildfire near Cannich on land owned by Forestry & Land Scotland and the RSPB Corrimony Nature Reserve covered 28.6 square miles (7,400 hectares).
In Scotland we have managed vegetation by cultivation, herbivore grazing using fences and burning.
Removing fences, reducing herbivores and abandoning vegetation management by burning increases our vulnerability to wildfire.
This habitat management is creating a situation similar to where the worst wildfires have occurred elsewhere in the world. It may be only a matter of time before we have devasting wildfires in Scotland like Canada, western USA, southern Europe and Australia.
Jamie Williamson
Alvie Estate Office
Kincraig.
* * *
Part of the problem
Charles Wardrop repeatedly mentions other countries and what they are doing – or failing to do – in the effort to reduce CO2 emissions.
I suggest that the reason that too few countries are acting with enough urgency is that they contain too many people like Mr Wardrop, who both argue against the clear scientific evidence, and also want to do very little until others lead the way.
The scientists have been very cautious in their predictions about the climate changes expected, and what has happened so far has been more severe than predicted so we ignore them at our peril.
Jim MacEwan
Nethy Bridge.
* * *
Clarity is needed on CO2 situation
The letters to the editor regarding the net zero concept appear to be a hot if somewhat misunderstood topic.
Given that very punishing regimes are being mooted for the UK to drive its numbers to an extremely low threshold, and to even take the pain on behalf of less developed nations this is understandably of some concern.
The total amount of CO2 in the air is presently at about 418.51 ppm (September 2023 NOAA.gov) or 418.5 parts in a million parts of air, i.e. 0.04 per cent and I presume this is what is being mentioned and then challenged (12 October).
I’m not sure where the 34 per cent in this same response comes from or where it fits in. I’d like to though as it may be very relevant.
About where the Carbon comes from, it’s not at all our fault; unless I wasn’t paying attention in school this is patently not the case. Carbon dioxide is produced by some significant processes in nature.
Outgassing from the oceans (70 per cent of the planet’s surface area); decomposing vegetation and other biomass; erupting and venting volcanoes; naturally occurring wildfires and even belching from ruminant animals are there whether or not we play a role. NASA has just recovered samples taken from a real live asteroid recently and their first comment speaks of carbon and water in the sample, suggesting we humans are not the sole cause.
We obviously need clear definitions if any discussion is to be meaningful, and this holds for Net Zero as well as alleged green projects and concepts.
What I see is there are conflated claims and numbers, resulting in more than a little confusion. This helps nobody, merely reinforcing entrenched positions.
Given our political leaders also appear to have near zero understanding of the problems and/or solutions this needs clearing up and quickly so we can stop wasting time, energy and money on bogus solutions or hiring experts who inevitably are pushing one or other vested interest viewpoint – someone is being paid after all.
Have we learned nothing from the Covid pandemic experience?
If citizens are to understand the issues and have a voice in choosing appropriate solutions, which we owe our future generations, we need to get a move on.
Perhaps the time has come to start a bottom-up initiative using a local facility to meet and discuss and find answers people can understand and hopefully opt for decent compromises between dreams, wishes or hopes and what is practical and can be done, starting now.
We need to understand the nature of the threats being used to scare folk and allow political folk to make what appear to be some choices we will all be very sorry about– the ‘we’ll take the positives out of this and do better next time’ variety,
We really need to know what is being done and why as well what the real issues and present status of our infrastructure are.
Paul Aarden
Aviemore.
* * *
Indy support is not going away
In line with the Scottish political conference scene I welcome the support of Edinburgh University’s Professor Lindsay Paterson and his research on independence, going back to 1979; the year the first referendum for devolution occurred.
His firm conclusion, like that of Sir John Curtis, is that support for independence ‘is not going away’ and a majority of ‘above 60 per cent’ will happen in the very near future.
The research, now published in the journal The Political Quarterly, also concluded that ‘the level of support for independence, and of opposition to it, are unlikely to be effected by the transient fortunes of the SNP’.
It’s now abundantly clear that young Scots and indeed people born since the late 1960s are pushing the YES campaign for independence, irrespective of any political agenda.
Grant Frazer
Newtonmore.
* * *
Hope that steam railway can start getting on track
We visited the Strathspey steam railway on the first Friday of the Flying Scotsman’s visit.
We could sense all was not well. It was chaotic.
The poor management of the hundreds of visitors, the lack of refreshments, the shop being closed. All gave a poor impression.
I hope the board listen to the staff, and when we return we see a different railway.
Nigel Summers
Lancing
Sussex.
* * *
Easy way to end the ‘slanging matches’
Charles Wardrop (Strathy, October 19) bemoans slanging matches about his letters.
There might be none if he offered evidence to support his assertions, and considered replies to him and others already made in Strathy letters.
He poses three questions that have already been answered in Strathy letters from me, Roy Turnbull and Jamie Williamson:
• Need the UK continue spending in trying to influence the world’s climate? Answer: Yes, we are causing global warming (Strathy July 13, 2 in June 29, 21, May 31) and it is a catastrophic threat of unbearable climate, mass extinctions and possible collapse of civilisation (Strathy June 22, 15, 1, April 26).
Yes, installing windfarms helps reduce carbon emissions, that are causing global warming (Strathy October 5).
Also 'by producing more of what we consume more sustainably within the UK we could be part of the solution' (Strathy May 25). And there are other solutions; for example, we can influence global warming by consuming less and recycling more goods.
• Should research continue into climate deterioration? Answer: Yes, letters offer science-based replies to his largely evidence free denials (Strathy October 19, two in July 13, June 29, 22, 15, 1, May 25). Following the science could resolve our differences.
• How should burgeoning fossil fuel burning by some nations influence policies of UN compliant nations? Answer: “the UK should cajole laggard countries to cut emissions. Our disregard for the rest of humanity (if we abandon our net zero target) should not encourage them to emit greenhouse gases (Strathy October 12). Also nations including the UK will negotiate from November at COP28 to agree on how to save the world (Strathy June 22).
So, Mr Wardrop, please support your claims with evidence, and consider more carefully the replies to your letters in the Strathy.
Dermot Williamson
Kincraig.
* * *
Net zero interest in hitting global targets
In his numerous attacks on Charles Wardrop it is obvious that Dermot Williamson is sincere in his climate beliefs but is misguided (Letters 19 October).
The cost of UK Net Zero 2050 is £4.5 trillion or £6000 per household every year until 2050.
Mr Williamson seems not to understand that the UK alone cannot stop a changing climate. In July, Sultan Al Jaber, chairman of COP28 to be held in November, asked governments to submit improved climate targets.
Not one country has responded. Asia’s coal sector says that coal remains the cheaper and more secure alternative to renewables.
China, the world’s largest fossil fuel consumer, has signalled its intention to continue using them for decades.
Europe faces growing resistance to Net Zero and 1039 new coal power plants are under construction or planning.
Macron rules out a ban on gas boilers and attacks ‘climate alarmism’. Sweden officially abandoned its climate targets. Germany is restarting its mothballed coal plants.
Mr Williamson what do you suggest since it appears that the rest of the world has Net Zero intention of achieving Net Zero?
Clark Cross
Linlithgow.
* * *
Stomping out in huff
The online article ‘Mass walk-out by staff and volunteers at Strathspey steam railway’ seems a very biased and one-sided report.
The staff say that the ill feeling is not connected with the Royal Scotsman incident. This claim is rubbish as the incident was due to poor footplate procedures and policies not being followed by the staff who are complaining.
They don’t like it if they don’t get their own way and this has why they have stomped out in a huff.
Pete Waterson
Edinburgh.
Editor's note: The article referenced was awaiting a response from the railway’s board which was subsequently published.
