Off-target?
It would have been helpful if Dr Richard Dixon of Friends of the Earth Scotland, in his article “Tougher targets on reducing emissions are good for us” (Scotsman, 20 June), had pointed out that such targets refer to net emissions of greenhouse gases. Thus, achieving the target of zero net emissions by 2050 requires that any actual emissions would be balanced by absorbing equivalent amounts of carbon dioxide via carbon sequestration.
Carbon sequestration occurs, for example, when forest soils and vegetation, or peatlands, absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and store it indefinitely. In 2009, Scottish Natural Heritage calculated that “Scotland’s forests remove about 10 per cent of the annual greenhouse gases we release” and that “almost 40 per cent of all the carbon produced by Scotland’s households from electricity use” could be stored by undamaged peatlands.
However, certain land uses, notably grouse moors and deer stalking estates, prevent carbon sequestration by burning or grazing the land, which minimises vegetation and compacts soils. Tougher emissions targets imply that such carbon-irresponsible land uses must decline.
Meeting the challenge of tougher targets implies substantial land use changes, particularly in Scotland’s uplands. What is required is strategic planning that recognises that the imperative of carbon sequestration is an opportunity not only for increased commercial woodlands, but also for extensive non-productive native woodlands, along with restoration of wetlands and peatlands. Only if these latter, non-commercial, aspects of carbon sequestration are met will the full benefits in terms of wildlife, flood prevention and landscape be achieved. Part of the “good” that tougher targets will bring should be that transformation of Scotland’s “wet desert” into a vibrant, and more resilient, living landscape.
ROY TURNBULL Nethy Bridge, Inverness-shire Perhaps Richard Dixon could convince those in fuel poverty as a result of the generous renewables subsidies increasing energy prices that “Tougher targets on reducing emissions are good for us”?
Perhaps he could convince those left unemployed as companies closed due to these same punitive costs.
Does Mr Dixon really believe Scotland has any influence on global temperatures even if, as he says, Scotland must “end all climate emissions by 2050”. Scotland has no influence and miniscule global emissions.
Mr Dixon makes a great issue out of the need for a new, improved, legally binding Scottish Climate Change Act but he must be aware that the rest of the world has only made promises.
President Trump has withdrawn from the Paris Accord and China has confirmed the promise made at the Paris conference that it would reduce its emissions – but only after 2030. America and China are responsible for nearly 50 per cent of global emissions, Scotland 0.13 per cent.
CLARK CROSS Springfield Road, Linlithgow