Grouse feeding station with the peat left to oxidise into the atmosphere, Balmoral, 2020. Elsewhere on his land King Charles has been paid by the Scottish Government to restore areas of bare peat to help mitigate carbon emissions.Letter published in The Herald
9 Comments on “Global warming, King Charles and Balmoral – the opportunity for change”
Don’t hold your breath. Hypocrisy rules at the highest levels. Why would he change a royal tradition of grouse shooting and deer stalking and upset his chums who get off on blasting away at wild animals?
This comment has been removed. Free forester keeps making spurious claims about Co2 and never responds despite being asked to people who refer him? to the evidence
Excellent letter, Dave. Despite justifiable concerns over hypocrisy at the highest levels, and the attempt by the other commentor to deny the damage being done by the ‘farming’ of our upland areas (grouse, high deer densities, and upland tree planting) to climate change and the damaging effect on biodiversity, it is important to keep our scientifically supported views on these matters in the public viewpoint. Our King is supposed to be setting an example (and possibly even thinks he is) of how man’s influence on the environment should be managed. Unfortunately, he still has some major blind spots which we need to persevere in showing up.
If the king wants to keep going on about the environment then prove it with positive changes on his estates and set an example. He should pay a visit too Anders Polvsens estate in Glen Feshie and see how it can change dramatically. I won’t be surprised if what he does only is only a whitewash.
Mitigating the impact of climate change should certainly be a strong motivator for better land use, particularly in our uplands. But care should be taken always to include the biodiversity emergency and wider concerns over natural heritage and landscape in deciding the direction of change. Doing so should ensure that woodland recover involves only appropriate native species.
If carbon capture were the sole concern then there would be no reason not to prefer hardy fast-growing non-native species such as Sitka spruce, particularly as this species is less palatable for deer than native trees, and therefore easier to establish.
Most tree saplings for planting are now produced as “plugs”, where the roots of one or two year old plants are confined in a small volume of compost about 4cm square and 10cm deep. These can be planted with the minimum of ground disturbance, simply by making four vertical cuts with a spade to form a “noughts and crosses” pattern in the ground, with the centre forming a 4cm square plug, which is then removed and replaced with the tree plug. That is an acceptable method of establishing tree cover within the large areas of the uplands that do not benefit from an adequate seed source, and it does not involve the release of significant amounts to carbon to the atmosphere, since ground disturbance is minimal. Such a method, combined with the necessary very considerable reduction in grazing pressure, either by stringent deer control or fencing (which, of course, has its own problems) would rapidly become carbon negative, not least because of the recovery of ground vegetation as heavy grazing ceases whilst the trees are still small.
Such methods of native tree establishment without ground preparation were successfully used thirty years ago by the John Muir Trust in Knoydart and Trees for Life in the Glen Affric area, the latter including exposed and desolate areas, and have produced flourishing and attractive woodlands of Scots pine, birch, alder, rowan and other broadleaves.
Had such efforts then been more widely adopted we would now be in a much better position in respect of carbon capture, flood control, biodiversity recovery and landscape enhancement than the present situation, still largely dominated by the twin scourges of deer stalking and grouse shooting.
I agree with what you say Roy. But the problem is that the Scottish Forestry grant system works in the opposite direction to what you propose. For example, at abrdn’ s Far Ralia estate near Newtonmore they are doing some planting more or less along the lines that you suggest, but the majority is being done using diggers to mound the soil and expose the peat. This is much quicker and cheaper than hand planting and more readily meets the SF grant criteria. It also satisfies the political objective of simply planting loads of trees wherever this is possible, irrespective of whether the carbon captured exceeds the carbon emitted through the planting process.The answer is to suspend all planting grants on upland soils, so that all areas of peat, of whatever depth, are protected and to avoid the use of mechanical diggers. The hand planting that you propose needs to be grant aided and focussed on areas of hillside adjacent to public roads and railway lines where many landslips are possible in the next 50 years. The farcical efforts to solve the rest and be thankful problems are going to be repeated in many other locations unless trees and shrubs are planted asap on all the vulnerable slopes. Meanwhile the diggers need to get to work in the lowlands, on soils with minimum peat content, planting the full range of native species and, where appropriate, sitka and other non native conifers, eucalyptus and whatever else can capture carbon as fast as possible.
Private Eye No1611. ” Having been prevented by two different P.M’s. from attending COP27,King Charles lobbied hard for permission to attend this years event in Dubai and to give a speech. His Maj thought he’d reached a deal with Sunak last year allowing him to flaunt his green credentials, but this gentlemans agreement seems to have been worthless. Permission was eventually granted, but with strings. King Charles had been assembling a team to draft his speeches and produce background papers, but was told he wouldn’t have free rein. His words will be vetted, something he was hoping to avoid, and his message must not contradict that of Sunak who also intends to be in Dubai. There will be some fraught shuttle diplomacy between the palace and downing street as King Charles trioes to squeeze as much of his message past the censors as he can.” The ordinary person is not the only one controlled by the government!
Nearer to home than Dubai:
“Summit to focus minds on woodland creation process
Industry leaders from the forestry and land management sectors will meet in Perthshire next month to agree additional actions to boost the creation of new woodlands in Scotland.
The Woodland Creation Summit will be chaired by Rural Affairs Secretary Mairi Gougeon and held on Tuesday 12th December at the Battleby Conference Centre.
During the day long summit, industry leaders directly involved in woodland creation, will put a spotlight on the different opportunities for growing more trees and also look at overcoming any associated barriers.” https://forestry.gov.scot/news-releases/summit-to-focus-minds-on-woodland-creation-process#
Are ‘industry leaders’ likely to promote natural regeneration? Will Mairi Gougeon be receptive to views other than from ‘industry leaders’?
Don’t hold your breath. Hypocrisy rules at the highest levels. Why would he change a royal tradition of grouse shooting and deer stalking and upset his chums who get off on blasting away at wild animals?
This comment has been removed. Free forester keeps making spurious claims about Co2 and never responds despite being asked to people who refer him? to the evidence
Try reading and digesting reports published on this website https://www.ipcc.ch/
Rather than what suits your climate change denial agenda.
Excellent letter, Dave. Despite justifiable concerns over hypocrisy at the highest levels, and the attempt by the other commentor to deny the damage being done by the ‘farming’ of our upland areas (grouse, high deer densities, and upland tree planting) to climate change and the damaging effect on biodiversity, it is important to keep our scientifically supported views on these matters in the public viewpoint. Our King is supposed to be setting an example (and possibly even thinks he is) of how man’s influence on the environment should be managed. Unfortunately, he still has some major blind spots which we need to persevere in showing up.
If the king wants to keep going on about the environment then prove it with positive changes on his estates and set an example. He should pay a visit too Anders Polvsens estate in Glen Feshie and see how it can change dramatically. I won’t be surprised if what he does only is only a whitewash.
Mitigating the impact of climate change should certainly be a strong motivator for better land use, particularly in our uplands. But care should be taken always to include the biodiversity emergency and wider concerns over natural heritage and landscape in deciding the direction of change. Doing so should ensure that woodland recover involves only appropriate native species.
If carbon capture were the sole concern then there would be no reason not to prefer hardy fast-growing non-native species such as Sitka spruce, particularly as this species is less palatable for deer than native trees, and therefore easier to establish.
Most tree saplings for planting are now produced as “plugs”, where the roots of one or two year old plants are confined in a small volume of compost about 4cm square and 10cm deep. These can be planted with the minimum of ground disturbance, simply by making four vertical cuts with a spade to form a “noughts and crosses” pattern in the ground, with the centre forming a 4cm square plug, which is then removed and replaced with the tree plug. That is an acceptable method of establishing tree cover within the large areas of the uplands that do not benefit from an adequate seed source, and it does not involve the release of significant amounts to carbon to the atmosphere, since ground disturbance is minimal. Such a method, combined with the necessary very considerable reduction in grazing pressure, either by stringent deer control or fencing (which, of course, has its own problems) would rapidly become carbon negative, not least because of the recovery of ground vegetation as heavy grazing ceases whilst the trees are still small.
Such methods of native tree establishment without ground preparation were successfully used thirty years ago by the John Muir Trust in Knoydart and Trees for Life in the Glen Affric area, the latter including exposed and desolate areas, and have produced flourishing and attractive woodlands of Scots pine, birch, alder, rowan and other broadleaves.
Had such efforts then been more widely adopted we would now be in a much better position in respect of carbon capture, flood control, biodiversity recovery and landscape enhancement than the present situation, still largely dominated by the twin scourges of deer stalking and grouse shooting.
I agree with what you say Roy. But the problem is that the Scottish Forestry grant system works in the opposite direction to what you propose. For example, at abrdn’ s Far Ralia estate near Newtonmore they are doing some planting more or less along the lines that you suggest, but the majority is being done using diggers to mound the soil and expose the peat. This is much quicker and cheaper than hand planting and more readily meets the SF grant criteria. It also satisfies the political objective of simply planting loads of trees wherever this is possible, irrespective of whether the carbon captured exceeds the carbon emitted through the planting process.The answer is to suspend all planting grants on upland soils, so that all areas of peat, of whatever depth, are protected and to avoid the use of mechanical diggers. The hand planting that you propose needs to be grant aided and focussed on areas of hillside adjacent to public roads and railway lines where many landslips are possible in the next 50 years. The farcical efforts to solve the rest and be thankful problems are going to be repeated in many other locations unless trees and shrubs are planted asap on all the vulnerable slopes. Meanwhile the diggers need to get to work in the lowlands, on soils with minimum peat content, planting the full range of native species and, where appropriate, sitka and other non native conifers, eucalyptus and whatever else can capture carbon as fast as possible.
Private Eye No1611. ” Having been prevented by two different P.M’s. from attending COP27,King Charles lobbied hard for permission to attend this years event in Dubai and to give a speech. His Maj thought he’d reached a deal with Sunak last year allowing him to flaunt his green credentials, but this gentlemans agreement seems to have been worthless. Permission was eventually granted, but with strings. King Charles had been assembling a team to draft his speeches and produce background papers, but was told he wouldn’t have free rein. His words will be vetted, something he was hoping to avoid, and his message must not contradict that of Sunak who also intends to be in Dubai. There will be some fraught shuttle diplomacy between the palace and downing street as King Charles trioes to squeeze as much of his message past the censors as he can.” The ordinary person is not the only one controlled by the government!
Nearer to home than Dubai:
“Summit to focus minds on woodland creation process
Industry leaders from the forestry and land management sectors will meet in Perthshire next month to agree additional actions to boost the creation of new woodlands in Scotland.
The Woodland Creation Summit will be chaired by Rural Affairs Secretary Mairi Gougeon and held on Tuesday 12th December at the Battleby Conference Centre.
During the day long summit, industry leaders directly involved in woodland creation, will put a spotlight on the different opportunities for growing more trees and also look at overcoming any associated barriers.”
https://forestry.gov.scot/news-releases/summit-to-focus-minds-on-woodland-creation-process#
Are ‘industry leaders’ likely to promote natural regeneration? Will Mairi Gougeon be receptive to views other than from ‘industry leaders’?