Letters / Sacrificing Shetland’s precious peatlands for poor temporary climate solutions
Last month, Highlands and Islands MSP Rhoda Grant visited Shetland and described the Viking wind turbines as “pretty” alongside claiming that they are a temporary feature that can be taken down when climate change is beaten. She also said there needed to be a continuation of wind energy developments in Shetland.
Her words are an invitation to reflect on the obligation of our elected representatives to inform themselves of the facts and express themselves in ways that are consistent and do not invite false inference.
The charge of nimbyism (Not In My Back Yard) is frequently levelled against those who object to the location of wind farms. Indeed, Labour’s plans include defeating nimbyism as a dimension of their revival of onshore renewable energy developments.
Rhoda Grant’s method of throwing a positive spin on the Viking development by saying the turbines “look pretty” is (logically) the same type of claim as those who do not want them in their backyard on grounds that the turbines are ugly.
If her Labour colleagues dismiss objections to wind farms based on opinion that they are ugly, they should do the same for arguments for approval based on opinion that they look pretty. This is a question of logical equivalence.
The continuation of wind farm developments in Shetland raises some pertinent questions, particularly if one is justifying them – as Rhoda Grant seems to be – on the far-fetched basis of stopping climate change.
It is useful to look at some facts here and also ensure that one is not unfair in one’s criticism of Ms Grant.
On 26 January 2024, the Scottish Government revealed that renewable technologies generated the equivalent of 113% of Scotland’s overall electricity consumption in 2022.[i] One can fairly assume that this figure is now either identical to, or higher, than it was in 2022.
Net-zero is measured in terms of territorial emissions.[ii] The UK currently emits about 1.1% of global GHGs;[iii] in these terms this puts the UK in 17th place with China topping the chart by producing 28% of greenhouse gas emissions. UK emissions are falling, but globally, emissions are still rising with China, India and the United States primarily responsible.[iv]
Scotland will only emit a proportion of the UK’s 1.1% with Shetland only a proportion of that proportion.
It is important at this point to stress that this is not a preface for an argument that we do nothing more. On the contrary, it is a preface to an argument that we need to understand better the problems of renewable provision in environmental and ecological context and do much more.
Last week, the Flow Country was added to the UNESCO World Heritage List making Scotland the first country to have a peatland UNESCO World Heritage site.[v] This is important because it is official recognition that blanket bog is the best land-based carbon sink in the world.
Blanket bog holds more than 25% of all soil carbon even though it accounts for just 3% of the earth’s landmass. It stores more carbon than all of the world’s forests.[vi] Planting more trees is less effective than conserving the remaining functioning blanket bog and restoring that which is degraded.
The UK holds 15% of all blanket bog with that in Shetland having a rare oceanic-type ecology, making it, from an ecological point of view, even more important.
Blanket bog formation began in Shetland about 5,000 years ago when the climate was substantially warmer and wetter than today and, while there is degraded peat bog in Shetland, there are still areas in pristine or near natural condition.
A substantial amount of this can be found in Yell – particularly in the north of the island – where permission has been granted for The Energy Isles/Statkraft Windfarm to be built comprising 18 turbines with a tip height of 180m.[vii] It will produce power equivalent to the amount used annually by approximately 157,000 average Scottish homes.
However, the development will result in substantial destruction of the bog and ensure that it is no longer functioning as a carbon sink in pristine condition.
There are not enough trees to absorb sufficient carbon in the UK – we are continually urged to plant more – and yet pristine peatland that has been functioning as the best land-based carbon sink for over 5,000 years is being destroyed for turbines that will last up to 40 years.
Whilst these can be taken down, as Rhoda Grant points out, the lifetime of peat bog is over 5,000 years (and counting). The emphasis should, therefore, be on conserving all peat bog that is functioning as a carbon sink and restoring that which is not, so that it absorbs rather than emits greenhouse gases; we will then have a truly efficient and long-term way of sequestering carbon. In neither case should it be developed.
If peatland is developed, one trades millennia of greenhouse gas mitigation for a maximum of 40 years mitigation. To do this is obviously absurd and the idea that such areas will be in better condition post-industrialisation is nonsense.
The claim (not Ms. Grant’s) that the restoration of peatbogs elsewhere can compensate for the destruction of pristine peatbogs is fallacious. Although restoring peatbogs is crucial, it is a well-established ecological principle that bog regeneration should never be used or accepted as a justification for the destruction of pristine peat sites or the exploitation of others.
This is because re-wetting of bogs has recently been identified by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as controversial for two reasons: 1. While re-wetting reduces CO2 emissions, it significantly increases CH4 emissions in the short term before it starts to be reabsorbed.[viii] 2. Re-wetting and restoration in no way guarantee the restoration of invertebrate fauna, which is linked to the recovery (or lack thereof) of avifauna. If the food supply is not available to birds, for example, they will not return to breed.[ix]
The ecological value and rarity of peat bogs in Shetland, combined with their effectiveness as the best long-term terrestrial carbon sinks, mean that the environmental cost of industrialisation is disproportionately high. Many threatened species depend on peat bogs for survival, and the habitat itself is exceedingly rare, so the destruction of a given area of peat bog results in a much higher percentage loss of habitat compared with more common types such as semi-improved grassland.
And yet, we continue to see the industrialisation of Shetland in the form of permission being granted by the Scottish Government for two Statkraft wind farms in Yell, alongside a switching station and 20km of overhead powerlines (some call them pylons, others transmission lines and others high voltage wooden poles! – Whatever the case, they involve destruction of blanket bog).[x] [xi]
Indeed, since the UK contributes to only 1.1% of global greenhouse emissions, the proposed wind farms in Yell will, therefore, have an immeasurably small impact on climate change (something that Ms. Grant does not seem to have appreciated), but a disproportionally high negative effect in terms of ecology, percentage of habitat loss and the long-term effectiveness of peat bog as a carbon sink.
In other words, the effect of such industrialisation on climate will be of less benefit than the preservation and restoration of a long-term efficient carbon sink such as peat bog. This is why it is so important to understand renewable energy provision within environmental context.
In the context of how and where wind farms are being constructed in Shetland, the overall impact of climate and ecology will be a negative one, since a 5,000 year-old carbon sink is being traded in favour of a far less effective form of greenhouse gas emission mitigation.
The idea that by digging up functioning peat bog that stores more carbon per hectare than forests, or industrialising areas of degraded peatland as opposed to just restoring them so that they function well again for the sake of wind farms that will only last up to 40 years, makes no sense and is hardly expressive of a just transition to renewables.
It is certainly not the case, as Ms. Grant invites us to infer, that by building more wind farms on peat bogs we will stop climate change. Indeed, given the earth’s climate history, it may not be possible to stop it at all, but that is another matter.
None of this should be interpreted as opposition to renewable energy developments – it is crucial that we transition away from fossil fuels and generally reduce our negative environmental impact.
However, it is equally crucial that we remain aware of our susceptibility to making catastrophic errors in the name of progress towards minimising our negative environmental footprints.
Adrian Brockless
Yell
Do you have a view on the issues raised in this contribution?
Please feel free to participate in the public debate by submitting a response by email (letters@shetnews.co.uk) to be considered for publication in our letters section.
[i] https://www.gov.scot/news/record-renewable-energy-output/
[ii] https://climate-change.data.gov.uk/articles/measuring-greenhouse-gas-emissions
[iv] https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2023/12/us/countries-climate-change-emissions-cop28/
[v] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/scotland-to-have-worlds-first-peatland-unesco-world-heritage-site
[vi] https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/peatlands-store-twice-much-carbon-all-worlds-forests
[vii] https://www.energyconsents.scot/ApplicationDetails.aspx?cr=ECU00001844
[x] https://www.energyconsents.scot/ApplicationDetails.aspx?cr=ECU00001844
[xi] https://www.energyconsents.scot/ApplicationDetails.aspx?cr=EC00003121
Become a member of Shetland News
Shetland News is asking its many readers to consider paying for membership to get additional features and services: -
- Remove non-local ads;
- Bookmark posts to read later;
- Exclusive curated weekly newsletter;
- Hide membership messages;
- Comments open for discussion.
If you appreciate what we do and feel strongly about impartial local journalism, then please become a member of Shetland News by either making a single payment, or setting up a monthly, quarterly or yearly subscription.
Already a member? Sign in to hide this message.
