Peatlands Are Vital, But They’re Not Climate Saviours
- Rob Beeson
- Sep 25
- 3 min read
A major scientific review critically examines ten common claims regarding the effects of prescribed heather burning on peatlands in the UK, with “Peatlands offer huge carbon sequestration potential and are climate change ‘saviours’ " being the ninth claim reviewed.
The authors, including Dr. Andreas Heinemeyer, consider the claim to be overly simplistic and potentially misleading hyperbole. While the paper acknowledges the vital role peatlands play in the global carbon cycle, it critically examines the nuances and limitations behind this popular perception.
The Acknowledged Value of Peatlands
The paper affirms the fundamental importance of peatlands as long-term carbon sinks. It highlights key facts that support their value:
Globally, peatlands cover about 3% of the Earth's land surface but contain approximately 30% of the world's soil organic carbon.
This vast carbon stock has accumulated over millennia due to waterlogged, acidic conditions that slow down the decomposition of organic matter.
When intact, peatlands generally act as net carbon and greenhouse gas sinks over the long term, offsetting their methane emissions.
Restoring degraded peatlands, especially those drained for agriculture which contribute significantly to global anthropogenic CO2 emissions, is a clear and supported solution to stop emissions and restart carbon sequestration.
Critiques of the 'Climate Saviour' Narrative
Despite these strengths, the source argues that calling peatlands 'climate saviours' is problematic and requires a more nuanced, site-specific assessment. The key critiques are:
Stock vs. Sequestration Potential: The massive existing carbon stock should not be confused with the current or near-future potential for carbon sequestration, which is often limited and highly variable.
Site-Dependent Potential: Future carbon accumulation potential is not uniform. It depends heavily on a peatland's historic use (e.g., peat cutting, drainage), current condition, and local climate. While restoring sites with huge historic losses can offer significant carbon gains, sites with less disturbance may offer only minimal gains.
Greenhouse Gas Complexity: Peatlands are not just carbon sinks; they also release methane (CH4), a potent greenhouse gas. This is particularly true for very wet sites and can be exacerbated by rewetting efforts, especially in former ditches. A full assessment requires measuring the Net Ecosystem Carbon Balance (NECB) and net greenhouse gas emissions, not just CO2 sequestration.
Vulnerability to Climate Change: The "saviour" narrative often overlooks the significant risks posed by future climate change. Increasing temperatures and droughts could undermine restoration benefits and threaten existing carbon stocks. A critical risk is wildfire, which could cause catastrophic carbon losses, literally making anticipated gains "go up in smoke". This directly links Claim 9 to the concerns raised in Claim 4 ("Rewetting reduces heather dominance and thus protects peatlands against wildfire"), as the paper finds no robust evidence that rewetting alone fireproofs a peatland without managing vegetation fuel loads.
Context within the Ten Claims and Overall Recommendations
The analysis of Claim 9 fits into the review's broader argument that many popular claims about peatland management are unsubstantiated, too generic, and lack robust, site-specific evidence. The critique of this claim shares common themes with the other nine:
Need for Better Definitions: The review calls for clearer, function-based definitions of peatland condition (e.g., 'intact', 'degraded') rather than relying on arbitrary criteria. This is relevant to Claim 9 because generic predictions about carbon gains from "restoration" are unreliable without a functional assessment of the starting condition.
Site-Specificity: Just as the impacts of prescribed burning are site-dependent, so is the potential for carbon sequestration. The paper repeatedly warns against generalizing findings from one type of peatland or one location to all peatlands.
Methodological Rigor: Robust, long-term monitoring using a Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) approach is needed to understand both the impacts of management (like burning) and the benefits of restoration. The sources note a lack of data on peatland NECBs and net GHG emissions, which is essential for accurately assessing their climate mitigation potential.
In conclusion, while the sources fully support safeguarding and restoring peatlands for their immense carbon stocks, they reject the "climate saviour" hyperbole. The review advocates for a more realistic perspective that prioritizes protecting existing carbon stocks from threats like wildfire over promoting uncertain future gains. This requires a site-specific, evidence-based approach to management that considers all ecosystem functions and risks, rather than relying on simplistic narratives.
📧 Keep updated on all moorland issues - sign up for our FREE weekly newsletter
