Cubico have already commented that the Scottish Government Carbon Calulator is currently being reviewed due to significant shortcomings making its results unreliable. In plain English, the calculator over estimates the amount of carbon saved by the wind farm. This is because it assumes that wind farms displace fossil fuel, when this is becoming less and less true as more renewables enter the grid. Cubico have not said whether they will take the findings on board – perhaps they can let us know?

However, LPAs should make it a mandatory requirement to use this more appropriate comparison since achieving a positive net saving is the bare minimum milestone that the wind farm must achieve surely?

As the folk at Save and Restore Walshaw Moor (where they are facing the massive Calderdale Wind Farm proposal) state:

The Peatland Code is designed to market the climate benefits of restoration to carbon market buyers who want to offset UK-based emissions. The Code independently verifies carbon units that restoration removes from the atmosphere and certifies that peatland restoration projects are credible and deliverable.

Scottish Government policy changes include widespread action to restore degraded peatland across Scotland (Scottish Government, 2024 ), and Good Practice restoration guidance (e.g. NatureScot , Peatland Code ).

I.e. government policy north and south of the border increasingly recognises that peatland restoration has a major role to play in sequestering carbon from the atmosphere. Therefore, this is aspect of climate mitigation is becoming more and more important. As we have discussed elsewhere, it can take thousands of years for peat to form, and the industrial excavation for wind farms must do irreparable damage.

As they also explain:

Why compare the carbon emissions impact of a windfarm on peatland with a counterfactual for non-peaty sites and restoration of the site without a wind farm development? Because how could restoring peatland that has been trashed by windfarm construction, operation and decommissioning, ever be better in carbon emissions terms than just restoring the peatland,  with no development?

Here counterfactual is the technical term to describe the scenario to compare the wind farm development against. Given that there have already been days when renewables have produced 100% of the UK electricity requirement (admittedly not many), the appropriate counterfactual should be how much carbon would be saved by restoring the peatland where a wind farm would be built.

As we have said elsewhere, the carbon balance assessment must also take into account the whole life-cycle cost, including the carbon emitted as a result of manufacturing overseas and being transported to the UK.

Original article here: https://saverestorewalshawmoor.wordpress.com/2025/02/09/windfarm-carbon-calculator-review-ditches-carbon-savings-from-displaced-fossil-fuel-generated-electricity-to-focus-on-peatland-carbon-emissions/

What can you do?

Please consider signing the petition to protect our peat and sharing with as many people as you can and sign up to our campaign updates here.

Thank you.