"Green" policies are destroying this country

Far as I recall there was a report by a New Zealand soil expert a few years ago - not exactly sure when - that gave the global emissons from tillage at between 15 - 20%. I know min-till etc is being promoted and is being carried out by tillage farmers, but for all the credit they will get from these anti agriculture articles they might as well not bother.

I stand to be corrected on it. I'll have a read around. No one in ag will get credit. One of the only areas to reduce emissions last year and FotE pissed all over that achievement yet applauded transport which increased emissions. Tillage lads can thank their lucky stars they don't have cows. Cows are enemy #1 at the minute. Tillage should be grateful they are flying under the radar. Tillage isn't even considered when it comes to nitrates, once again it's the cow despite tillage being a bigger leacher of N, a higher user of *icides and chemical fertiliser.

Will Happer a nut job? Maybe have a look at his scientific credentials and his actual papers. Or simply watch the many youtube videos w him as a guest and/or presentations. My guess is you won't for obvious reasons. Nobody will debate him. There seems to be a blacklist of people nobody invites because they actually are experts in their field and considered too dangerous to the alarm narrative. To name a few: Will Happer, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry. All pretty much out of the claws of the establishment.

All Greta devotee’s.they’ll soon realise the real world is different.and I’m sure they will not want to jump on a plane to head off to find themselves in Oz.

There are only so many rare earths, lithium, etc that's needed for the capture and/or storage.

There's also the issue that if the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, your green basket hasn't any other eggs. It doesn't matter how much energy exists in the cosmos if you cannot harness it as required. But you can live in your world of superabundant energy (and darkness without hydrocarbon backup) all you want.

The capacity factor for solar here is around 11%, Higher in Summer, lower in Winter so pretty much meh as far as the grid is concerned. We have had extended periods where wind generation here was as low as 6% when wind also dropped off all over Europe. Just 10% of Spain`s electricity is generated by solar (half of that generated by nuclear) and Iceland generates 29% of its electricity using geothemal, (71% from hydro), so you would be a long time waiting for either to make up the drop off from wind here. Let alone the rest of Europe.

We do not have plans here for sodium batteries to stop the grid from collapsing during extended periods of low wind. Our plan consists of 30 Gigawatts offshore and hydrogen storage with half for domestic use (6 Gigawatts) and the same for hydrogen. Not only would the capital costs alone be horrendous for that 30 Gigawatt, plus all the hydrogen add-on too the consumer, (as well as the cost of that electricity even if it`s not required or used), which would have to be paid for by the consumer, plus the operational costs of both the generation and hydrogen, plus the profit margin over the lifetime of the contract. After that we would be back on the never ending cycle of the same again for the capital costs of the offshore 30 Gigawatts.

The costs of that proposed plan are so horrendous that even for greens who believe in magic money trees know how insane it is and run away anytime when asked, yet somehow have no problem quoting chapter and verse on costs and timelines for any proposals their ideology does not like.

And can they meet the court costs if it goes against them.

Probably no costs if it's brought under "environmental" grounds. The taxpayer covers those cases

For someone who keeps telling us to follow the science, I`m surprised you appear to believe that 5% regarded as the tipping point.

Davis Centola professor of communications and sociology at the University of Pennsylvania in his book "How to Make Great Things Happen" puts it at 25%. As does the publicaton Scientific America.

Lower than that it`s a meh that can go either way.

I`m guessin that the FIE are not looking to the High Court to clear up the vugueness around how much this climate action plan will cost taxpayers ?

As the taxpayer is funding all their trips to courts it`s the least they could do.