"Green" policies are destroying this country

These are only some of the cases that made the headlines. I'm not collecting all the cases for you. Though no doubt if twenty cases were provided, you'd still have the same opinion. Can't all be as well off as you are but personally speaking, a €13,000 fine would make me think twice about offending again.

Nothing to comment on the financial cost of the measures being addressed to aid impact on the environment? Not light money either, and it's proactive, not reactive, which surely has to be a plus in your mind.

Im what you call on the fence about this. I think it is reasonable to assume the easy oil production era has ceased to be as important as it has been. IF more energy is needed in growing economies around the world the depletion will be even faster.Fracking is only a momentary stop gap. There may be more gas field exploration.

I think the world will need every conceivable energy source. You only cut off production if another energy source is more efficient AND cheaper. Solar and wind cannot provide the answer. It cannot replace but it can add. Nuclear HAS to be part of the mix. Nate Hagen has done good work investigating all this. I still think he is too positive.

There is also a strong possibility that the world economy will collapse. That globalisation will turn into localisation and that old style recource wars will raise its ugly head again. That oil production will actually go down, as it did during Covid and the price drops. Supply chain disruption totally killing any green (or global) tech option. That we will have to grow our own food using less and less fertiliser.

So, do we see a clear path here? The answer is no, it will be messy.

The greens have their dreams and fantasies. They are currently hitting the reality wall.

Im open to suggestions but there is no simple panacea, no simple solution.

Climate change is the least of our worries or should be. Eyeballs on the important historical things first. We have been here before..

How do you know they were not sucking water up? How are you certain they're pumping valuable land nutrients directly into the river where it makes zero sense instead of them on the land?

I will absolutely tell you that those farmers weren't pumping full tanks of slurry into those rivers. And you saying they were is about as reliable as you claiming the CFU to be "10,000 of thousands" around slurry spreading time.

"Around slurry spreading time" is exactly when the slurry would be going into the fields, around this they might suck out water from a water source to leave back into the tank and aid agitation / clean the tank. Seems to me you're caught here in that you hadn't realised this practice, so ran to some inflationary figures to suit your reasoning. Again, what you're saying makes zero logical sense. Why would I pump money into a river (ever), particularly during the season in which it's eligible for land?

How many Breeder reactors are currently operating commercially around the world?

There are almost as many Nuclear Fusion reactors in the world as there are fast breeders, and it's not for want of trying. Many billions of mostly public money has been spent trying to get these things to work reliably and economically, and most countries have given up on development because they can't get them to work reliably, and economically.

If they do ever figure out how to do it, great, but until that day comes, it's not part of the equation

In terms of conventional nuclear reactors, we have about 200 years of fuel based on current consumption. We get about 10% of the worlds electricity from Nuclear, so if we were to double that, we'd only have a hundred years of fuel left, if we got half the worlds electricity from Nuclear, we'd be running out in 40 years

Nuclear is a useful part of the energy mix, but it is not a panacea, and not a long term solution using currently proven technology