When are sensible realistic unwoke Australians going to wakeup, act and stop all this NET ZERO EVERTING crap. This is nothing more a than globalist, socialist /fascist scam that uses the " poor puppy dog eyes" sympathy angle with " sinking Island", "baby polar" and "whale/dolphin/koala deaths" justifying this mass wealth transfer to pacific Islands etc.

ITS a SCAM and we are fools for allowing it. China, Russia, Iran et al are laughing at us. They are doing nothing other than ignoring the scam. While we destroy our manufacturing, fossil fuel and agriculture industries, "Chiana" is selling us the very " drug" to feed our self-inflicted "flagellation" , namely cheap solar panels an expensive wind turbines.

I hope I make it to 100years old, and have the mental capacity to smile and rub " I told you so" to the " youth generation and scream " How did you?" at them!

By then of course I will have to have learnt Mandarin, as speaking English will have been banned by our new enforced PRC puppet government of the Special Economic Region of Australia!

Who knows what to believe these days. About anything. It's just got too hard, too confusing , for the average person, who has been given no reason to trust anyone, particularly politicians and "experts". I would like to think that Viv Forbes is right, but .....

The greenhouse accounting people disagree with the numbers in the article. See the interactive graphic for emissions by sector in
https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/national-greenhouse-gas-inventory-quarterly-update-march-2021
They seem to think that land use, land use change and forestry LULUCF was net negative by about 25 Mt in the last year but about 100 Mt net emitting in 2005. That's the basis for Morrison's claim of a 20% reduction 2005-2021. Exclude land use and there's almost no change over that period.

The greenhouse accountants conveniently left out the 800+ Mt from the big fires as it was not deemed normal business. They did include methane burps from cows and nitrous oxide from fertiliser and manure in the agriculture category. I'm afraid agriculture is a big net emitter and some say it can never grow enough grass and trees to absorb that. Something has to give, either less people or less cows.

More or less agree with this ultra simplistic argument. And add, some sustainable regenerative farming practices could alone reverse climate change!

The elephant in the room, Viv, is the greenhouse gas, methane, produced by burping herbivores!

Recent research demonstrates some seaweed reduces or may even eliminate this?

Trees can be part of Farmer's superannuation plan! As cabinet high-value timber? Or as orchard production that produces extra income in farmer's markets or roadside stalls. Or out of the back of a ute as the fruit ripens.

Orchards are also trees where the fallen overripe fruit adds to the animal food source. As does native wisteria and some species of wattle.

Salt, frost and drought resistant, native wisteria could also power all the on-farm, diesel requirements, as well as finishing feedlots!
Alan B.

"Who knows what to believe these days"
You are quite correct ttbn, however whether we homo sapiens caused warming or whether, as I think, that we are just rapidly and dangerously exacerbating a natural process, we do ourselves no favours at all by overpopulating and over consuming this planet and continually polluting its atmosphere and Environment.
No Environment, no us.
Simple really.

Disagree AB, the pachyderm in the room is that there are FAR TOO MANY People. Reduce the planet`s population to about 1/3 of what it is now and we stand a better chance of homo sapiens survival along with ALL other species with which we share.
How to do this remains the question but I suspect nature will sort that problem out because we certainly won`t.