As far as Global Warming is concerned obviously I do not know definitely
that it is true or not.
All I know is that there are a number of scientists who ask how can it
be true when the temperature rises then followed by co2 increase.
Others say that the sensitivity of co2 to temperature has been given
too high an effect and that the rise due to CO2 so far is 0.1 c.
Other questions arise because the current rise in temperature
coincides with the long known cycle of temperature that is around
600 to 1000 years long and the current cycle started up from the
Maunder minimum around 1800 and appears to be peaking around 1990s to
2010.
It appears that the cause of temperature rise is far more complicated
than a simple increase in co2.

The cycle is composed of about six different cycles all mixed together;
1. The sun's radiance level cycle.
2. The sunspot cycle 11 years.
3. The peak in sunspot maximum level cycle.
4. The Milanovitch cycle of the earth orbit around the sun.
5. The rotation of the earth orbit around the sun.
6. The declination of the earth's poles.

All these mixed together generate a variation in the cycle length
somewhere around 600 to 1000 years.
The peak in sunspot activity within these cycles disturbs the earth's
magnetic field and lets in less cosmic rays which cause less cloud
cover on average and so a warmer climate results.

Whew it is complicated isn't it ?
Anyway, that is my bet for the global warming.
It is no wonder the simple co2 theory was accepted.

Note not all hybrids can be plugged into a charger to recharge the
battery. They can only be charged by the cars engine.
That is why some as in this case, are designated as PHEVs.

Why so specific with 43% ? Why not 40 or 50%.

Think of a number !
If it cannot be reached without chaos early in the attempt a new
number or time will be announced at one of these big annual booze ups.

Yesterday Albo announced Labour's intention to install a gas power
station at Kuri Kuri in the Hunter Valley.
The station he said would run on "Green Hydrogen".
My understanding is this hydrogen is produced by using electricity to
separate hydrogen & oxygen.
Then the hydrogen heats the boiler to produce steam which turns the
turbine to produce electricity.

Errr, there are five energy transitions in this chain.
Electricity to hydrogen to heat to steam to turbine rotation to electricity.

With each transition there is loss.
Would it not be better to use the electricity available at the start
of the process and avoid all the losses in between ?
Is this an example of the Labour Parties ignorance of engineering.
Together with their VFT project they will gain at least a White Elephant Factory.

Bazz there is an answer to your question. Have a look here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSPVBbIztWk&t=188s. Not only will it describe what needs to be done and why it needs to be done but how it can be done - no politics just engineering.