Half of the food we eat grows only because of fossil fuels. Natural gas is used to convert carbon dioxide, hydrogen and nitrogen to urea. Wheat yields have tripled over the last 60 years because of it.

Gas, coal and oil are necessary to feed people. We can't go back to manure to produce food efficiently and abundantly.

Sri Lanka has given it a go. Their President wanted 100% organic farming. Within 6 months rice production fell by 20%, and shops had to ration Sri Lanka's staple diet.

The government backed down; the President resigned in disgrace, and chemical fertilisers are back. But, in the short time without them, the decline in food and cash crops has led to a "full blown crisis" in Sri Lanka. Being forced to switch to organic farming "all of a sudden" has left farmers "with no money", and "made survival very difficult".

National Party politician, Matt Canavan, warns that we will be in the same boat as Sri Lanka if we continue down the "naive net zero" path written by people who have no idea how food is grown". ('Net Zero nightmare', Matt Canavan, 14/5/22)

ttbn,
If thats what Matt Canavan really believes, it just goes to show he's an idiot unfit for his job! Urea isn't the only nitrogen fertiliser, but that's moot because UREA CAN BE PRODUCED INDUSTRIALLY WITHOUT USING FOSSIL FUELS.

Aidan,

Yes, urea can be produced from renewable energy, but for a higher price. If you make it expensive then people will starve. The disaster that Sri Lanka went through happened because the PM banned chemical fertilisers without consultation, then ignored the protests about the decision. You can be as organic as you like, but if the nutrients aren't there the plants wont grow.

I feel that Australia is making a big mistake with its renewable energy push, and critics are being dismissed as climate catastrophe denialists. Europe is facing problems implementing renewable energy, and the UK is abandoning renewables developing nuclear power, as is France. I am concerned that Australia may suffer considerable economic harm because of predictions of what things might be like in fifty years.

Oh, and here is an example of a fertilizer plant using green hydrogen. What a joke:

https://reneweconomy.com.au/why-strike-energys-fast-tracked-urea-plant-is-latest-example-of-hydrogen-greenwashing/

The use of nuclear power for ammonia generation does make sense as the power supply is reliable and continuous, with a plant life easily exceeding 60 years, compared with about 25 years for wind and solar. Why are the greenies so dismissive of this form of low carbon energy generation when the world is supposedly on the brink of catastrophe?

Thanks, Fester

"Overwhelmingly, the urea plant will be supplied by fossil gas ....".

Of course, it's a waste of time arguing with people constantly nagging others to believe the science, when they rely on ideology themselves. That's why I routinely ignore them. They have the right to freedom of thought and opinion, but encouraging them by responding to them only makes them rattier.