Keeping a physical copy of all the books they want to is going to become a very overwhelming task

Given their hundreds of years of experience with an ever-growing collection, I'm confident they know what they're getting themselves into. Consider that their historical entitlement to receive a copy of each book published in the UK dates back to the early 1600s.

The library website implies that they do have digital resources. As for replacing physical with digital, consider that keeping a physical copy of each book is not only nice for continuing the historic archive, but also negates the technical unknowns of maintaining a massive archive of scans for (what I'm sure they hope will be) hundreds more years into the future. Who knows what the digital landscape will look like in hundreds of years...

There are lots of ways to avoid releasing methane. You can bury it deep enough, bury it somewhere cold, or create biochar. Probably lots of other ways too. If you do end up with some methane it's awfully handy for things like heating homes and generating electricity.

Sure...but that's not what TFA says. It's saying that we should just create big piles of organic matter. No burying, lining (under/around the pile), covering or processing of the organic matter required. Just a make a pile. From TFA:

• "To remove CO2 from the atmosphere, the plant material has to be prevented from decomposing"
• "Without access to oxygen, bacteria cannot break down plant material"
• "All that is necessary is to pile the plants high enough, and the carbon at the bottom will stay put indefinitely"

God (since that was mentioned in the review more than anything else, and I would imagine with a higher frequency than in the actual book)?

A quick search found what looks like the book's official website...complete with the author's autobiography which seems to indicate that God could well be a prominent theme throughout the book.

Amongst other things he apparently spent 2 years locked in a room doing nothing but studying the bible + physics and worked on flying cars, but didn't bother with a PhD because he didn't want to waste time trying to convince other people of his ideas...

I suppose I was more posting facetiously than anything else...I do however very much appreciate your considerably more well-reasoned and eloquent response.

No, neither condensing to a single volume or banning abbreviations would result in positive outcomes. Nor would an arbitrary 1001 law limit for that matter. As you rightly point out, doing all this would result in us having a concise and yet completely unworkable law book.
Instead of imposing arbitrary quantitative restrictions, focus should be on having legislation which is, as you say, functional, complete and comprehensible.

I do think that raising the age of criminal responsibility above 10 should be considered. But that's a completely different topic altogether.

Ultimately, the best way to keep stupid laws of the books is to keep stupid politicians out of parliament.

We can hope, right?