...Bio-Isoprene?

Hmm - could it be that they've re-discovered the rubber tree?
(Turns sunshine plus CO2 into a useful industrial material and also creates oxygen and indigenous employment. ...Or would that be too simple?)

Also we should hardly be surprised that an oil-patch named "Hoki" turned out to be hokey!
;-)
Oh well, the Kiwis may be getting into the iron-sand business instead.
(Or at least the Maori will; last time I checked, they own the seabed!)

"Oil crunch by 2012, say military experts" <-- My fourth letter to the Editor in a week, and the fourth one to be ignored. It'll still get published, though. That's what blogs are for. ;)

"The Australian - The true nature of sceptics" <-- Scepticism is indeed necessary to free debate, but outright denialism deserves scorn, at the very least. The meaning behind words changes over time (in English, 'apple' apparently meant what 'fruit' does now), so the meaning behind 'sceptic' (to be doubtful of an argument), in the context of Climate Change, has become 'denier' (refuses to accept an argument supported by empirical observation). To call someone a 'Climate Change Sceptic' is to actually say they are 'Climate Change Deniers'. But don't hold your breath waiting for The Oz to note the difference. As far as The Oz is concerned, The Oz will state that AGCC simply isn't happening (it's The Sun. Damn you, Ra!), that Loopy Lord Monkton has all the answers, and that Tony 'Dr. No' Abbott is on the right track.

Re the Online Opinion article by Peter McMahon on China and the US and how it may affect Australia.

There seems to be a propensity in the Austalian unintelligentsia to overestimate the strength of China and underestimate the ability of the US to work through it's present problems and set itself on a more sustainable path,difficult as that will be.The US is in a fundamentally much stronger position than China.Their much lower population(still too high)is an asset,not a liability.They have relatively secure borders and have significant allies worldwide.The US still has immense natural resources and a population with the skills to re-establish a manufacturing sector so foolishly run down by globalization.There are many other positives.

To suggest that the US military will decline is ridiculous.Given the geopolitical situation that would be suicide.I expect(and hope for) a rethinking of priorities and a withdrawal from some areas.Their military,particularly the Army,is overextended and they know it.

China,by contrast,is a disaster waiting to happen.Their massive population overshoot,environmental destruction and ethnic fractures are the primary causes.The frenetic growth which the CCP has been pushing is simply the last card to play to prevent the meltdown.There are many other areas of weakness.

Australia is a minnow in all this but we should cease setting ourselves up for a fall which has been the effect of the policies of successive governments.To rely on Quarry Australia and increase immigration to maintain our living standards is beyond absurd.We should be aiming at stabilizing population at the present level in the short term,reduce exports of valuable fossil fuels like LNG,take positive steps to increase our manufacturing ability and substitute nuclear for coal.

There are many other initiatives which must be undertaken if we are to have a secure and sustainable Australia.They will all require government action and a change in the political culture.Forget private industry leading the way.They are only interested in profits,and short term ones at that.
Governments must lead,not react with short term thinking to stimuli.Globalization and free trade are dead,that just hasn't become obvious to most people yet.

As for defence,it has always been up to Australia as a nation to look after our own requirements outside of major geopolitical upheavals.The fact the every government since WW 2 has taken shortcuts in this vital area is just another illustration as to how poorly served we have been by our governing classes.We need to maintain our alliance with the US (excluding madcap adventures like Iraq and Afghanistan)but increase our effective defence spending,particularly in the Navy.

If we take the sensible road it will mean a reduction in the money available for consumer luxuries - just what the doctor ordered for a better,more civil society,IMO.

"RISING oil prices pose a grave threat to global economic recovery, according to some economists."

Impossible! The IMF said just the other day that the global financial crisis is over and all is well. And the IMF always gets these things right.

In the traffic snarl article, the Oz writes,

"This of course is nonsense: people don't have a love affair with their car, they simply need their car, because if you have a job, a partner with a job, a kid at school, another one in childcare, and so on, there is absolutely no alternative at all."

A bold statement, to say the least. Penberthy is perhaps unaware of the existence of the city of Copenhagen, where in parts only a quarter of the people own a car, or the city of Arequipa, where almost nobody owns a car and 80-90% of the vehicles on the street are taxis but everyone walks a lot, or... well, quite a lot of cities around the world.

Simply because we have chosen to do things one way does not mean that there is no alternative.

Penberthy goes on to blather in alarm at the prospect of Australia with 36 million people, and the nasty traffic we´d have then. The thing is that while we have traffic jams with 22 million people, we also had them with 20 million, 18 million, 12 million and even 10 million people.

Traffic jams aren´t about how many people you have, but how many vehicles you have. And vehicles carrying on average 1.5 people are simply going to take up more space per person than vehicles with on average 8 or 80 people.

Part of any love affair is wanting to be the Only One of your beloved. And each of us wants to drive our car alone on an empty highway, just like in the ads. We want an exclusive relationship with our car, we don´t want to share it. Which leads to traffic jams.