Petty good article.

Added to China's water pollution as a growth hindrance there is air pollution - so obvious at the Beijing Olympics. Their is already evidence that these pollutants are incapacitating Chinese workers, in significant numbers, before their working lives are up. They then burden China's rudimentary health sector - or more usually they stay home and die early and quietly - an additional break on economic growth.

Discussion of Australia's options, outside of dependence on China, appears to be taboo by quiet Federal Government decree. Open discussion is contrary to Chinese culture and a threat to its position as our new senior trade partner. Is it any wonder that Rudd has been the conduit of this tradition of non-discussion?

Trading alternatives to China exist in many nations, including India, which has an unmet demand for our uranium (we won't supply India due to our Chinese economic and even warped ideological priority) and cheap coal. Japan is also a past major market that needs to be revisited. South Korea? Even Taiwan is an option - but at the risk of offending the Middle Kingdom.

That both India and Japan countries are economic and partial military competitors to China are issues that Rudd will need to ponder at the risk of bothering the increasing monopoly of his second love, China.

Pete

Hugo Rudd's plan is obvious ... attend to our personal hygiene and wash our dirty little hands then everything will be dandy.

A very very good article.

The longterm effects of the Three Georges Dams Project really should be of concern to the whole world.

I suspect Australia's Net Debt position might be of greater concern if/when the investment in US Sub-Prime and suspect Prime loans by our 'conservative' Banks are ever taken into account.

Kellie's article is correct I believe. The governments optimism that
it will have a 4.5% growth rate to pay back the loans is the most
ridiculous hogwash ever dumped on the Australian public.

Politicians like economists are quite convinced that the recovery will
come along to Kevin's timetable and growth will increase and save us all.

That is a business as usual scenario which will not happen.
As well as the points Kellie made the era of growth is over and with it
globalisation is finished. Localisation is the future.
Some politicians understand that peak oil has occurred but it is a fact
that cannot speak its name. It is just not politucally correct to
use the phrase.
Until the economists and politicians face it full on they will waffle
on about trade with China, exports and imports, currency exchange
rates etc etc as though they have a long term future.
Anything so long as they don't have to acknowledge the problem
before the next election.

This is an excellent article.
Last week Queensland businessman Clive Palmer announced a 30 year contract to supply coal from the Galilee basin. You have to seriously wonder if China will still be burning coal in 30 years time, especially if the link between burning fossil fuels and the depletion of the Himalayan glaciers- Asia's main water sources- become more obvious.
If China, or indeed any country,has to choose between having enough water or enough energy, you would think that water might come first. So the economics of changing from coal burning to renewable energy might look very different.
It makes you think that water might be the first real limiting factor on industrial economies. It is one resource that every person and every industry cannot do without. And it is one resource that even the richest country cannot buy, beg, borrow or steal from someone else.
What are the odds on China stopping burning coal by 2020? Even a few years ago it would have been inconceivable. But now?
And then what does this do to Clive Palmer’s 30 year contract?

What about desalination plants for water? If water becomes a problem in China won't they just import more coal and natural gas and build more nuclear power plants to extract it from the sea, desalinate it and pipe it to those who need it, rather than stop their economic miracle?

I understood that desalination is economically feasible for things like providing drinking water but is not economic , even for Chinse miracle economies, for providing water for industry, agriculture and restoration of ecosystem services (like fisheries and plant foods or replenishing aquifers).
I guess the question is what level of pollution is acceptable. For a nightmare scenario, try David Mitchells'amazing novel,"Cloud Atlas" (the section "An orison of Somni 451").Let's hope it never comes to that.