From outside of America it is obvious that the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) is a bad thing because it is economic insanity to spend ten times more than is “needed” for defense. Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright asked what have we got these weapons for if we don’t use them. To make the MIC richer, to create giant profits, that’s the main reason. Wars are just the excuse to justify the money flow.

In Australia (& Britain) we think we’re smarter than that but both our progressive governments ask what have we got this coal for if we don’t use it. Coal made Britain great and it’s making Australia very rich and inside both countries there is a powerful web of union, political, financial & industrial groups that have grown rich and are committed to keeping the coal power economy going. Power as a metaphor for power. In both countries this web is at the centre of the “Union Industrial Complex” (UIC) that runs the countries. Anglo-Australian companies like BHP are in there with their $15 billion profit. UIC leaders like Michael Costa want to prove Climate Change is false by making a new 40 year commitment to coal.

But there are also nice, reasonable people, like Penny Wong (Minster for Climate Change), who say we must find a carbon capture solution because the world is going to burn more coal (5th Aug 08). Read that again. False logic. A safe cheap method of massive carbon capture may be scientifically impossible (especially in the short term) but, like the MIC, the Union Industrial Complex doesn’t care about results - it just wants huge profits and it’s in control.

Kevin Rudd has made a big impression in Beijing by being the only western leader who can speak Mandarin. The Chinese leader, Hu Jintao, seemed to appreciate having a friendly Prime Minister that he could speak to without interpreters. Many people had a list of serious subjects they wanted Rudd to raise but I hope he just talked about the weather. Nice bit of rain! Congratulations about the “blue” skies that are breaking through. What a marvelous effort! How will you make Beijing and Shanghai and every city like this every day? How interesting! Tell me more. We have a common problem, don’t we. Maybe we should take this seriously, work together and cut the CO2.

George W was in Beijing too, looking a bit left behind maybe because China is now the world’s biggest CO2 emitter and all of George W’s “CO2 denial” has ended up sending vast pollution clouds from China across to North America. Well done, George, supporting China’s right to pollute. Maybe George didn’t notice but Kevin Rudd did. He’s not stupid and the smog that won’t quite go away despite closing down half the city is a bigger story than Michael Phelp’s record gold. Thanks to coal and minerals Australia and China are economically entwined for some years into the future but will this be a Faustian bargain with both countries locked in to a black spiral of coal fuelled CO2 emissions +/or trillions of wasted investments.

Kevin is back in Australia to face a string of Labor governments that all seem committed to building new coal power stations. Michael Costa, the NSW Treasurer will be keeping Kevin in line - don’t look at the clouds over China just mine more coal, burn more coal. Rudd has to go back to see Hu Jintao in late August to talk about the climate. The Olympic “Beijing-semi-Blue” skies will be clouding over and new science reports will be alarming. Will Kevin let himself see the truth and be honest with his new best friend? This is Kevin’s chance to become a world leader instead of Michael Costa’s stooge.

Cindy Sheehan in San Francisco sent out a painful plea for people to look at what is happening on war & climate. It was on the same day that Penny Wong (Aust. Minister for Climate Change) asked people in Sydney to be calm and reasonable and to trust the Australian Government's willingness to let new coal power stations be built in Victoria & New South Wales, and the same day as George Monbiot in Britain made a clarion call that we are on the precipice – that no new coal station can be allowed. George then headed off for the barricades at Kingsnorth power station in Kent.

Cindy and Penny are at opposite ends. Penny thinks she’s on the same side but she’s not. Cindy can see that the Military Industrial Complex (that Pres. Eisenhower warned against) is in control of America and that It killed her son. Penny doesn’t realize that Britain and Australia (& their labour governments) are under the control of the “Union Industrial Complex” (more details next time) and that because of that the Labor government will never voluntarily agree to stop burning coal no matter what the science says or Penny says (or Peter Garret if he ever finds his guts).

Cindy says act, George says act and Penny says be calm and trust that the Australian (& British) government “clean coal” strategy will work some year in the future. Penny is a politician that people want to support but her straight down the bat Labor Party line erodes her image in front of well informed people. She is in denial as to who’s really in control. It’s certainly not Penny.

The Australian Minister for Climate Change Penny Wong was in Sydney speaking to a full house of 400-500 avoiding the elephant in the room. Penny signed Kyoto, for which the audience gave her great applause. Then she began defending the coal industry, saying we have to create a market price for CO2 emissions, spend most of our research money on "Clean Coal" and trust the market to come up with a solution. It won't, Penny.

George Monbiot yesterday gave the crucial figures that need repeating. Capturing (+ burying) carbon from existing coal plants (if it works) will cost A$151-259 per tonne of CO2 whereas the Australian Govt is talking about A$20 per tonne initial price for CO2 emissions. The coal burning power stations will always choose to pay $20 or $50 or $100 per tonne rather than install carbon capture systems that will cost $150-250 per tonne.

Dr Ben McNeil, ARC QEII Research Fellow at the Climate Change Research Centre UNSW, gave the crucial evidence. He was chosen by Penny to give the big picture of the science. At one point he asked "why, if the car industry spends 4-5% on research, why does the mining resources industry spend only 0.3%". Because they know carbon capture is not going to work, Ben. Because even if a technological miracle makes it possible it will cost at least an extra A$150-250 per tonne, doubling or tripling the current retail price and that will be more expensive than existing solar, wind, hydro technology.

This is the elephant that Penny Wong and most Australian and British government members are furiously avoiding, planning and announcing new coal burning stations - the British in Kingsnorth and the Australians in Latrobe - even though their scientists are telling them it will always be too expensive to make them clean. It's like they've entered into an international pact with Coal. This is madness and Penny with her calm, reasonable argument is in the middle of it.

I rang some businesses that install solar cells and discovered that sales have been down in most states except for Queensland where there has been a surge in sales. That's because in Queensland the state electricity authorities are paying a high "feed in tariff" to the homeowners for the excess electricity their small system feeds back into the electricity grid - a bit like the German system (where you can make a profit on your system). The Queensland system is not that generous but it is increasing sales. What if every Labor state did it? What if Penny made sure they did? I'll ask her tonight at a public forum in Petersham, Sydney.

Across the rest of Australia many people cancelled their orders but there's been an increase in the number of retirees buying. Their income has dropped below the cap so they can get the $8,000 rebate. And some who cancelled say they'll be back in a year or two when they retire. Ah, there's that baby boomer generation again - rock and roll on a solar cell.

It's hard to dismiss the temptation to write off the G8 meetings as a meaningless talkfest. On the other hand, when the political leaders of the most powerful countries get together and issue joint statements, it may be worth looking at what these planetary stewards have in mind. This is particularly true at a time when new global crises - skyrocketing oil prices, the spike in food prices... and accelerating global warming - are added to ongoing public health disasters and persistent global poverty. Is it too much to expect the G8 leaders to offer something meaningful in response to these problems? With the G8 meeting in Hokkaido, Japan just concluded, the answer apparently is, yes.

G8 failures seem to fall into two categories: first, promise to do too little, and then renege on commitments made; second, promote harmful policies and projects. In the first category comes the G8's statement on global public health. Following aggressive lobbying by public health groups, the G8 agreed to reiterate its commitment to provide universal treatment for HIV/AIDS. But the rich countries have not agreed to put the money on the table to achieve this objective... Also in the first category is the pathetic G8 statement on climate change. Dragged down most of all by the anti-leadership of the U.S., the G8 announced a commitment to a 50% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. Well, a sort-of commitment. The best science says the world needs at least an 80% reduction from 1990 emissions levels by 2050, and very likely more, so the G8 commitment is totally inadequate on its face...

In the second category of doing direct harm come many of the G8 recommendations in the declarations on the global economy and on food security. The G8 leaders call for opening and deregulating financial markets, even as it is clear that financial deregulation has helped create the current global financial crisis... The G8 leaders also call for more aid for food-importing, poor countries - to be delivered through IMF lending facilities that typically require countries to adopt more of the market fundamentalist mandates that have driven people off the land and undermined governments' capacity to assist the poor and pursue expansionary economic policies. [More]