Are you one of those millions of “useful idiots” who believe that our elites really, truly want to reduce CO2 emissions, to “save the planet” from “man-made global warming”?
Ask yourself WHY then, why they would try to stop you from privately harnessing the energy of the sun for yourself and your family — CO2 emissions-free — by introducing a sunlight tax, designed to “encourage” (ie, force) you to use the state-“sponsored” — make that, privatised, international banker-financed — energy providers instead.
From Mike Shedlock’s “Mish’s Global Economics”:
Spain Levies Consumption Tax On Sunlight
Proving that idiocy truly has no bounds, Spain issued a “royal decree” taxing sunlight gatherers. The state threatens fines as much as 30 million euros for those who illegally gather sunlight without paying a tax.
The tax is just enough to make sure that homeowners cannot gather and store solar energy cheaper than state-sponsored providers.
Via Mish-modified Google Translate from Energias Renovables, please consider Photovoltaic Sector, Stunned
The Secretary of State for Energy, Alberto Nadal, signed a draft royal decree in which consumption taxes are levied on those who want to start solar power systems on their rooftops. The tax, labeled a “backup toll” is high enough to ensure that it will be cheaper to keep buying energy from current providers.
Spain Privatizes the Sun
Via Google translate from El Pais, please consider Spain Privatizes The Sun
If you get caught collecting photons of sunlight for your own use, you can be fined as much as 30 million euros.
If you were thinking the best energy option was to buy some solar panels that were down 80% in price, you can forget about it.
“Of all the possible scenarios, this is the worst,” said José Donoso, president of the Spanish Photovoltaic Union (UNEF), which represents 85% of the sector’s activity.
Before the decree it took 12 years to recover the investment in a residential installation of 2.4 kilowatts of power. Following the decree, it will take an additional 23 years according to estimates by UNEF.
Petition of the Candle Makers Revisited
And so the “Petition of the Candle Makers” comes to pass.
I have written about the “petition” on many occasions, but here is the latest reference: Extremely Difficult to Keep Up With Economic Stupidity
Reflections on “Unfair Competition”
Corporations always consider it “unfair” when any other company can do things faster, smarter, or cheaper than they can. The buggy whip industry once protested cars.
Today, land-line telecom companies have to compete with wireless and they don’t like it. Now, we see protests about VOIP (voice over internet protocol).
Technology marches on. But France does not like it. The French solution is to tax Skype because it has an “unfair advantage“.
This is an age-old unwinnable argument.
Petition of the Candle Makers
The ultimate irony is France’s preposterous “unfair advantage” argument was lampooned by French economist Frederic Bastiat back in 1845 when he penned ‘Petition of the Candle Makers‘.
In his article, candle makers were incensed that the light of the sun could be had for free. The sun’s unfair trade advantage was to the “detriment of fair industries” who could not compete against the sun’s price.
Something had to be done to “shut off as much as possible, all access to natural light, and thereby create a need for artificial light” so that “industry in France will encouraged”.
The moral to this story is “Don’t propose something purposefully stupid hoping to make a point. Some idiot might actually think it’s a good idea and do it”.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Mike Shedlock and others are wrong to mock this as simple greed and idiocy.
Because it is symptomatic of something far more evil, planned, and pervasive.
Every mainstream “issue” — like “man-made global warming” — is really all about something other than what you see, at “face value”.
It is really all about Money. And far more importantly, Control.
More and more of both, for the international banker class.
And less and less for you.
Know Your Real Enemy.
Barnaby Is Right 
Click to access COW-water-Jan2011.pdf
.
“……. carbon dioxide is about 40 times more soluble in water than the truly nonpolar atmospheric gases, nitrogen, N2, and oxygen, O2.”
.
Carbon dioxide is more soluble in cold water than it is in warm water.
.
Water and CO2 make carbonic acid (acid rain).
.
Plants need carbon and water.
.
So it makes sense to me that with convection, water vapour, carrying latent heat rises, then cools as the temperature lowers with increasing height, condenses to form clouds, and releases latent heat which continues to rise. CO2 then exercises its affinity for water which falls as a weak carbonic acid when the formation of water droplets reach a certain size.
.
Everything in the atmosphere is recycled and kept within certain limits. Our Creator designed it. Mr Rudd demonstrates his insanity and his unGodlyness in thinking that by depriving the majority of resources, and making them poor, while the minority rich have everything, he can control Gods creation.
.
I can’t see how it would be possible for anyone to explain how Co2 or water vapour can form a greenhouse blanket around the Earth reflecting heat back to Earth. Blankets work both ways.
.
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/proposed-un-environmental-constitution-for-the-world-would-establish-an-incredibly-repressive-system-of-global-governance
Any government which attacks too many of its citizens ultimately ends up being voted out. I cannot see that such a rort is going past the next Spanish election and it may well be pulled before enacted. Pretty dumb really and obviously designed to prop up the coal fired power industry. So who is really behind this policy?
Kevin: perhaps the point you are missing is that the greenhouse gas debate is not about the existence of CO2. It is about quantity. The creator did not give us a toxic planet but rather a system in balance. The current scenario is something achieved by mankind which has been enslaved by a growth model whereby the whole system functions on ever increasing population. This is a system which is doomed to failure in time as the planet is finite.
“and obviously designed to prop up the coal fired power industry”
If you care to research further, you will likely find that it is to prop up the state-sponsored solar industry. Spain has been one of the biggest “investors” in renewables, especially solar, thanks to government (ie, taxpayer) subsidies.
As usual Mick, you allow your political bias and choosing of a “side”, to hide the real issue from your sight. The issue here, is CONTROL.
Thou Shalt Not Have Free Energy. – International Banker Doctrine.
Heard of the expression “day light robbery” ? In England they used to tax people who could afford glass in their windows . Hence you will see in England to this day,100’s of windows bricked up.
Nothing surprises me anymore. If we don’t stand up against this oppression, a new dark age will consume our planet and evil will prevail.
Mick, – you say…
“Kevin: perhaps the point you are missing is that the greenhouse gas debate is not about the existence of CO2. It is about quantity. The creator did not give us a toxic planet ….”
So is the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere at this point of time toxic?
It’s all about control and the Masters don’t like it if the the little guy can get by without their “help”
On RT a young man was saying his “Conventional” bank account was frozen and he faced prosecution for being involved with BitCoin development.
“Bitcoin steals power from Banks both Banks and Gangsters (ie Banksters LOL).
Also a lot of talk about money laundering and the silk road website, I would say to try and paint Bitcoin users as criminals. I don’t know much about BC but I am getting more keen to learn about non fiat systems. See at least we have a choice, unlike Fiat.
The guts of all problems gets back to usury.
Usury is profit… it is the bottom line and the moral backbone of all corporations.
Corporations are created by maritime law and are just pieces of paper as are the counterfeit monies they build their empires on.
We, as human beings, have voluntarily given our sweat and tears to corporations and have become obsessed with the mercenary advantages of the corporate world….. we have sacrificed our spirit for profit.
The government of Australia is registered in Washington DC as a corporation.
We have encouraged this transition from moral law to corporate law because our greed and ignorance is our driving force just as corporate law is…… we are now ‘persons’ and that means we are merely collateral to our corporate government’s!
Our world is now a corporate world and their bottom line is Satan so you had better brace for more corporate control over your natural rights….. like sunshine, clean air, food and water……. Gus
Usury Gusgrunt is way beyond just making profit. It is the counterfeiting of our currencies by a few powerful elites that totally enslaves the masses. When both inflation and increases in production get expressed as debt, slavery is the result.
There is nothing wrong with profit if you’ve worked hard or created something new. These shisters want to own and control everything and everyone via theft, corruption and deception. They are the personification of evil.
Yes Ross…. we have sold ourselves to a Corporate world that cares little for our humanity as their survival is the ‘bottom line’ and that can only exist thru our ‘sweat and tears’.
What is NORMAL PROFIT?
Profits that are earned in a perfectly competitive market, one that is required to attract and retain suppliers. Abnormally high or low profits will cause an unstable equilibrium due to an imperfect market system. As such the price of a good will be really high or really low. A perfectly competitive market is in a state of longterm equilibrium and as such the market will neither experience a shrinkage nor an expansion. Normal profits are equal to the opportunity costs involved in the production or supply of normal goods.
Check out the different connotations of ‘profit’ in Blacks dictionary.
http://thelawdictionary.org/search2/?cx=partner-pub-4620319056007131%3A7293005414&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=Profit&x=0&y=0
In the Corporate world the law is maritime or admiralty law that goes way back to the Mediterranean traders but has now taken over our governments today…. and us… we have become slaves to these laws that can be created at will and implemented by force….. try not paying a parking fine!….. Gus
For what it’s worth, the so-called “competitive” marketplace is itself a product of the grand fraud of usury.
When (as it is) all “money” is created in the form of debt, owing a usury % repayment that is not created at the same time, the consequence is that all the productive efforts (labour) of all the entities (individuals, businesses) within the economic system, are rendered a “competition”. A “rob Peter to pay Paul” competition. Everyone thinks they are slaving away to “earn a living” … what they are really doing is slaving away to get enough “money” from others (via wages, profits) to repay the bankers their usury. Even if you have no “debt” yourself, the “money” in your bank account has usury owing on it by someone else. Your good “credit score” simply serves as a record for the banker class, identifying that you are more skilled (or cunning) in their great game of competing for “money”, than are others.
As soon as you permit a “money” (really, a currency) system that allows usury, you have permitted a system of artificial scarcity to be imposed on your population. Hard to believe, with all the “money” in the world, right? It’s all debt, all owing usury to the banker class. “Money” is artificially scarce, because of usury. And we are all ignorantly competing for it, like rats fighting for crumbs.
Bernard Lietaer, a co-creator of the European Currency Unit (forerunner to the Euro), explains it very well here –
http://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Money-Currencies-Scarcity-Prosperity/dp/1609942965/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375176683&sr=8-1&keywords=bernard+lietaer+rethinking+money
I’ve quoted from his book, the excellent parable he uses to explain the artificial scarcity problem of usury, in my article “A Tale Of Usury, Explosions, And A Used Car Salesman“.
The gradual, long run result of the usury “money” system is that all the REAL assets of the world accumulate to the money-lenders at the top, via the “cycle” of “creative destruction” (ie, bankruptcy of businesses, households, and ultimately, governments – the bankers get title to the “collateral”).
Usury-based “money” is trickle UP economics.
So when you think it right through, capitalist (ie, usury-ist) “competition” is not natural at all; it is a vital gear in the usury machine that enslaves us.
It is actually in our nature to cooperate, not compete; to share our resources. To be generally satisfied with sufficient food, water, shelter… and social peace.
The usury-based money system distorts our fundamental human nature. We are not “competitive” “animals” by nature. Anthropologists will tell you that history proves we are (generally) cooperative, empathetic, and sharing/caring creatures by nature. It is only the rise and rise of the money-lenders, and their predatory, usury-based “money” system, that has altered our natural behaviours and turned us into ever more “competitive”, greedy, selfish, grasping, increasingly violent “animals”.
Why? Because we are each born into a system that forces us to constantly compete with each other, for artificially-scarce “money”. Because we are born into it, and we’ve never known anything different, we think it is “natural”. It is not.
I have some really interesting evidence that I came across recently, relating to how trade was conducted in Britain before the usurers came. I will post on this in future. Most would be shocked to learn that once, it was considered extremely unseemly, improper, and worthy of social shunning by all, for a merchant to “advertise”. At all. Even on/at his place of business. Why? It was considered un-Christian — doing so might tempt a customer of a fellow businessman to stop frequenting that business, and instead choose yours. Likewise, it was considered highly improper to trade in more than one (1) product, for the same reason.
“For what it’s worth, the so called “competitive marketplace is itself a product of the grand fraud of usury”.
Is it possible to turn this around where a people become humans in a land again instead of ‘contractual corporate persons’ and produce what they need to survive with a little fruit on the sideboard?
Will our greed for the corporate world allow this?
In light of this usury driven corporate world that now dominates our every movement through maritime law and has destroyed most nations to create their one world cartel economy that is non-competitive within itself I must say that I am not at all positive about the future.
It was proven in Russia that when governments take incentive away from people to produce within an economy it fails as has other endeavors to ‘socialize’ the human effort.
Maybe the ‘lead in the head’ makes sense but at the moment we have the barrel pointing at us….. Gus
Renewables do need subsidies to get moving. Understood. Some do not agree with throwing public money at this. I understand. These industries will initially be noncompetitive with coal. Granted.
The whole issue comes down to whether or not you believe in climate change. I know that many on this blog think that it is pseudo science. But from evidence which keeps coming from respected researchers and institutions I have to disagree. The latest came yesterday – July was the hottest July on record since measurements began. Whilst one may be able to (correctly) argue that this is due to natural variation the statistic comes on the back of ongoing evidence that mankind is affecting the climate.
The Spanish blogger clearly has a vested interest but the weather patterns do not. I am happy to again offer fellow blogger Kevin a climate evidence lunch bet which I may lose because I made the offer in a very limited 10 year period. However, the fat lady is beginning to sing and the July temperatures release only confirms what my sixth sense has been telling me for some time now.
“The whole issue comes down to whether or not you believe in climate change.”.
No. That is a distortion of the views of those who oppose some of the proposed actions claimed to be necessary to prevent it.
In general, I find that most informed people accept that climate change is happening … and has ALWAYS happened. The point of dispute is not whether it is happening, but whether — as claimed — there is anything un-usual about it; if so, are man’s activities contributing to that un-usual-ity; if so, how, and most importantly, by how much.
“many on this blog think that it is pseudo science”
Not so much “pseudo science”, as misinterpreted science, with exaggerated conclusions, based on incomplete understandings of the mechanisms driving climate. The great blessing for humanity of the ClimateGate email scandal, was it showed conclusively that there are “gatekeepers” for “the science” set up by the elites; a relatively small handful of scientists, colluding together, whose job it is to filter the scientific research, so that only the “findings”, interpretations of data, and flawed modelling that fits the preferred conclusions (ie, it is due to CO2; man’s activities are doing it; catastrophe is imminent… unless you all agree to let the banksters have their global CO2 casino) will be deemed “science”.
I stand on my 10 year bet and am happy to extend the offer of a free lunch if statistics and scientific evidence fail to indicate that the current trends are simply natural variations in climate.
One has be be careful that one does not offer a defence similar to the smoking lobby which lived in denial for decades whilst campaigning for its right to sell cigarettes. History has proven that the smoking lobby was wrong and was acting solely for financial reasons.
I agree that climate change has always happened, but what I am adamant about is that what has been occurring in the last half century takes this to a new level and past the ‘its always been like this’ response. The Nasa graph of CO2 over half a MILLION years tells a compelling tale (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence) which cannot be explained away by the stroke of a pen or those who have no scientific credentials or credibility. To add to the list the latest news is that Australia has just recorded its hottest July in EVER.
I cannot see that scapegoating the elite or bankers for climate change has any legs. It looks to me like big business is driving this debate for no change because the coal mining industry has its cash cow to protect. And a very lucrative cash cow it is indeed…..I believe that Dick Smith will be mentioning something tonight in his documentary entitled “Ten bucks a litre”. On the other side of the ledger we have scientists and the media who keep highlighting measured criteria which paint a less than rosy picture.
I can see that I am holding the Alamo alone on this blog but I fail to be convinced as I fail to see any conclusive studies demonstrating that ‘she’ll be right’.
Mick,
.
Could you please explain in detail why you are panicking about the present quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere.
.
If CO2 levels have increased it could be just a natural change as a result of deforestation. Increased CO2 levels cause faster regrowth.
.
Carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a naturally occurring chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms each covalently double bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth’s atmosphere in this state, as a trace gas at a concentration of 0.039 per cent by volume.
.
At 1% concentration of carbon dioxide CO2 [10,000 ppm] and under continuous exposure at that level, such as in an auditorium filled with occupants and poor fresh air ventilation, some occupants are likely to feel drowsy.
Full details just posted. The issue I see is the first major divergence after half a million years. This is not normal and cannot be explained away with the stroke of a pen. Have a read of the full response and I’d be interested to hear if I have this by the wrong end.
Mick,
.
Measuring land temperature is not a scientific way to measure average global temperature.
.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/climate2.htm
.
Does global cooling cause heat-waves?
Could it be that global cooling causes heat-waves? Surely not! Yet it does! So let’s investigate this further, but first a number of priciples that we’ve explained before.
The usual temperature, climate and weather for any place on Earth, in any month of the year, is mainly dominated by the amount of sunshine and the amount of moisture. Latitude and season determine the amount of sunshine and thus warmth, whereas moisture has a moderating effect. Heat-waves are unusual spells of unusually warm days.
All moisture comes from the sea. It is transported through the air onto the land and some returns through rivers to the sea. Thus places near the sea receive more moisture than places far inland, reason why all continents have deserts in their centres.
Global temperature is dominated by the oceans because they have a much larger heat capacity than the land. Thus global temperature is best measured at sea.
When the planet cools, seas are colder than usual. Thus there is less evaporation and less moisture for the land. But it becomes worse, because winds tend to go from warmer to colder places. So on average, there is less sea wind and more land wind than usual. Thus more moisture than usual from the land, ends up in the sea. Conversely less moisture from the sea ends up on land.. The result is that the land becomes drier, sooner than usual, which gives rise to heat-waves. Nights, however, remain colder than usual. Thus the weather and climate become more desert-like.
Important points:
climate often works contrary to intuition.
measuring land temperatures is not a good way of measuring global temperature.
a cool(ing) sea makes heat-waves, droughts and bushfires more likely.
wherever cold seas flow past continents, they cause desert climates (California, Chile, Galapagos, etc.)
global cooling has an immediate effect on the land, and affects oceans much later due to their heat capacity.
global cooling makes heat-waves and droughts more likely, as well as bush fires.
global cooling diminishes agricultural production.
A good link although there seemed to be a bet each way. I suspect that this is the nature of new science which does come with its share of errors during the trip to becoming accepted.
Have a look at the variations to mean temperatures over the past 100 years:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Climate-change-tracker&tracker=time-series
The graph appears to indicate that around 1980 there was a change in trend. This also ties in with a significant departure from trend for CO2 around 1950 which can be seen from the Nasa graph:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
The science is interesting and neither of us or anybody else on this site appears to work in the field day to day. Whilst I would need a week to fully digest what is on the link you provided (it will make interesting reading) it has been reported in the media that the reason that we have a record high temperature in July is that the Pacific is warmer than normal. I already understood this relationship and was aware that the heat trapped in the ocean is many orders of magnitude higher than that trapped in the atmosphere. The question is: how did the oceans become warmer than usual? And was this from radiant energy trapped in the atmosphere by CO2, etc. or from some other mechanism? The following gives an idea:
http://www.climate.gov/
What comes out from the graphs and the commentary is that:
1. the suns energy appears to be constant
2. the level of the oceans is rising and this appears to have a correlation with rising temperatures
3. the global average temperatures are rising.
The graph on your link fails to show the significant increase in CO2 over the past 50 years. I do not know why this would be the case is as the link purports to be only 3 years old.
Whilst we are not going to agree until you get a sea level rise with water to your front door and I again see a return to a (very) long term norm it is good that we joust on the topic and let the ‘evidence’ keep coming as science will eventually establish the facts. this may not happen in our lifetimes and it saddens me that I have no takers for my 10 year lunch bet as I was hoping to at least score a free lunch out of the debate before one of us pushes up daisies. Cheers.
“over the past 100 years”
Meaningless. Inconclusive. You have to look at climate over millennia.
REMINDER TO ALL: I do not want my blog comment threads cluttered up with pointless, going-nowhere, “s/he said” vs “s/he said” arguments on climate change.
I will begin deleting comments if it continues.