CLIMATE CHANGE, MIGRANTS AND POLITICAL "COOLNESS"

When it was "cool" and politically correct to show oneself concerned with climate change, summits and protocols like Kyoto were used to single out the "bad guys" of the world who would not sign them.  After a few years though, it turned out that hardly any of the "nice" signatories of those documents was able to fulfill their targets, and those who did, managed only by buying quotas from smaller less developed countries, so basically defeating the whole purpose of the system they had signed up to.

I wondered then who was more honest: those who whitewashed their faces by signing the protocols and pointed fingers at those who didn't, but then never lived up to their fake principles, or those who openly admitted upfront that they would not meet those targets and refused to sign.

Now I have a sense of dejá-vu when I remember how those who opposed the open door policies for the EU regarding refugees and migrants were labelled as bigots, racists, heartless and a long list of ugly names by those "nice" and "charitable" people who now pay their way out of the problem, sending the migrants to Turkey of all places, who take them in exchange for money and aren't even able to guarantee to them the most basic human rights. The same human rights that had so loudly been invoked to give the now clearly false impression that everyone is welcome...

In both issues (climate change and migration) it's people's lives that are being messed with. Being forced to comply with Kyoto or to sell emission quotas wrecks the livelihood of many people who exist here and now - climate change is not only about the potential damage to our grand-grand children in 100 years who do not exist yet. Being deceived into thinking that migrating to Europe is an option and then be sent to Turkey wrecks lives, too. Lives which are already at the limit of what one can endure. Not like those who sit behinds desks, have business in Panama and preach about being "humane".

In both issues, I am not defending one option or the other, I am just pointing out hypocrisy. Kudos to those who were consequent in defending the "cool" options and followed through - whoever you are. I can't see you.

COFFEE and HOUSES

It was about time that competition drove coffee shops to start offering more reasonably priced coffee on the streets. (see http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/starbucks-trialling-1-filter-coffees-7659869)  For a few years there was almost no way to drink a coffee in a city centre without paying outrageous prices around £3. Such prices were thought for customers who would be paying not only for the actual drink, but for the "experience" of spending a while in a specifically branded coffee shop, such as Starbucks and Costa. 

Other sellers soon thought they could ask for similar prices without offering the same experience - often for a take-away coffee in a cardboard cup. The problem has been - and will still be for a while - that there were people willing to pay £3 for a coffee from any seller, so for some time it seemed they could get away with this.

I always refused to pay such prices and was gladly surprised to see more and more shops offering coffee for £1 on the streets  - still a disproportionate price for a product that barely costs more than 25p including all overheads like salaries, rent and maintenance - but at least a reasonable price to have this service "on the go". Obviously the coffee bubble is bursting and competition is bringing coffee sellers to their senses.

Needless to elaborate on: it is also about time the same happens to the new housing bubble. Society doesn't seem learn: after the economic crisis, ultimately caused by such a housing bubble, we seem to want to get back to the old ways and prices are again soaring to surreal amounts. Just as with coffee - the problem are those thoughtless citizens who keep being willing to pay such prices. As long as there is someone willing to pay a price, I can't blame the seller for taking the money!