Refugees

They keep coming, not migrants but refugees, more or less welcomed. There are many European depressed villages with a decreasing population which are facing both double aspects of those new arrivals: stop population losses but also try to figure out a way to ensure them a job, to avoid falling into perpetual poverty. So far we’ve struggled to deliver on both goals. Consequently some of them are trying more or less legally to pick up again and move into other cities where, again, are more or less welcomed.

The only common denominator is that they don’t come to join family members, but who instead arrive knowing no one. I really can’t think about their religion: who cares? I feel so pity for them, they’re just human beings to me. A shabby building here is surely so much better than tents elsewhere like animals. But a human being has higher needs.

So-called “free cases” are the most difficult. People who come alone often find challenging to get a job and a permanent, affordable place to live on their own exactly because they don’t have the same connections others may have.  Some live with roommates or meet others when learning the language or receiving services with their resettlement agency. So looking for jobs could go on for years. Having children or a spouse significantly boosts the amount of money a refugee can receive. That’s the whole problem, they really need to get to work as soon as possible (also to send money back home), but seldomly do. Language is of course another problem faced in finding works, often the key for everything else. The main reason refugees appear to move is because they can’t find a job and so on and on, villages to cities. Cities to villages.

They’re just searching for a better life. I don’t pretend to offer easy solutions, but at least we shouldn’t be afraid of them, wherefore they are the ones afraid of us. Why should they be afraid of us? Because of egoism. Because of our populism: what have we become?!

Demagogic movements are increasing with ideas that would be disastrous if implemented. Greece was an example, but their politicians had to change directions and very quickly. We want but we don’t give, we are rich but we don’t want to share (at least not as we should). But we have all been migrants once, have we already forgotten it? Populism has found fertile ground in the Eurozone because of two main crisis: financial’ and refugees’.Leadership was needed but lacking, with the exception of Angela Merkel. Though she failed to explain to her people the benefits of the common policy. It can all be verified looking at Cameron’s policy: a concentrate of all the above mistakes. So, do we ever learn?
We obviously need a turn. Maybe Europe’s problems need a global solution, maybe. I have my view: the E.U. is made of many Countries, in essence, separate Countries. This also explain Europe’s schizophrenic response to the refugees crisis. Now, compare this crisis to the financial crisis which has been solved (is being solved, actually). Why was that possible? Unity! A common response orchestrated by the ECB.
When the interests are not common we lack unity and so the solution must be found elsewhere. Not imposed, or we risk the disintegration: we already have the first very clear signs (e.g. Sweden, Denmark, Austria). The alternative is that not only the people but politicians in first place have to be an example of this unity. Impossible?! Not at all….they just need courage!
Courage! The opposite of Cameron’s policy is Renzi’s policy in Italy. For one time, just one, an Italian politician is showing the way. And his people are following. And…just maybe, there is another partial “solution”, which should work hand in hand. Let me explain.

Many of them are now in supposedly temporary camps unable to leave, in a sort of limbo. This extends to all migrants/refugees, generally speaking. It wasn’t supposed to be this way, it wasn’t supposed to be a durable solution. Only three rules allow them to remain: until they return to their Country of origin, until are integrated into the host Country or they are to be offered a new resettlement to a third Country.
Protracted situations creating protracted refugees because none of the above three rules will ever materialize, as rich nations are accepting fewer and fewer of them. Contradictions start to arise as these camps become “cities” with cinemas, irregular elections, any kind of goods smuggled in, schools, even football leagues: social life continues, so to speak. The paradox is that they aren’t allowed to work.
The world is in turmoil and whole generations are growing up in camps. One example for all is the Gaza strip camp founded in 1948 and is still there: 750,000 Palestinians were forced to flee their homes to make space for Israelis. Then ask yourselves why they are constantly angry: 2,000,000 descendants are forced to stay there. Thank you Israel!
These permanent limbos are growing because wars are growing. A number?! 60,000,000 refugees worldwide! This is the general somber picture and no one wants to admit it. Not the Countries that must host them nor The United Nations which must pay for them. Potentially they’ll never stop increasing: this could be the real reason why Europe doesn’t accept them. It’s a potentially endless number. But things are changing and washing up on Europe’s beaches. Literally.
At least a partial solution would be to allow refugees themselves to invest in their camps in any possible way, to build a future within these pseudo-cities/pseudo-legal “countries” inside Countries, therefore becoming international zones trading with the rest of the world and building a future on their own.
They should be allowed to become economically viable and autonomous: people must belong somewhere! WE, Western Countries, have created the root of this problem. Now we must at least contribute to find a solution.

…..Always humble,

Angiolino

(What might you need in your life? Please kindly visit: What do you lack?)

Renewables

We all know what they are. But how often do we use this kind of energy? Let me wrap up, and then get to the point. A lot, although not enough: it contributed almost half of the world’s new power generation capacity in 2014. Low oil prices are helping, allowing countries to move ahead with their phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies, so to put the energy system on to a more secure and sustainable path. I’d even say to leave a suicidal path. The final aim is bringing the share of non-fossil fuels up from 19 percent of the global mix today to 25% in 2040 (wait a minute: that’s 25 years from now!). China has more renewable power generation than any other Country, but its total energy demand in 2040 will be double that of America. India is entering a sustained period of rapid growth in energy consumption, pledging to have a 40% share of non-fossil fuel in 2030.

It’s obvious to everybody that electricity will gain more ground in many sectors, contributing to a quarter of final energy consumption by 2035.

Oil and gas will gradually become more expensive to extract while the costs of renewables will continue to fall.

Those appear to be the comforting general trends. So, is everything ok? NOT AT ALL. Fossil fuel subsidies were around 490 US billions in 2014!....What?! And only 112 US billions in renewables! Shouldn’t it be the opposite? Obviously it should…

And right now I’m not even going to talk about climate change implications. This data alone let you understand one simple concept: all the above goals could / should be achieved quicker. Much quicker! Ergo, political willingness is lacking: AS ALWAYS. Why? You aren’t stupid. Neither am I: extremely powerful OIL lobbies. But some of you might (just might) be cynical, needing a practical example.

It’s not all that difficult to understand, if you think about it. Should you have a very profitable business, would you abandon it? Motor companies don’t earn on selling vehicles, they earn on spare parts. They won’t be able to do that with electric cars anymore: bye-bye maintenance and…. gasoline! With just € 1,2 you can run more than 100 kilometres. It’s all part of a consolidated business nobody wants to forsake. It’s also the reason why electric cars are so expensive (based on engine complexity, they should cost less, not more). And this is merely a single example. Think about all the rest on your own.

There’s just one “little” detail: can our planet wait for lobby groups’ interests? Can your children wait?! When in 15 years time they’ll ask you why half of the population has some form of cancer due to pollution, what will you answer them? I suggest you to prepare your justification. Right now.

Because renewables ARE the future, the future of your children. Period. Simply because fossil fuels will end and there are no other alternatives. Electric cars are beginning to boom, like in Norway or Netherlands for example. No questions their cities are getting cleaner and cleaner also because there are generous tax incentives in place to buy electric vehicles. The same should happen everywhere else in my view.

I certainly don’t have to remind you the Volkswagen scandal on faked emissions. There’s a risk coming, though. Some “presumed” environmentalists say that electricity used for electric cars is still produced using polluting methods (such as coal). For the time being that’s true, I have to admit, but the only important question is why don’t we switch to cleaner production alternatives then?! There are decision to be taken, we just HAVE to. Example: Seville/Spain is going 100% green, and I’m talking about the whole city (not a small one) itself, not even its cars. Problem solved: they wanted, they did it! All the rest are merely fake issues created by fake environmentalists (paid by who?).

Oh yes: some also argue that coal is very cheap. Well, electricity in Seville will be even cheaper. Netherlands is full of old windmills but not so much of the new ones. What a paradox, they didn’t learn from their own history: the worst mistake mankind can make! Electricity generated from renewable sources is increasing in the Dutch Country, but not enough with overall demand for electricity rising as well.

Luckily electric cars are going to be cheaper soon, while extending their mile / kilometer range. Besides they’ll be more needed to smooth out the surges in the grid caused by the increased use of wind and solar energy (storing that clean energy in their batteries). That’s not all, as efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas production in power plants are moving forward more rapidly that electric-car production on a global scale, at least, with the exception of China (a big consumer of coal) which is also paying a heavy price in terms of pollution.

And this is happening now, as I’m writing. You should consider that the situation will improve year by year, not quickly enough, but nevertheless it will. Besides, each year new technologies are tested. The simple salt will be used for storing heat during the day, to be later used to produce electricity: a big plause to Morocco!

If someone argues that coal is better just because it’s cheaper, from now on you know what to answer: I’ll leave it to you.

….Always humble,

Angiolino

Marijuana

Do you remember the period of alcohol Prohibition? Do you also recall what happened afterwards? Here we are again with marijuana, which is less harmful than alcohol, by the way.

It all comes down to one question: should governments all around the world decriminalize the use of pot or not? Which directly leads to the first question: why punish drug users in first place? We know both points are not the cases. Moral thinking is one thing, the legal point of view is a completely different matter. We might think that the consequences of using weed are as bad as….everyone else think, or that a form of punishment is likely to deter its use. Legal basis? None: threats of punishments don’t deter drug use.

Do we punish smoking, drinking, eating garbage (which we do, a lot!): we don’t even punish companies producing that kind of stuff. The principle is exactly the same. Crimes we punish do serious harm to other people, while smoking pot only harm users themselves. Only in an extremely small minority they harm their families and we should be very cautious about generalizing.

Efforts to prevent its use cause a greater harm than whatever harms they would like to prevent. Imagine an adolescent going to prison just for that reason and his life later ruined forever. THIS is what parents fear, if you think about it, NOT a little bit of smoking weed. Since legal drugs should be less dangerous than illegal drugs.

Statistics and criminologists say that the deterrent effects of punishments for pot use are minimal. It’s certainly not up to me to contradict them. At most I could say I don’t believe them. Not to mention scientific consensus: life expectancy of people who have used it is identical to those who have not. Legal marijuana would also cost less than illegal one, so crime rates related to finance this habit should fall as well.

Decades of war against pot have produced zero accomplishments: it means something. On the contrary legalizing it would at least allow governments to get rid of all producers. We’re all in favor of a healthy lifestyle, but do you get punished if you don’t exercise?

Think properly and thoroughly about the basic question: is the principle of fighting the use of marijuana defensible or not, morally and legally?I already know what you’re thinking. Yes or no? It’s as simple as that. The direction appears to be in favour of a legalization. Gradually. Canada, America and Mexico are already changing some laws. “Changing” consequently the question: will you accept them or not?

Do you accept consumption of tobacco and alcohol? Then you should also know that marijuana is far less harmful and when it’s illegally sold help to fuel drug-related crimes. How many people already drink and smoke? Be honest to yourself: don’t you drink a couple of beers in a night out? I would be more afraid of granting a monopoly over the growing and sale of legal pot to a limited number of investors. Nobody would gain from that, although I’m afraid it’ll end up likewise.

Support for making weed legal is increasing around the world, provided the proper limits of quantity and legal age are in place. Instead of spending billions on imprisoning people for violating disputable laws, those money could / should be better spent for fighting against cultivation and distribution of real, truly dangerous drugs.

Laws on banning the growing and possession of marijuana have caused much, much more damage to society than the little harmful usage itself.

You should keep that crystal clear in mind before deciding where you stand.

….Always humble,

Angiolino

Austerity

After all the pains we have suffered we’re still talking about it. Do you really think Greek problems are solved with the last bailout? Wait and see.

Wouldn’t it be convenient blaming global slowdown as a primary cause for weak business investments in Europe?

It seems to me worth pointing out that a real recovery never took place so far, anyway. Weak demand leads to lower investments and a depressed economy crowds investments in, not out.

Meaning: austerity policies don’t release resources for private investments, they reduce future capacity adding even more pain in the present.

If potential growth is slowing there are persistent difficulties in achieving more employment and getting the private sector to spend gets harder: it’s a vicious circle.

Of course in the long run things will always pick up (the trend is never constantly negative), but certainly NOT as a result of austerity imposed to us all.

Nevertheless, this is “merely” a European problem… Isn’t it?

I already said in a previous post that austerity is wrong: at the very beginning, after 2008 they all did the “right” thing at the “right” time supporting the wrecked financial system. Please note the quotation marks. What happened then? The governments began to worry about deficits: saving the financial systems costed. A lot. Who was going to pay?

Guess. Who is usually paying? At the very end? And in the end?

The magic word in 2010 suddenly became: austerity. I always say that I’m a nescient, because it’s true. But you don’t have to be an expert to see that cutting spending in a depressed economy would further deepen the depression. And so it did. Austerity imposed job losses and crippled long-run growth: the future prospects are strongly correlated with the amount of austerity imposed.

Governments that slashed spending in the face of depression hurted their economies and therefore their future tax revenues.

Just because they’re “experts”: all the above was widely predicted by a smaller majority of TRUE experts.

There’s another aspect: it’s easy to call for sacrifices when they’re asked to normal people who are going to pay the final price even after losing their jobs (paradoxically) in the name of long-run responsibility. Irony is always bitter.

ONE thing I cannot accept: they don’t admit being wrong. Insult to injury.

In my view governments are going to pay a very bitter price for this, wherefore austerity is fanning populism: this is a very dangerous game, way beyond fiscal measures and highly (only) presumed benefits. Possibly headed to an almost total political paralysis. I might be too harsh, but it already happened in Warsaw, Athens, Lisbon and Madrid. When are we going to learn? Is this the Europe we want?

….Always humble,

Angiolino