As IF Times

link Climate change: vulnerable countries consider occupying Durban talks | Environment | The Guardian.

Again for amusement, note the new moniker now widely used in place of the Global Warming label when the hysteria was first fabricated.  Climate Change is officially version 2.0.  This was of course necessary in the face of historically cold conditions afflicting the planet over the past 5 years.  As a protester, it was somewhat problematic to be holding a global warming sign while wearing mittens and a toque selling the notion that the world was minutes away from a perma heat wave.  A branding company was hired, and voila, Climate Change was adopted.  That way, everything was covered.  Freak snow in July?  AHA! Climate Change!  Rain in the Sahara? The end must be near.  Fewer bees in the backyard? Again, climate change.  They began claiming links between people’s mood swings and soaring crime rates to the effects of climate change; the opportunities  for expensive academic studies in this field  are endless.  One thing could be tracked for sure, the correlation of stupidity and the cacophony of Climate Change bleaters.

Now the gang are adopting a tactic from the Occupy crowd and apparently diplomats are going to stage sit-ins at this year’s conference site of choice, Durban.  As I’ve wondered before, why don’t they ever hold these conferences in less expensive places, Siberia for instance? This kind of event would do wonders for the local economy.   Of course having diplomats doing sit-ins rather than the rag tag hippies that usually populate these things may not sell as well since they’ll likely have assistants bringing them canapes and mixed drinks.

Numerous spokesmen have earnestly decried the lack of ‘tangible’ solutions.  This guy, Jorge Arguello who is the august chair of the powerful “G77 coalition of 131 countries and China” (is there anyone left out?) states the following:

“…[We] trust to see in Durban a fair and equal treatment of all issues that are important to all parties. A serious imbalance in the progress of issues can clearly not be conducive to a successful, comprehensive and balanced outcome…”

The only thing clear is that he does not have a command of English.  This statement is the usual political gibberish which in itself is a contributor to noxious hot air.

Of course, the usual warnings are pushed out again, since they seemed to arouse so much passion before.  The expected ‘imminent and catastrophic’ warnings are used again.  That kind of stuff didn’t work for the crazed Preacher Harold Camping this past May, see http://asiftimes.com/2011/05/22/mass-delusion/ when he was predicting the end of the world this year.  Actually, wouldn’t that be more urgent than a bit of extra sunshine?

And finally, the conclusive proof that a humanitarian disaster is just around the corner; according to a credible person quoted for this article,

“…Sheik Hasina, the prime minister of Bangladesh, said: “Climate change caused over 300,000 additional deaths last year. We the vulnerable countries suffer the most for our limited coping capacities. Bangladesh and other vulnerable countries cannot wait for international response to climate causes … we are implementing 134 climate change adaptation and mitigation action plans…”

How this is determined is very interesting.  So they are telling the public that in a part of the world where non dirt floors would put you in the middle class, where water has to be sourced by buckets and where washroom facilities are wherever you can find an empty hole, that climate change has been a contributor to deaths.  Is there a tick box on the death certificates under a list of possible causes such as cholera, infection, dysentery, crushed by an ox, which specifically categorizes Climate Change as a cause?  Holy cow!  Is it contagious?  If so, I wonder if you catch it from standing around in an Occupy protest?  Up to now, you could only catch ringworm or herpes from them.

So as usual, the hysteria and hyperbole machines are in high gear again, trying to convince people to fund laughable schemes of ‘sustainability’ but which actually means money transfers from the U.S. to the rest of the world…much like the financing model for the U.N.  The cause would be aided greatly if these earnest charlatans  got from place to place in rowboats and bicycles instead of planes, trains and automobiles.  Until then, it’s like Occupiers texting on iPhones to find the next protest site.

link Starbucks Mutiny Exposes New York’s Reliance on Chain’s Toilets – NYTimes.com.

The secret revealed.  It was always a curious but impressive business model that could envisage and execute selling a 10 cent cup of liquid for 3 bucks.  If that isn’t capitalism at its best, I can’t think of a better example.  It turns out that perhaps the secret to it all was not so much  the flavor of the drink but the effectiveness of its….well effectiveness.  Rumor has it that the chain was originally to be called Starbucks To Go, but the marketers felt that would have been redundant. 

It becomes clear now that having the availability of ‘facilities’ seems to be an unadvertised benefit of consuming Starbucks coffee.   Of course every restaurant from McDonalds to Dunkin Donuts serves coffee and they all have facilities, but those restaurants aren’t situated every 100 feet in any urban center as seems to be the case with Starbucks.  Now we know why coffee is so expensive at Starbucks…patrons actually subsidize the cost of servicing the washrooms.   Someone should do a study on the price charged for a coffee at Starbucks with the price of toilet paper, it may correlate better than it does with the price of beans.

The larger issue is the entrenched entitlement mentality of washroom users.  Patrons sure, but now everyone feels entitled to use them as if they were a public facility.  We shouldn’t really be surprised by this since this mindset is evident in every aspect of modern life.  Gradually, we have come to accept that ‘conveniences’ have transmogrified into rights and entitlements.  At the recent ‘occupy’ sit ins here in Vancouver, sympathetic street food vendors initially provided free grub as a gesture of compassion.  When it became expensive to do so and they stopped, occupiers railed against the vendors, some even vandalizing their carts.  Sort of like having your house egged after you run out of Halloween candy.  Probably not even a tip was offered. 

We’ve seen this with society’s welfare structure.  Originally implemented for all the right reasons as a means to cushion any short period of joblessness by people, it has evolved into a legitimate source of income for many who are content to collect it because they can.  Any cuts to welfare entitlements are met with frenzied and passionate protests which no politician will risk.  Education has moved into this entitlement tent as well since now there are protests over the costs of higher education and that it should be subsidized heavily if not be altogether free.  Why the cost of education is so high is never addressed, since at its core is the ever inflating cost of paying college professors and administrators. 

Staying with the recent Occupy theme, there is an accepted principle that these misguided protesters are free to stand anywhere they like to protest in a democratic society.  While nominally true, it’s unclear why it is also incumbent upon the general tax paying public to provide washrooms, cleanup and police details to oversee the safety of the group.  It’s as if someone was standing outside your front door decrying your policies on some issue but you provide them hot dogs and umbrellas. 

Like Starbucks washroom users, the “right” to make society pay for every fringe need will eventually cost the paying customers money.  At some point, a cup of coffee will cost $10 bucks and the chain will be rebranded Sawbucks.  Or they close all the washrooms.