ndmckinney|net

Today begins the final exam period at Erasmus University. The worst of it takes place in the next two days, with three exams.

My schedule of exams, for anyone that might be interested (all times GMT +2):

1. 21 May @ 09.30: International Organizations
2. 21 May @ 18.30: EC Competition Law
3. 22 May @ 09.30: European and Comparative Criminal Law
4. 26 May @ 09.30: ADR
5. 30 May @ 09.30: International Economic Law

Between ADR and Int’l Econ, I’ll be travelling with Vanessa to Paris. After my last exam, Vanessa and I will travel to Amsterdam for one last night in the Netherlands, then head home on 1 June. My last two weeks in the Netherlands are among the busiest of my stay.

[UPDATE]: My criminal law exam is on 22 May, not 26 May. I don’t know why I want to put all my exams on the day I go to Paris.

Economist.com this week is reporting that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts the cost to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to a “safeish” level to be around 0.1% of GDP. Much of the solution, according to the Economist, is to simply improve efficiency in a number of areas, such as in business lighting and energy systems, solutions which have no cost to the consumer or taxpayer. The costs of non-fossil fuels power generation is falling dramatically, and gas-sipping technology for automobiles (sans the hybrid car fad) is readily available.

With the most costly targets rising to the level of an economic rounding error on the national economy, why is it that the more conservative governments are refusing to approach the solution? Perhaps the uncertainty in the models give polticians an excuse not to take action for fear of being wrong. Perhaps it is simply the strong lobby of the petroleum industry who is unwilling to alter their current business model. Whatever the source of the resistance, the political problem is far more difficult to overcome than the technical one.

But even the Economist, a tradtional source of liberal economic policy and opponent to governmental regulation, suggests that the solution is both laudable and feesible. While the models are uncertan, the IPCC reports that the costs are in the same sphere as of the current carbon-trading scheme, a system that, the Economist notes, “has not bankrupted the European economy so far.”

The evidence is growing that action is both necessary and feasible. The last major step is convincing the politicians that it necessary and appropraite.