[pp.int.general] Copenhagen, our turn to dive into

[Rackham]

Le 9 déc. 09 à 19:39, Amelia Andersdotter a écrit :

> I'm in contact with a group at COP15 called Youth Climate Action that
> 're holding a session on patents and technology transfer tomorrow
> morning at 10:00 at Bella conference. We should definitely attend if
> you're already an accedited visitor!


Thanks Amelia for the invite, but i'm doing my best from Paris for  
now. ;o)

Keep us informed \:D/

Le 9 déc. 09 à 16:07, Reinier Bakels a écrit :

> I hear contracdictory signals. First the rumor was that e.g. China  
> was not prepared to agree with CO2 reduction plans because it would  
> force them to pay zillions of $ to the US manufacturers of climate  
> "adaptation and mitigation" technologies, but later an expert told  
> me that really the developed world is (formally) obliged to pay.

it's the second option. Now the conditions are very restrictive  
regarding to the access to patents…

Right now, the Kyoto treaty induced projects along the same  
principles, but it generated in the end  only about a thousand  
projects, with only 33 in Africa (among them 16 in South Africa),  
nearly all the others are in Brasil, Mexico, india, China. The idea is  
to do the same but bigger and with a better balance amongst countries  
with a special effort on the poorest and the ones that are to be  
flooded by sea (that, it's for idealism…). Kyoto system is heavy, too  
narrow, too carbonic.

> I was at a WIPO conference in Geneva in July where a man from  
> General Electric explained that his bosses were *only* iteressed in  
> "the bottom line" ("no compassion" - never seeen an American  
> businessman before explaining that he did not bother about ethics!).  
> All presentations plus audio are on the WIPO website.

2 french blogs i red about the issue are telling something along the  
same line.

- The industry doesn't do much R&D into green techs as their main  
profit is for the end user, not the industry.
- The system is organized to limit the patent access to the minimum.

One blog pointed to the eco-patent commons system, a possible solution.
http://www.sustainable-finance.org/templates/TemplateWBCSD5/layout.asp?type=p&MenuId=MTU1OQ&doOpen=1&ClickMenu=LeftMenu

> Part of the confusion is that many of the "climate" technologies are  
> not patented at all PLUS that lesser developed countries don't just  
> need the technology - BUT "capacity building" which includes e.g.  
> education of local people.

And we fall again into the contradictions of the western help to  
developing countries… A lot of talk, but not all the money announced,  
plus the brain drain of students staying in developed countries  
(better conditions, no job at home).

> During a recent conference, I heard an interesting conversation  
> between a scholar who was working on patents & climate and another  
> working on patents & pharma. The latter expressed to be envious of  
> the former: in pharma it is a complete mess, with patents as a major  
> roadblock for innovation (yes, unbelievable!) BUT the climate  
> problem has the "advantage" of being relatively new PLUS there is a  
> true "sense of urgency" that may help true breakthoughs =- in line  
> with pirate desires.
>
> We may *die* because pharma developers spend more time to litigation  
> than to research, but we should not *drown*  because the same  
> mistakes are made again in the climate field.


FYi, i was one of the Act Up Paris founders back in 89 (dropped out in  
04), and am still an hiv/aids activist. ;) So don't tell me about  
BigPharma… =:F

BigPharma worked out a way to squeeze out any generic concurrency in  
Africa and india at the beginning of the century. The End, finito,  
fin, Ende…

BigPharma is way more interested into the headaches of the west than  
paludism, aids, or even cancer. They follow the money.

Le 9 déc. 09 à 17:29, Thomas Burke a écrit :

> Well its like this. Copenhagen is about nothing more than deciding how
> much each country will be paying in carbon taxes. Here in Ireland our
> budget is today and we are already getting carbon taxes introduced.


Some have carbon taxes for years and are not worse for it…

Carbon taxes are good, as long as they are applied to all sectors, not  
overwhelming the poor, and fairly applied to imports too. That is  
said, not like the french government did (exclusion of electricity - 
mainly nuclear here, exclusion of the industries into the European CO2  
market -the worst emitters, and a level of the tax too low, about half  
the minimum that was figured out to have an effect, plus the  
compensation mechanism destroys most of the virtuous cycle for end  
users)

it's a virtuous mechanism, if properly set up:
- setting a direction to limit emissions
- compensate for the environmental regulations between countries
- based on the polluter pays principle
- socially neutral (maybe the trickiest part)

i have a paper on the Swede system to read for weeks… never had time to…

And Copenhagen is a little bit about other things : technology  
transfers (pirate signal here), compensations mechanisms, and  
reductions of emissions level with fixed objectives. One of the main  
issues is that for now, no one comes out with a control system,  
sanctions etc. and there's chances the tech transfers will be along  
the Kyoto line…

Denis
partipirate.org board of directors - Île-de-France coordinator
Signatures are so passé…