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

[Reinier Bakels]

> There is no sign that General Electric has organized a campaign of
> fake science claiming there is global warming.  There is plenty of
> evidence that the oil companies have organized a campaign of fake
> science claiming there is not.

It is much more subtle. "Renewable energy" has become the new fashion, a 
buzzword fostered by many "green" politicians. And companies like GE readily 
adapt to the new fashion, and deliver perhaps more expensive, but definitely 
"politically correct" products. And they protect themselves against price 
erosion with patents (terminology is from their perspective, obviously).

Because I inherit some Shell shares from my parents, I attended some Shell 
meetings. I think that Shell is honest if it says that it can not afford a 
major shift from mineral oil to renewable energy sources, simply because the 
market is not ready to replace *very cheap* mineral oil energy by much more 
expensive alternative energy sources.

If the social effects of mineral fuels really are so detrimental, there are 
obviously "negative externalities": economic terminology for cost that are 
not borne by the (economic) actor. Standard solution is to increase taxes. 
But at first, that will only increase (consumer) prices, because producers 
still have mineral oil based queuipment and are unable to move overnight to 
renewable sources, even if they have become cheaper (on the long run) 
because of tax measures.

If companies like GE are left complete freedom to exercise patents, the 
balance between cheap mineral fuels and expensive renewable energy sources 
is worsened instead of improved: the latter will become even more expensive.

Governments however will not change the patent system, but spend even more 
taxpayer money, because climate change adaptation and mitigation is a 
political priority. GE shareholders can only watch this process with dollar 
signs in their eyes.

Bad conscience is a bad advisor. Likewise, government are prepared to pay 
huge amounts to privide e.g. AIDS medicines to developing countries. Firms 
apply basic economics; bad conscience reduces price "elasticity", iow prices 
can be increased without hurting sales volumes too much. This is really 
"spreadsheet ethics".

The definition of a (commercial) firm is: an organisational entity, aiming 
at a lasting profit stream, within boundary conditions set by the law. So 
the legislator should not wait and see and let the free market fail, but 
interfere in an active manner. One the things to rememeber is that patents 
are just a means to an end (see US constitution!), so if the end is not 
served, the means should be questioned as well. Patents are a very 
old-fashioned primitive way of government stimulation without any (direct!) 
cost for the taxpayer.

The arguments voiced by patent abolitinists in the 19th century nowadays are 
more valid than ever.

reinier