Climate Change Bill Includes IP Protections 236
moogsynth writes "Buried in section 329 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (H.R. 2410), voted in recently, are measures to oppose any global climate change treaty that weakens the IP rights in the green tech of American companies. Peter Zura's patent blog notes that 'the vote comes in anticipation of the upcoming negotiations in December as part of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. ... Previously, there was sufficient chatter in international circles on compulsory licenses, IP seizures, and the outright abolition of patents on low-carbon technology, that Congress felt it necessary to clarify the US's IP position up front.'"
Re:Karma whoring for science (Score:2, Informative)
Wow, a 404 page [nationalgeographic.com]. That's awesome.
I think you meant http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html [nationalgeographic.com]
Re:America is full of itself (Score:5, Informative)
Search "Kyoto Protocol" in wikipedia and see what you get, a Map with all countries green except for the US.
That's the "signed and ratified" map, not the map of countries which are going to make their goals. The same article includes a chart showing that a significant portion of the industrialized nations not only failed to reduce their CO2 output from 1992 to 2004, but increased it dramatically. Most of the nations increased their emissions to at least a small degree. Of the nations listed, only Denmark, Germany, and the UK unambiguously reduced their emissions, and Australia and Norway are only included as decreasing when land use and forestry are taken into account.
I would suggest that it's not only the United States that is having problems with the protocol.
It's a token law. (Score:5, Informative)
Pretty much the Congress is covering its rear over what will likely be a huge fight over the economic cost of global warming compliance. Let's be real, it's going to be expensive and its going to mean a dramatic reduction in our standard of living, and so everyone is looking to say they were against it, right up until they vote for it.
Bottom line is, a Treaty is the Law of the Land and it trumps other law. In the pantheon of things, a Treaty ranks just below the Constitution and below that is other law. Shrewd critics, on both sides of the aisle, have long noted that the Treaty is a pretty good way to subvert the Constitution, because it only needs the Senate to approve, not the house, and a treaty carries so much force.
Re:It's a token law. (Score:4, Informative)
You should read this month's Scientific American cover story "The Top 10 myths about Sustainability", which discusses why the sustainable approaches do not lower the standard of living.
This is a point that always seemed obvious to me: investing in technology never lowers anyone's standard of living. The only reason it seems otherwise is because the proponents of such arguments ignore things like choking on car exhaust in their standard of living calculations, but make sure to point out that they will have to downgrade to a 43" TV from a 52" to save power. Nevermind the fact that it pays off the long term.
Re:It's a token law. (Score:5, Informative)
From my personal experience, a low emissions lifestyle can make for a much higher standard of living than a high emissions one. Good housing design is a good start, using passive solar desing techniques to make comfortable living spaces which don't require as much fuel.
When I was in my teens I lived on the verge of a rainforest with a small generator powered by the creek which fed us and about 10 other houses. We had stereo, TV, lighting and a computer (Amstrad CPC 464 it was), all of those cons, and a beautiful setting to boot. My standard of living was much higher than any I have experienced since.
Often higher efficiency can be achieved with lower complexity and a subtle shift of focus.
Making statements like that silly. Your computer program modelling something within your narrow paradigm will be able prove absolutely that an article in a magazine is wrong? Give me a break.
You can make a model to explain just about any point you are trying to make but unless it takes into account the flies buzzing around the bullshit ~150 kms from where I am sitting, it will never be an accurate representation of reality and to assert that it is is pure arrogance.
Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress (Score:3, Informative)
You also have the problem of congress critters actually reading the bills they vote on.
Re:America is full of itself (Score:3, Informative)
here is the stats from 5 YEARS AGO [wikipedia.org]
Over two years ago, China over took America. India is number 3 and will pass America in about 2 years. In terms of PER CAPITA, we are also down the list. In 2004, was our highest per capitia, and we were at #10. [guardian.co.uk] Since that time, we have gone down slightly, while many other nations have moved up and have surpasses us.
And comparing China and india to America in terms of PER CAPITA is a joke. It is TOTAL pollution that matters.
The other issue that you forgot is that CURRENTLY China emits more TOTAL POLLUTION (ignoring CO2), then America has COMMULATIVELY. We NEVER allowed it to get anywhere near as bad as China has. Likewise, even india and Russia are major polluters in the world.
To balance this on the west's back is just plain wrong. The west MUST deal with this by encouraging all nations to think long term. To do this, we must impliment a tax on ALL CONSUMED GOODS BASED on CO2 emission and pollution that went into it. IOW, if something is consumed in Ill, and it was made in texas, than the amount of CO2 from its power plant, the trucks to transport it, and even the ingrediants that went into it should figure into it. OR, we can just say that Texas had ex amount of CO2 from there, and then apply a tax on it. Something from france which uses heavy nukes would have less tax due to power. OTH, China has LARGEST TOTAL AMOUNT OF CO2 and by far, the largest amount of pollution and should be hit the highest tax. This will encourage ALL major polluting countries to re-think how they are handling things. Hopefully EU will re-think kyoto which is proving to be WORTHLESS.
Re:Fair warning: this post will make you think. (Score:3, Informative)
It doesn't happen anyway. You're a fool if you think long-term IP monopolies foster innovation. What they foster is a legal industry that sucks millions out of actual productive uses of capital, thus lowering the overall standard of living.
America never would have become an industrial nation if we hadn't simply ignored British patent laws, exactly the way China is ignoring ours.
Re:A win for big Oil? (Score:4, Informative)
Because the patents that are owned by the oil companies can be used the same way software patents are being used, offensively, to block new innovations (or even old innovations) getting to market.
Re:America is full of itself (Score:3, Informative)
ESPECIALLY CANADA *chest thump* has done, while ignoring that we've failed epicly. Suppose to have a 6% reduction, instead we have a 20% increase. Whoops. So now we're moving the goal posts.
And it is really sad because Canada has endless hydropower and invented the CANDU [wikipedia.org] nuclear fission system!
Re:It's a token law. (Score:3, Informative)
My standard of living was much higher than any I have experienced since.
Then, why don't you live there now? Are you sure you are not confusing a fond memory of youth in an exotic and beautiful setting with the grief of being older in a more "civilized" world?
You can make a model to explain just about any point
You are absolutely right, but what I'm looking for.
On my web site I have a simple climate calculator in Javascript for calculating the cost of CO2 reductions. It has an exponential term that users can enter the increasing cost of a good due to its increasing complexity. I have another exponential term relating to the cost of fossil fuel energy, which, can also rise due to resource exhaustion related to population growth. I subtract the two and that tells me whether or not the savings is break even or not. In this way we can say whether or not there is a return on the investment in efficiency, and on there I spit out a number that it will cost some x amount of trillions of dollars to drop the planetary CO2 enough to lower the temperature by so many degrees, and that, doing so will cause us to save so many (perhaps negative) dollars on energy.
But there's two holes in this model. First, if we did not invest more in energy efficiency, and the price of energy actually dropped, then, we would invest that money somewhere else and accrue those benefits. That's one way our standard of living is reduced. We won't be spending on curing cancer or building spaceships. We'll be buying better light bulbs.
Secondly, and most importantly, is the effect of turning a rental type cost in energy purchases into a capital outlay. In order to save energy, you have to make some capital investment. Like, I could save money over several years by putting in new light bulbs, but, that's a capital investment. At some point, I may just choose, and there will be some percentage of people that choose, to just have less lights. That too, is a reduction in the standard of living, and what's the economic impact of that?
Ultimately, of course, the proof of the model will be in its validation. What I'll be looking to do is ultimately predict different kinds of consumer responses to all of this energy changes and bans and increased costs, because, that's valuable to know for marketing and also for picking stocks.
Re:America is full of itself (Score:3, Informative)
It was signed by the Clinton administration, but never submitted to the Senate for ratification, because the Senate had already passed a resolution overwhelmingly against it. The Clinton administration didn't want the embarrassment of signing it and then having it shot down in flames by the Senate.
Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress (Score:3, Informative)
GP isn't so much proposing a line item veto, as a line item vote. Veto powers apply to the executive, but GP is talking about the legislative process.
GP wants legislators to be able to vote on specific parts of a bill, and only the parts that pass would continue to the next step in the process.