We haven’t focused too much here at CELB on the demand of developing countries, with China as a vociferous cheerleader, for “technology transfers” from developed to developing countries as part of a Copenhagen deal.
We have noted that during Todd Stern’s recent visit to China he apparently agreed with his Chinese counterparts to establish a “joint technological R&D center to promote technological cooperation and setting up a joint expert team on technological cooperation and transfer at an early date.” (emphasis supplied). This indicates a willingness to explore the issue, but is not a commitment to actually transfer technology. Moreover, I suspect the focus of the “expert team” will be primarily be on “technological cooperation.”
Jonathan Pershing, Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change, was quoted yesterday as noting that China
was open to taking action to control greenhouse gases in exchange for U.S. technology. But he says China is looking for advanced systems that are part of America’s intellectual capital. He said China wants U.S. help in changing the structure of its carbon-intense industry.
The article does not provide Pershing’s reaction to China’s request, but his use of the phrase “part of America’s intellectual capital” would suggest he did not think highly of it.
We noted that Congressman Sensenbrenner, the ranking Republican on the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, on his recent trip to China (as part of Speaker Pelosi’s group), said that his primary mission was to protect US IPR holders from any deals that could end up giving away or discounting their intellectual property rights. We also noted that certain segments of the US business community are starting to mobilize on this issue as well. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and business leaders launched in May the Innovation, Development & Employment Alliance (IDEA). IDEA’s immediate priority is to urge Congress and the Obama administration to maintain strong IP protection for innovators as the U.S. engages in international talks related to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
It didn’t take these forces long to whip the House into action, although to be fair I know as a result of discussions I was involved in with Congressmen Kirk and Larsen during their trip last month to China that the issue was already on their radar screen. On Wednesday the House passed an amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act by a pretty convincing vote of 432-0 to establish a new U.S. policy “in opposition to any global climate change treaty that weakens the intellectual property rights of American green technology.” As set forth in an email circulated by Congressman Larsen’s office, the amendment, known as the “Larsen - Kirk Compulsory Licensing Amendment,”
requires the President, the Secretary of State and America’s U.N. Ambassador to oppose any climate change treaty that would weaken intellectual property rights related to energy or environmental technology.
It notes that
“American innovations in clean energy technology create good-paying jobs today and will fuel our country’s economic growth in the future,” said Larsen. “As we combat global climate change, we cannot afford to lose this opportunity for job creation by forfeiting the right of American companies to the innovations they develop.”
“As strong supporters of bipartisan action to combat global climate change, we should recognize the opportunity to create millions of American ‘green jobs’ by investing in clean, alternative, renewable and energy efficient technologies,” said Congressman Kirk, a member of the U.S. delegation to Kyoto in 1997. “But these jobs will not be created if a new treaty allows foreign competitors to seize the inventions of American scientists and manufacturers.”
A little provocative perhaps, but it is pretty hard to argue with most of this. One of the primary arguments in favor of Waxman-Markey, especially for those who are a little wobbly on the climate change imperative for action, is that the bill will spur innovation and create jobs. Any component of an international climate change deal which seems to undermine these goals will make it extremely hard for the treaty to pass in the Senate (as the overwhelming House vote portends).
Anyone looking for a breakthrough in US-China climate change talks through the vehicle of technology transfers had better look elsewhere.
6 responses so far ↓
1 ken // Jun 13, 2009 at 2:34 am
Are you kidding me? This will be the straw that breaks the climate camels back. There is no way that other countries like China will not reverse engineer any innovations made by clean energy companies. you can’t stopr them, you can’t sue them for patent infingement because you can’t even speak their language. This is death to the climate legislation.
2 Solarcaine // Jun 13, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Well, maybe YOU can’t speak their language, but if you could, why would you want to sue, and how would you propose to do it? Don’t forget, ken, suing is seldom the answer. We all seek to prevent problems. So maybe we should just drop all this climate change obsession and take some sun and some air in our lungs. Worked for my ancestors, although they are dead now. And their technology got reverse engineered, too.
3 Greg // Jun 15, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Not just US but all developed countries should expect that their technology is going to be reverse engineered and that there is little they can do about it. What they can do about it is price in that expectation of reverse engineering.
Developing countries, especially second tier ones like India and China, don’t do themselves a favor by claiming to be as poor as most of Africa on one hand while building nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, buying new air forces, building new cities and advanced space programs on the other.
Interestingly, my company is actually intends to directly sell its IP to 3rd and 2nd world countries, not just some small time businessperson but to major industries and government institutions. The reactions we have received range from pleasantly surprised to a bit disbelieving. A few individuals, namely expats and NGOs, are trying to massage the IP out of us for free.
4 Greener China // Jun 15, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Global Climate Change…
American jobs…
Global Climate Change…
American jobs…
Charlie - going back to the whole “citizen” issue again, I think this is the next impasse. That even when both governments (and its citizens) are actively admitting that something needs to be done, it will only get done if it is in the commercial interests of those in power.
Which leaves me to believe that Stern’s visits, Clinton’s commitments, and talks at Copenhagen will fail to yield much more than some political capital to be spent.
This at a time when there are some real commercial and political opportunities to work together.
So… what is the best way forward? Are we waiting for a minor environmental event to catalyze leaders to really cooperate opening on the best interests of the environment (even if the jobs do not necessarily land in one particular congressional district), or should we now pin our hopes on the free market to develop solutions that are in the best interests of their clients.. and hope that the wider citizenry will benefit as well?
Sorry if I have lost that “chipper” tone, but I just got back from an island that had the freshest fruit and air I have seen in 18 months.
R
5 cmcelwee // Jun 16, 2009 at 6:37 pm
@Rich
First, welcome back! I hope married life is treating you well. So sorry you had to come back to a Shanghai which certainly is not putting its best air forward these days, not to mention climate talks that seem to be in a perpetual idle.
I really don’t know what it will take to break the log jam. I share you sense that it will probably be treats for commercial interests. I already picked up a little of that in Zhang Guobao’s speech to the US-China Clean Energy Forum: in essence, “don’t push China too hard, and we’ll make sure American companies get some plum contracts.”
6 Stuart // Jul 1, 2009 at 12:22 am
I often think Americans are self obsessed by their perception of their technological advances in Env issues.
The reality is far from it! JAPANESE technology is well in advance - let’s not forget that the 1st hybrid car the Pirus (however its spelled) was on the roads in Japan a full 5 years before it made it to the US.
And the US still puts raw MSW in landfill, then trys to invent ways to capture the methane - the Japanese put zero MSW in landfill & recycle around 85% of packaging waste. Hell, they even have a Food Recycling Law that mandates collection of all food scraps & takes them for compositng.
They’ve been investing in high tech Env processes now since 1995.
And, since they’re closer to China, they’ve been having Ministerial Level Env meetings with the Chinese since 2004 - guess where the Circular Economy Law came from??
Leave a Comment