Intellectual Property and Sustainable Development

Energy Ministers Endorse Clean-Tech Measures, Back CCS Group

Government energy ministers gathering in Washington, D.C., today launched 11 energy-efficiency and renewable energy initiatives around the world, which they claim will avoid the need to build 500 midsize power plants during the next 20 years.

via www.nytimes.com  (see http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/07/20/20greenwire-energy-ministers-endorse-clean-tech-measures-b-89532.html)

Of particular note is that "the United States and a dozen other nations will create what is being called the Carbon Capture, Use and Storage Action Group to develop a strategic plan for deploying carbon-capture-and-storage (CCS) infrastructure around the world by 2020.  Hopefully the development of this "strategic plan" is transparent and allows for the participation of NGOs representing a range of interests, in particular the public interest. 

For example, one might recall the issue with lead in paint.  While not saying that lead in cement/limestone brick is analogous to lead in paint, BUT - consider the following example of what some companies are doing at the pilot scale with CCS technologies:  capturing carbon dioxide and other toxic heavy metals and forming a carbonate mineral brick that embeds the toxic heavy metals, for use in buildings and other infrastructures .

"Mercury Control: 
Coal-fired power plants represent the largest source of mercury emission in the United States, but most operate with minimal controls designed to capture particulate matter that remove less than 35% of the mercury from their flue gas. This removal percentage can increase to greater than 50% when a sulfur scrubber is added, but capture levels are dependent upon coal type. With new federal and state regulations emerging, many power plants are contemplating the use of activated carbon injection (ACI) or other additional controls to remove more mercury from flue gas. The Calera CMAP process has the potential to not only capture mercury that would otherwise be emitted, but to bind it into the mineral output in a way that will prevent leaching to the environment..As with mercury, other trace metals can be captured by the CMAP process, including lead, chromium, cadmium, selenium, zinc, and others."  Available at:  http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/etaac/meetings/102909pubmeet/mtgmaterials102909/basicsofcaleraprocess.pdf

Studies indicate that leaching of heavy metals from the mineral, while being below US guidelines, does indeed occur.  Moreover, what happens in the case of intentional demolition?  Or, what about earthquakes stronger than the specifications of building codes?  Perhaps the settlement of the "9-11 illness" victims, including many first responders, warrants consideration? (see article on the 9-11 Settlement here)

While these toxic heavy metals may be contained for a period of time, these solutions do not appear to offer a permanent solution, to say the least.  All the more reason for transparency and public participation in the development of these "strategic guidelines" for CCS. 

Coping with the “Deepwater” Disaster

        

Some of the visually oriented among us are turning to revising a particular corporate logo as a means of coming to grips with an immeasurable catastrophe.    Greenpeace UK and others have re-design contests underway.  Some of the entries are really quite good. 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/greenpeaceuk/4682407000/in/set-72157623796911855/

http://www.logomyway.com/contestView.php?contestId=1746 

Others, however, are touting the use of new treatments with environmental consequences unknown to clean up the mess.  For example, one firm is suggesting that we dump nanotech chemicals (nanomaterials) to help clean up the oil.  Some nanomaterials have been linked to health concerns such as pierced cellular walls and have “unique” physical features, the unknown risks of which pale in comparison to past “miracles” like asbestos. 

"We can aerial spray it in the sea. We can put it in the boats and dump it out and the strength is so strong, it's about one gallon to every acre," Rodney Bath, Vice President of Government Sales, added.

Fortunately, the company still needs approval by the US EPA for this use.  But, its a good example of the way in which the private sector often responds to problems – and the need to have rigorous environmental impact assessments for technologies, especially those that are new and unproven. 

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has recently held that environmental impact assessments are now such standard practice that they can be considered a “requirement under general international law.”  Hopefully, the type of assessment they are speaking of is rigorous enough to avert future “solutions” that unjustly expose us all to their astronomical externalities. But, the meaning of this requirement under "general international law" depends upon national environmental regimes, so given the disaster in the gulf, it appears that there is still some work to be done on elevating the standard for environmental assessments. 

New toxic-free computer released in India | Greenpeace International

Toxic computers pile up in China

via Link to Article

This computer, free of both PVC (polyvinyl chloride) and BFRs (Brominated Flame Retardants) is a step in the right direction by consumer electronic company Wipro.

The presence of BFRs in commercial electronics led to gaping exemptions in the listing of two types of BFRs at the last conference of Stockholm Convention (COP4). The Stockholm Convention addresses the international risks of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), including infamous pesticides like DDT.  Two commercial mixtures of BFRs, known as pentaBDE and octaBDE, were also added to the treaty.  However, the EU raised concerns about how to manage products – such as cell phones, computers, and cars –containing these chemicals as they become waste.

Under the Stockholm Convention, wastes that contain POPs cannot be recovered, recycled, reclaimed or directly reused. The listing of pentaBDE and octaBDE was accompanied by an exemption that will allow their recycling to continue until as long as 2030.  Other parties resisted this loophole for recycling of POPs chemicals and expressed deep concerns about the possible dumping of POPs‐containing products in developing countries.  To help prevent this, the amendment restricts exports of such products for recycling if they are not allowed for sale in the exporting country.

For more information on COP4, please see:
CIEL Press Release from COP4
CIEL Chemicals Program
IPEN (International POPs Elimination Network)