Intellectual Property and Sustainable Development

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): grants, prizes, and concerns

On Tuesday, the US Dept. of Energy announced it was distributing $575 million USD in grants to 22 projects in 15 states, in an effort to deploy Carbon Capture and Storage / Sequestration (CCS) technology within the next 10 years.  The money was allocated under the Economic Stimulus package (ARRA 2009). 

The Washington Post reports that the Dept. of Energy has invested $4 billion USD in CCS, leveraging $7 billion USD from the private sector.  Interestingly, this massive investment comes as a grant – not as a prize.  The difference being that prizes reward for success, whereas grants allocate money up front, creating jobs, but not necessarily ensuring the desired outcome.  In the case of CCS, the desire outcome is an environmentally sound means of reducing carbon emissions. 

There are many concerns over the environmentally soundness of CCS, including:

• The potential for stored carbon to leak underwater into oceans, decimating marine ecosystems, including fisheries;
• The potential for stored carbon to leak into the atmosphere, undermining the mitigation potential of CCS;
• The decreased pressure to shift away from “brown” energy sources, in particular coal combustion for electricity; and
• The increased consumption of gas and coal when carbon capture is used on power plants, due to the energy intensive nature of carbon capture. 

The Washington Post only mentions the risk of asphyxiation due to a massive leak of stored CO2 near populated regions.  This is certainly a concern, but just one.

As the Deepwater Horizon disaster has shown, the ability to stop underwater leaks is very difficult.  Detection of slow leaks above and below ground is also very difficult.  The increased consumption of coal with carbon storage will correspond to increased production of mercury, requiring more effective abatement technologies than are currently available and environmentally sound storage of mercury (which is uncertain at this time), to prevent increased atmospheric emissions of mercury.

Perhaps a series of prizes to identify and design effective solutions to the environmental risks of CCS, simultaneous to or preceding the development of the technology, would be a worthwhile investment - to say the least.  In this way, ad hoc remedies may be less necessary to correct for inadequate risk assessment, as witnessed by the catastrophic disasters and series of failed corrective measures that took place in the Gulf of Mexico over the course of nearly three months.

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. 

Columbian IP Agreement continues to Raise Human Rights Concerns

During Columbia’s periodic review by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, specifically the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, several recommendations were made relating to intellectual property (IP) rights. 

The official UN report can be found here and CIEL’s publications relating to Trade Agreements and IP can be accessed here.

With respect to Access to Medicines, examining the US-Columbia Free Trade Agreement, the Committee noted that: 

The Committee is also concerned that the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) signed between the State party and the United States contains provisions on intellectual property that may result in increase of prices of medicines and negatively impact on the enjoyment of the right to health, in particular of those with low income (arts. 1, 12).

…In this regard, the Committee recommends that the State party consider revising the intellectual property provisions of the Free Trade Agreement signed with the United States, in order to ensure protection against the increase of the price of medicines, in particular for those with low income.  (para. 10)

With respect to development projects, including those that would be under the ambit of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol, the Committee noted:

The Committee recommends that the State party take concrete measures to review the processes concerning infrastructure, development and mining projects and fully implement decisions of the Constitutional Court in this regard. The Committee also recommends that the State party review the Presidential Directive 001 and the draft bill elaborated by the Working Party on Prior Consultation of the Ministry of the Interior. The Committee further recommends that the State party adopt legislation in consultation with and the participation of indigenous and afro-colombian people, that clearly establishes the right to free, prior and informed consent in conformity with ILO Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, as well as the relevant decisions of the Constitutional Court.  (para. 9)

On Biofuels, the committee notes that:

The Committee is concerned that the policy encouraging agro-exporting goods, such as agro-fuels, may deprive peasants from cultivating their lands. The Committee is also concerned about the unequal distribution of lands owned by a minority of the population, as well as about the absence of a genuine agrarian reform, as recommended in the previous concluding observations of the Committee (art. 11).

The Committee recommends that the State party develop agricultural policies which prioritize the production of food; implement programs that protect national food production with incentives for small producers; and ensure the restitution of lands taken from indigenous and afro-colombian peoples, as well as peasant communities.   (para. 22)

Regarding Access to Knowledge and Education:

The Committee recommends that the State party take immediate measures to ensure access of all children without discrimination, to free and compulsory primary education.  (para. 29)

In addition to these recommendations by the Committee, on GMOs the Seeds Group presented its report on Genetically Modified Organisms and the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Columbia.  The report states: 

The policies and practices of the Colombian State concerning genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have violated, and threaten to continue violating, the rights of indigenous peoples in Colombia, including their rights to self-determination, prior consultation, participation, property, culture, food, heath, and a healthy environment.

In 2005, the Colombian State issued a decree that regulates the approval of GMOs. Though indigenous peoples will be affected by the release of genetically modified (GM) seeds, they were not consulted before the approval of this decree; nor does the decree provide for any consultation during the approval process for each seed. Under this decree, the processes by which certain GM seeds have been approved have violated the Colombian State’s obligation to apply the precautionary principle, and have not taken into account scientific studies that have demonstrated the threat that GM seeds pose to native seeds, human health, and the environment.

The next periodic report of Columbia is due to be submitted by July 2015.

Human Rights, Technology Transfer & Climate Change

On the margins of the WIPO Committee on Development and IP (CDIP), CIEL organized a series of presentations and commentary on the topic of Human Rights and Technology Transfer, in the context of climate change.  Information on what agreements were reached in the CDIP can be found on the CIEL IP Quarterly Update, Second Quarter of 2010.

The speakers included:

• Mr. Robert Archer, Executive Director of the International Council on Human Rights Policy (ICHRP)
• Mr. Michael Waibel, Post-doctoral researcher at Cambridge University
• Mr. Baskut Tuncak, Law Fellow, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)
• Ms. Caroline Dommen, Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO)
• Mr. Subhas Gujadhur, First Secretary of the Permanent Mission of Mauritius to Geneva

Mr. Archer began the event with a summary of the Human Rights dimension of climate change, based in part on their earlier publication “Climate Change and Human Rights: A Rough Guide.” 

Mr. Waibel followed with an overview of Technology Transfer in the International Agreements on intellectual property and environmental protection.  His presentation can be viewed here.

Mr. Tuncak then spoke of how and to what benefit human rights obligations can inform discussions on technology transfer.

Finally. Ms. Dommen and Mr. Gujadhur provided their perspective on the preceding presentations. 

For further information, please see IP Watch’s coverage here and/or contact Baskut Tuncak at btuncak [at] ciel [dot] org

The "Green Tea Party"

Op-Ed Columnist - A Tea Party With a Difference - NYTimes.com

Op-ed on the status of climate/energy/jobs bill in the US Congress, and what Thomas Friedman suggests the Tea Party do about the environment, jobs and reducing the deficit.

Technology Mechanism for Climate Change: Still in the Lab

The first set of 2010 climate change negotiations under the UNFCCC concluded in Bonn, Germany (April 9-11th) with no progress apparent on the Technology Mechanism referenced in Paragraph 11 of the 2009 Copenhagen Accord. 

In fact, the only real outcome of the meeting appears to be an agreement to hold two additional meetings for both Advanced Working Groups on Long-Term Cooperative Action (LCA) the Kyoto Protocol, as well as for both of these groups to prepare draft texts to facilitate negotiations.  Conclusion for the LCA and Kyoto Protocol Working Groups are available here and here, respectively.

Although developing countries are pushing for legally binding commitments as an outcome of the December 2010 Conference of the Parties (COP) in Cancun, this does not appear likely. 

The Copenhagen Accord (the Accord), in particular the way in which it was negotiated, has led to what observers at Bonn are calling a sense of “deep distrust” at this past meeting between developed and developing countries.  Australia, on behalf of the “Umbrella Group,” stated that the Accord was a clear expression of political will to combat climate change and gave direction for future work.  However, many are concerned that the Accord would result in the end of the Kyoto Protocol.

Specifically, regarding the Technology Mechanism of the Accord, or “enhanced action on technology development and transfer” as it is being negotiated under the in the Working Group on LCA, several issues remain undecided, based on outside reports, including whether:

• activities or outcomes of activities eligible for support can included “purchasing of licenses and other intellectual property (IP) issues”;
• implementation of the technology mechanism shall be funded by new financial arrangements to meet the full incremental costs of compliance;
• the mechanism should support removal of barriers to technology development and transfer and enhancing means to promote technology transfer;
• the Technology Executive shall, among many other things, “address intellectual property issues as they arise”;

and most significantly – whether Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) will be mentioned in the text, and if so, whether:

• International agreements on IP shall not be interpreted so as to prevent parties from taking measures to address mitigation or adaptation to climate change (e.g. Articles 30 and 31 of the TRIPS Agreement);
• Global Technology Intellectual Property Pools for Climate Change are created;
• Steps are taken to share publicly funded technologies and know-how;
• Patents over environmentally-sound technologies for mitigation or adaptation are excluded from IP protection, including the revocation of any existing IP rights, in particular those that are publicly funded or those involving the use of genetic resources for mitigation or adaptation; or
• A recommendation is made that international action be taken to remove barriers to technology development and transfer, including those arising from IP rights.

In short, negotiators still have a range of options for how they choose to deal with the IP issue.  Obviously, industrialized countries are on the side of not weakening IP protection, with developing countries pointing to past experiences with the refusal to license non-ozone depleting (non-CFC) propellants to India and Korea, as well as experiences with essential medicines under the WTO's TRIPS Agreement.  But, interlinked to technology transfer is the issue of financing – the details of which are still skeletal as well and perhaps dependent on what becomes of the Copenhagen Accord. 

The next intersessional meeting is currently scheduled for the 1st-11th of June 2010 in Bonn, with the two additional meetings to be held between then and the Mexico COP in December.

Leading the Way towards Carbon Reductions

Heard of the Yes Men?  They are the incredibly straight-faced and gutsy duo that dare to go on the BBC TV and Radio, claiming to be from Dow Chemicals and announcing that Dow will compensate the victims of the Bhopal, India catastrophe with $12 billion from selling all assets related to Union Carbide Corp.  Dow purchased Union Carbide after the gas leak in Bhopal killed tens of thousands and continues to contaminate ground water in the area, probably under the assumption that their legal team could avoid paying the billions in restitution that is due.

Unfortunately, their routine is merely a hoax, disappointing hundreds of thousands of uncompensated victims.  Likewise, their stunt at the Copenhagen Climate Summit in December of last year gave everyone a glimpse of hope that the only country to abandon the Kyoto Protocol and home to the largest single source of industrial greenhouse gas emissions – Canada – was actually going to change its climate policy. 

No such luck.  Copenhagen went out with a fizzle as the Parties “took note” of the Copenhagen Accord.  An ambivalent reference to a vague document. 

Since then, China and India have associated themselves with the Copenhagen Accord.   There are still many nations which have not given any indication whether they will engage with the Copenhagen Accord.  The US-CAN website has an excellent table of which countries are on board with the Copenhagen Accord. 

The most recent country to not endorse the Copenhagen Accord was the Cook Islands.  In their letter of non-association to the UNFCCC, the Cook Islands identified the lack of clarity surrounding the “Technology Mechanism,” referenced in paragraph 11 of the Copenhagen Accord as being one of four major issues it found with the Accord.  In particular, the Cook Islands noted:

“[p]ast experience with the Expert Group on Technology Transfer has shown that mitigation technologies have received far more attention [than adaptation technologies'].”

As a small island developing state, the Cook Islands were one of several other island nations pushing for a 1.5 degree target at Copenhagen that would have reduced the likelihood of sending much, if not all, of their country underwater, which is predicted result from the 2 degree target under the Copenhagen Accord.   Many of the other small island developing countries have yet to respond (see US-CAN table above) to the Accord. 

The technologies and knowledge for adapting to climate change, which the Cook Islands accurately state as not receiving adequate attention, include technologies and knowledge such as:

• Medicines for combating increased incidence of vector borne diseases such as malaria;
• Water technologies, for economizing usage of freshwater, filtration & purification methods and desalination;
• Infrastructure technologies and knowledge for minimizing the disruptive effects of increasingly severe floods, storms and droughts;
• Crops for high-saline and low water growing conditions; and
• Advance warning systems for oncoming storms and pandemic spread of diseases.

These are what the most vulnerable populations will require to avoid the loss of human rights, such as the rights to life, food, water, health and adequate housing.  CIEL has articulated some practical steps for implementation of Human Rights and Climate Change law.  Many of these steps, along with integrating a rights-based approach into the Technology Mechanism of the Copenhagen Accord would help considerably in addressing the concerns of those countries and populations most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. 

Another potential tool is to lead by example.  The small-island developing state of the Maldives is doing exactly that.  While being one of the most progressive countries in examining the implication of climate change on human rights, they have associated themselves with the Copenhagen Accord AND are also setting the most ambitious mitigation target of any country:  100% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emission by 2020.  In other words, the island nation is putting its words into action, and promising to be carbon neutral in ten years. 

Whether or not countries associate themselves with the Copenhagen Accord, arguments on all sides of the climate debate are only strengthened with stronger national commitments to GHG reductions.  Hopefully, other countries will follow the Maldives’ lead.  Perhaps the Yes Men can use their trickery to help shame all other countries and the private sector, not just Canada, into taking this path towards solving the problem, that which was forged by the Maldives. 

Renewable Energy Technologies for Rural Development

With the debate around patents and climate change-related technologies at Copenhagen last December, it became easy to forget that there are many low-cost and clean renewable energy technologies available in the public domain. A recent UN meeting highlighted how these technologies can revolutionize the way of life for rural communities.

Over 90% of rural Africa and 1.6 billion people worldwide are without electricity. Kerosene, firewood, and dried dung are relied upon by rural communities for lighting and cooking fuel. These traditional energy sources pose many health hazards, especially for women. Air quality is a major concern with kerosene and open fires, releasing carcinogens, airborne particles, and greenhouse gasses.   Women are disproportionately exposed to open fires for cooking. Midwives working at night have to rely on a dim, flickering light. In addition, women are also the ones who scavenge for firewood or transport kerosene, often in inhospitable terrain. Thus, besides being a health risk, this is also a tremendous loss of productivity for the village; as women in these villages are forced to spend more and more time in search of diminishing fuel sources.

In the Expert Meeting on Green and Renewable Energy Technologies for Rural Development, organized by the UN Conference for Trade and Development (UNCTAD), several promising solutions were described for providing electricity and cooking gas for rural communities. These solutions – solar, biomass-to-electricity, biomass digesters, geothermal, micro-hydro and micro-wind power – were each shown to be particularly affordable and technologically promising in a variety of settings.

One of the most important messages to come out of the meeting was that the technologies deployed must be reliable. To ensure a reliable alternative energy supply and to help empower rural women, one man has started a brilliant effort to ensure solar power takes hold in these villages. A major problem with previous efforts in using solar power in rural settings was the inability to maintain and repair the necessary equipment. Training young men as solar engineers proved futile, as they would quickly leave to more lucrative urban markets.

But, Mr. Bunker Roy, founder of Barefoot College of India, has found a solution to this problem: training illiterate grandmothers. From each African village, he brings an illiterate grandmother back to India for a month of intensive training on solar photovoltaic system maintenance and repair. Learning alongside other grandmothers from villages throughout Africa, the newly-trained solar engineers return to their home village with a newfound sense of confidence and purpose. And, most importantly, they remain in their village, providing a much needed service and passing on their knowledge.

With the provision of clean, off-grid electricity from solar panels, the air is cleaner, the village is more productive and women are becoming empowered. What’s more, it makes clear economic sense. The cost of a solar system large enough for several lanterns is roughly the cost of one year’s supply of kerosene. But, solar energy can only solve some of a rural communities energy needs. Other experiences showed that there are other alternatives which can meet the need for sustainable development in rural communities.

In Nepal and Cambodia, biogas has proven to be a clean and reliable source of cooking fuel. Micro-wind and Micro-hydro are being deployed in Vanuatu and Mozambique, respectively. Many countries are experimenting with “mini-grids” to supply the generated electricity. The Zambia is exploring alternative distribution models, rolling out “energy kiosks” in several villages. India has a program to provide efficient cooking stoves to rural areas in an effort to reduce air pollution.

Several countries are re-visiting previous efforts for large-scale alternative energy generation as well. The Zambia is resurrecting a geothermal plant from the 1980’s to help it cope with an increasing energy deficit, which they attribute to climate change, due to lower levels of hydroelectric power production in recent years. Mauritius is revisiting the feasibility of wind turbines, especially recent advancements that allow for them to collapse during cyclones.

But, there are challenges. First, financing is still a challenge, even with the technologies being off patent protection and in the public domain. The Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has provided some funding, e.g. for Biogas projects in Nepal, but the CDM is geared towards large projects and has a cumbersome administrative process. However, promising financing solutions are gradually being offered. There are also cultural challenges. For example, one effective solution for rural China – placing toilets on top of biogas digesters – was suggested as being culturally untenable in at least one country by a speaker. Finally, there is the challenge of education. Accessing knowledge on what has worked and failed in other villages is crucial. An unnecessarily poor experience with a particular technology can retard the adoption of that or other technologies by a village for several decades. In addition, it is necessary to educate villages about health and environment concerns, such as smoke inhalation and climate change, in order to generate further demand for these renewable energy technologies.

Despite these challenges, this meeting showed that there is much promise in bringing clean electricity to rural villages around the world. With electricity, much more will be possible, including the ability to provide irrigation for farming, encourage education, and generally enable human development in the broadest sense.

First published at WorldChanging.com - check it out here: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/010993.html

What Obama Means by "Clean," part 3

Environmental details of Obama's budget proposal:

1. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - $10 billion overall
   
   • $1.1 billion for clean air and gloabl climate change programs
   • • $21 million to catalog Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emitters
     • $5 million for EPA to write permitting guidance for GHG reduction technologies
     • $6 million for mobile-source climate regulations
     • $7 million to investigate performance standards regulations
     • $6 million for Carbon Capture & Sequestration (CCS) related work
     • $25 million for state air pollution agencies process GHG permits from large-industrial emitters
2. Interior Department - $171 million overall for adaptation initiative (25% increase from 2010 levels)
   
   • $14 billion for 8 climate-science centers
   • US Geological Survey (USGS) - $78 million
   • • $2 million for carbon sequestration projects
     • $8 million for climate change and wildlife center
       
   • Fish and Wildlife Services - $9 million for landscape conservation cooperative
3. Department of Commerce
   
   • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) - Creating a climate change office to help inform local communities and businesses about climate change (see www.climate.gov)

However, Obama's goals on climate change have some signficant hurdles, besides congressional approval of the budget. 

Domestically, the US Chamber of Commerce is contesting the legal authority of the EPA to regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Act, despite a 2007 Supreme Court ruling stating that the government does indeed have the power to regulate GHG emissions, if they pose a threat to human welfare (Bloomberg article).

Internationally, key parties at the table with the US in negotiating the last-minute Copenhagen Accord - Brazil, China, India and South Africa - are pushing for a "two-track process" on reaching a binding climate treaty, which might incorporate some, all or none of the Copenhagen Accord and the Negotiator Level Text (BASIC Group Statement).   For a very informative guide on National Positions on the Copenhagen Accord, see:  The US Climate Action Network:  Who's on Board with What?

Snowfall disproves climate change

...or so says Fox News and an editorial in the Washington Post, which ought to read the IPCC reports on weather patterns associated with Climate Change.  I was going to comment on how absurdly humorous - and frightening - this is, but unfortunately, it is a serious problem that the media actually thinks that people will believe them.  Also, I just couldn't put it better than Karl Frisch:

Ultimately, the science-mangling reports from right-wing media outlets big and small say just as much about their practice of journalism as their views on peer-reviewed climate science. Their disregard for the practice of science mirrors their disregard for the practice of journalism.

What, then, is the logical conclusion? They just can't be trusted on this or any other important issue.

Read his entire article on Media Matters for America.