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. 

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

Balancing or Swinging? Genes, ACTA and other Recent Developments in IP

The past thirty days have given those who follow developments in innovation policy quite a bit of material.  First, on March 29th, a US district court (SDNY) held that neither isolated genes nor methods of analyzing or comparing genes were patentable subject matter in Association for Molecular Pathology v. US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).   Then, recently, the very controversial and secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was officially released in draft form (available here).

First, in the case of genes, the ACLU is calling the court’s decision “a huge victory for womens' health and scientific freedom.”  

The case centered around Myriad Genetics’ patents over BRCA1 and BRCA2, genes which are associated with breast and ovarian cancer.  The plaintiffs challenged these patents as invalid, arguing that genes are not patentable under the “product of nature” exemption from patentable subject matter (35 USC s. 101).

Seemingly an obvious argument by the plaintiffs, the defendant bio-tech industry has argued (successfully) that genes – in their “isolated” or “purified” form – were not a product of nature and hence, a patentable invention.  The defendants’ lawyers repeated this argument before the court in this case, arguing for the patentability of Myriad’s claims over BRCA1 and BRCA2. 

However, the judge did not agree in the least bit with the defendants.  Judge Sweet held that a purified form of a natural product (e.g. a gene) must have "markedly different characteristics" than the unpurified form of that product to be patent eligible subject matter.  Then, citing in re Bilski (US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), a decision which could invalidate thousands of business method patents if upheld by the US Supreme Court, the judge held that the method for analyzing the genes for cancer were not patentable either. 

If upheld on appeal, the BRCA case will have broadly sweeping implications.  The implication for health are clear – when available, doctors will be able to provide gene based tests, results and treatments at a lower cost, thereby increasing access and potentially lowering national health-care costs.

However, the case could also have implications for the food, biofuel, and other bio-based industries.  For example, patents over isolated genes and methods for their analysis are also found in many commercially viable transgenic plants (a.k.a GM crops/foods, GMOs, etc), owned by Monsanto, Syngenta and others in the very concentrated agriculture biotech industry.  For example, see Monsanto’s patent over “DNA constructs and Methods to Enhance the Production of Commercially Viable Transgenic Plants” (US pat. no 7,575,917).

Regarding genes and biofuels, see DuPont’s patent over genes for polyunsaturated fatty acid production using transgenic algae, bacteria, yeast and/or fungi (US pat. no. 7,695,950).  Algae is a second-generation (non-food crop) biofuel, which can be used to produce biodiesel and other biofuels.  Biodiesels are long chain esters, such as the polyunsaturated fatty acids produced by the transgenic algae claimed in DuPont's patent.  The US Dept of Energy claims that algae-based biodiesels are the only viable alternative energy source for automobiles, and thus it is no surprise that Exxon Mobil is investing heavily in algae biofuels.

Turning to ACTA, negotiating parties to the Agreement (US, EU, Japan, New Zealand, and others) – which is basically a new IP treaty in a thinly-veiled disguise – appear to have bowed to pressure from civil society, officially releasing the ACTA Draft.  Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), a leading NGO in advocating for transparency in ACTA negotiations, has stated that the disclosure comes far to late and is incomplete, lacking information on the negotiating parties‘ positions.  

ACTA negotiators are fudging the meaning of counterfeit, confusing copied products, where the consumer is aware of the authenticity of products such as generic medicine and audio/video reproductions, with actually counterfeit products – those which are intended deceive consumers.  Counterfeit medicines are very dangerous and a serious problem.  Awareness should be raised on this issue, but not by equating low-cost generic medicines to deadly counterfeit medicines.  This is the issue that has been at the heart of the ongoing dispute over the EU’s seizure of generic medicines that were in transit from India to Africa through EU ports. 

Medecins Sans Frontieres (aka, Doctors Without Borders) is concerned that the key elements of the ACTA - injunctions, border measures, criminal penalties and enforcement practices - may obstruct and deter legitimate generic competition.  MSF is also concerned about another anti-counterfeiting measure - the 2008 Kenyan Anti-Counterfeiting Legislation, which could not only impact the supply of anti-retroviral medications in Kenya, but throughout the African continent, given the influence of Kenya's laws on the legislative activities of other African countries.  Of particular concern are provisions in the Kenyan legislation on enforcement, and the vague definition of "counterfeit."  For more opinion and information, also see Michael Geist's blog and website on the ACTA (thanks Philip). 

Under current international IP and Trade agreements, TRIPS and the GATT, goods in transit - such as the generic medicines that were seized by the EU- are exempt from IP laws, which are territorial, while the goods are in transit.  In other words, under current international law, a Dutch patent on XYZ drug compound is inapplicable to a generic copy of that drug whose final destination is not in the Netherlands.  The enforceable patents in importing territory are what is applicable.  However, as suspected for some time, the draft ACTA agreement has the potential to go beyond current international IP norms and limiting access to medicines, depending on how the final negotiations shape up (see Dr. Henning Grosse Ruse-Kahn’s analysis of the ACTA text here)

So, are IP norms and laws moving towards a more balanced, a less “one-size-fits-all” approach?   In the case of gene patents, it depends what happens with the BRCA case on appeal, which might in turn depend on what the US Supreme Court has to say about the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in Bilski.  In the case of ACTA, in the end it will depend on what negotiators agree upon as the final text, which could depend on how much transparency is provided in the negotiations.  We'll see if US Trade Representative Ambassador Ron Kirk is correct when he said "people will walk away from the table" if the ACTA negotiation is made public.

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

Known lithium deposits can cover electric car boom

MEXICO CITY/LA PAZ (Reuters) - Hopes of an electric car boom are spurring companies to seek new lithium sources, but new finds may be lower quality and costlier to develop than established deposits able to meet demand for years to come.

via www.reuters.com

Recent articles in Forbes and Time suggest that factors affecting the supply of lithium for rechargeable batteries will keep electric vehicles from having meaningful marketshare.

However, there are many who disagree. The bulk of the 13 million tonnes of known lithium reserves are found in countries along the Andes, mostly in Bolivia (USGS). But, China, the US, Australia and several other countries have sufficient supply to avoid an OPEC-like cartel.   Global production of Lithium carbonate was 98,000 tonnes in 2008 (Market Oracle). In addition, unlike oil, Lithium can, and often is, recycled.

In a typical electric car, lithium accounts for 1.8% of the cost of the battery (eco geek). It is a cheap commodity, trading at around $3/lb in 2009 (Commodity Online). Some research analysts suggest that this means that the price can increase, but this will only make alternative extraction methods more economically viable, preventing further upward price increases.

As in the case of any mining operation, there is a significant concern of ecological damage, in addition to the health of miners. Lawmakers, if not the Automakers themselves, need to ensure that production of these 'cleaner' electric vehicles, including the extraction of the raw materials, have as little environmental impact as possible.

China's labor edge in the Green Economy

Feb. 4 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama is spending $2.1 million to help Suntech Power Holdings Co. build a solar- panel plant in Arizona. It will hire 70 Americans to assemble components made by Suntech’s 11,000 Chinese workers.

via www.bloomberg.com

But, cooperation between US and China is the take home message here (see "Green Wars," below). If the manufacturing capitol of the world and the king of global consumption continue to increase their cooperation on developing truly clean technologies, meaningful agreements on climate change seem much more likely.

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)

Shell Makes a Major Move into Biofuels

It was reported today by Bloomberg that Shell has signed an agreement with Cosan SA Industria & Comercio to start a Brazilian ethanol venture to expand its stake in the biofuels market.  This comes after recent announcements by Shell to shift away from Solar and Wind energy. A separate article in Bloomberg states that this is agreement "may give the oil company shared control of the world’s largest sugar-cane processor."

Shell would contribute over US$ 3 billion in cash over 2 years and almost 3,000 service stations for distribution purposes, in exchange for a 49% stake in the venture.  Cosan will have a majority stake in the joint venture and control ethanol operations. Both companies will have the option to buy each other out after 10 years.

Brazilian first-generation ethanol is made from sugar cane, which is calculated as having a slightly (but significantly) lower carbon footprint than corn-based ethanol, from which US ethanol production is based.  However, cellulosic ethanol, a second-generation biofuel, is particularly appealing because is uses inedible biomass.  This avoids some of the concerns over food crops being used for fuel, which has raised the price of food staples like corn and soy in recent years.

There are, however, concerns over deforestation that will likely will accompany increasing demand for acreage devoted to sugar cane and/or biomass production.  Recent studies have exposed a mis-calculation in the carbon footprint of biofuels due to land use changes, such as deforestation from planting crops for biofuels (see earlier blog post).  Activists are also concerned about human rights violations among laborers working in sugar cane fields.

Shell has been investing in biofuel research and development for some time now.  It has invested in Codexis, Inc. and Iogen Energy Corp. for the commercialization of biofuels and the development of cellulosic ethanol.  Thus, Shell's decision appears to be more along the lines of maximizing synergies and profits among its pre-existing liquid fuel infrastructure, rather than a rejection of the long-term viability of wind and solar.  

Other multinational energy corporations have also entered the biofuels market.  Exxon has been showing off its excitement over the promise of algae based biofuels through a splashy marketing campaign, which appears to have ended with the Copenhagen Climate Change conference in December.  Chevron is also pushing research into celulosic ethanol commercialization, forming research agreements with at least 4 major US Universities and a joint venture with timber giant Weyerhauser Co. (Catchlight Energy LLC).  BP is competing with Shell in the Brazilian ethanol market, having previously invested in Tropical BioEnergia SA and pledged US$ 6 billion over the next several years.