[Ip-health] NYT: Lifting the Patent Barrier to New Drugs and Energy Sources

Patrick Bond pbond at mail.ngo.za
Tue Apr 12 21:44:53 PDT 2016


Stavins wants to commodify everything under the sun, so naturally is 
also a huckster for carbon markets, "the privatisation of the air", e.g. 
http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2015/12/12/paris-agreement-a-good-foundation-for-meaningful-progress/

    What is key in the Agreement is the following: the centrality of the
    INDC structure (through which 186 countries representing 96% of
    global emissions have made submissions); the most balanced
    transparency requirements ever promulgated; provision for
    heterogeneous linkage, including international carbon markets
    (through “internationally transferred mitigation outcomes” – ITMOs);
    explicit clarification in a decision that agreement on “loss and
    damage” does not provide a basis for liability of compensation; and
    5-year periods for stocktaking and improvement of the INDCs...
    Article 6 provides for /international policy linkage/, and is
    thereby /exceptionally important/ for the successful exploitation of
    the foundation provided by the Paris Agreement.  The necessary
    language for heterogeneous international policy linkage (not only
    international carbon markets, but international linkage of other
    national policy instruments) is included. I have written about this
    key issue many times over the past ten years. It can bring down
    compliance costs greatly, and thereby facilitate greater ambition
    over time. (See our paper on this from the Harvard Project on
    Climate Agreements: “Facilitating Linkage of Heterogeneous Regional,
    National, and Sub-National Climate Policies Through a Future
    International Agreement”
    <http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/24568/facilitating_linkage_of_heterogeneous_regional_national_and_subnational_climate_policies_through_a_future_international_agreement.html?breadcrumb=%2Fproject%2F56%2Fharvard_project_on_climate_agreements%3Fgroupby%3D6%26parent_id%3D%26page_id%3D211%26filter%3D2237>
    By Daniel Bodansky
    <http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/experts/1255/daniel_bodansky.html>,
    Seth Hoedl
    <http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/experts/3172/seth_hoedl.html>,
    Gilbert E. Metcalf
    <http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/experts/2237/gilbert_e_metcalf.html>
    and Robert N. Stavins
    <http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/experts/166/robert_n_stavins.html>,
    /November 2014./)//The Paris Agreement accomplishes this through
    provision for “internationally transferred mitigation outcomes.”
    With this provision, we have a new climate policy acronym – ITMOs –
    about which I suspect I will be writing in the future.


One little antidote: http://storyofstuff.org/movies/story-of-cap-and-trade/

On 2016/04/13 05:22 AM, Thomas Pogge wrote:
> Professor Stavins offers a counterargument: “In the long term, if 
> there are no property rights, it will destroy the incentive to develop 
> the next generation of technologies.”
> This false dichotomy has been debunked many times. Intellectual 
> property rights are not the only possible rewards one might give to 
> innovators. A good alternative is to reward them, with public funds, 
> according to the social value of their innovation on condition that 
> they make it freely available to all. This is the obvious solution in 
> the case of green technologies: /let's reward such innovations 
> according to emissions averted and charge nothing for their use/. If 
> we continue rewarding innovators by allowing them to charge high 
> licensing fees, then many will continue to prefer using older, more 
> polluting technologies and we will continue to harm ourselves and 
> future generations.
> Professor Thomas Pogge




More information about the Ip-health mailing list