Todd Stern and a US climate cooperation delegation made an appearance at a roundtable discussion at Tsinghua University today, which CGS weaseled itself into. It was "off the record," so to to maintain whatever journalistic integrity it has, CGS will only refer to general comments and threads of discussion (Chatham House rules).
With one exception, a really good, but unattributable quote: "We are mindful of the unforgiving imperative of the atmosphere." Well, CGS for one will sleep a little better knowing that.
Unfortunately, the rules of the game haven't changed: China still emphasizes the need for growth and development, while the US side slowly chips away at China's protests that it is a developing country, noting that China cannot claim to be as helpless in the face of climate change as, say, Haiti.
However, the roundtable did come closer to identifying a key negotiating front than previous sessions: technology cooperation. The Chinese side, possibly because it was dominated by representatives of the energy and engineering bureaucracy, constantly called for technology transfer. The US side forthrightly said that the United States has neither the monetary resources nor the political will to finance China's clean energy transformation: it can purchase the technology on the open market. What's needed, they said, is closer to an equitable (presumably meaning the US won't pay) "technology cooperation" arrangement.
A possible foundation for compromise emerged when Chinese representatives responded by saying that the US can do more to promote development of technologies that meet China's needs as a developing country, something most feasibly done through private-sector partnerships. Governments, meanwhile, can collaborate on enhancing China's capacity for clean technology deployment and implementation, especially in the area of measuring, verifying, and reporting emissions.
That might be something Congress can live with. But one big hurdle remains, and one recognized by both sides: intellectual property (IP). Both sides noted that there's a lot of misunderstanding on this issue, that China is actually better on some IP issues than it's given credit for, and that there's a whole range of technologies, mostly in energy efficiency, where IP issues are not a significant impediment.
So long and short, a focus of continued negotiations should be on capacity building in technology transfer, not simply discussion of the transfer and financing itself. To offer some CGS commentary, the Chinese side didn't seem to be budging much, but that's understandable: at a minimum, the US has to pass domestic cap and trade legislation before China can be expected to make any concessions. But you do have to take a step back and think: a bunch of earnest, capable people all speaking frankly about the importance of US-China climate cooperation for the future of the world. That would have been almost unimaginable a year ago.
Showing posts with label Intellectual Property Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Intellectual Property Rights. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
How to make international environmental cooperation work; Or, Report from EU Workshop on Carbon Capture and Sequestration Regulation
This past Wednesday and Thursday, CGS attended a workshop on the European Union's Support to Regulatory Activities in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) (STRACO2) and Cooperation Action Within CCS EU-China (COACH) projects. The former, STRACO2, is devoted to gathering lessons for China from CCS regulatory regimes in place elsewhere, while the latter, according to its website, has as its main objective
Because they focus on a key climate change mitigation technology- CCS- the STRACO2/COACH projects represent an important case study in international environmental cooperation, hence CGS's interest. Briefly, CCS is a technology that envisions capturing carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustion and "storing" it in impermeable geological formations, preventing its escape to the atmosphere. CCS is typically envisioned as a major "wedge" in reducing global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, since it theoretically permits the use of abundant fossil fuels without contributing to the change in the planet's carbon balance. As one workshop speaker noted, many GHG reduction scenarios envision almost 30% of reductions coming from the large-scale deployment of CCS (see Rob Socolow and Steve Pacala's classic wedge paper on this). Problem is, it's far from a commercially-viable technology, hence the importance of the workshop. Deployment of CCS entails overcoming a number of challenges, including finding suitable geologic formations and developing an adequate regulatory framework for storing the carbon.
The STRACO2/COACH project is wide-ranging, including carbon storage site qualification and certification and financing. A particularly interesting feature of the STRACO2 project was the use of questionnaires to survey the CCS field in China, and which provide interesting insights into the prospects for China. Some 60 forms with questions on policy and finance, technology outlook, etc., were sent to a variety of environmental, energy, research, and consultancy firms in China, with 35 responses. These indicated that 43% of respondents see CCS as an "extremely important" technology for combatting climate change, while an additional 57% ranked it as "important." Respondents listed (in ranked order) high cost, unproven technology, underdeveloped law and policy, and underdeveloped technology as the most important barriers to CCS commercialization in China. Large majorities of respondents also reported that developed nations for pay for the development of CCS projects before commercialization, and that emissions trading offers the best prospect for long-term CCS financing. Notably, a significant majority also indicated that EOR technology, which involves injecting CO2 into oil wells as oil is withdrawn, represents the best storage option. Finally, respondents listed safety and responsibility as the most important considerations for developing a CCS regulatory regime in China.
The workshop also revealed a number of more general considerations and points of interest. There is a significant degree of suspicion over whether carbon can be safely stored underground, and whether "leakage" of carbon dioxide may pose a health risk to surrounding communities. China's geological storage potential also appears to be less favorable than in other countries, calling the widespread deployment of CCS into question. Several gaps were assessed in China's CCS capabilities, particularly in modelling technologies. The question of financing is also thorny; while most Chinese respondents indicated that developed countries should pay for the development of CCS technology, it's unclear how this might occur. Several experts, for example, spoke against inclusion of CCS in the Clean Development Mechanism, an important means of expanding clean technology in China. Perhaps most notably, one workshop speaker assessed the future of CCS as "uncertain," stating that its capabilities are "often assumed, not assessed."
In addition, the STRACO2/COACH project points out several significant issues for international clean technology cooperation. First is the need for robust stakeholder consultation: many in China remain suspicious of CCS. Second, governments will have to engage in significant discussion over intellectual property issues, and ensure that broader industrial and science/technology policy is aligned with clean technology cooperation. Much more attention will also have to be given to the details of financing and incentivization for clean technology.
Finally, the workshop highlighted the utility of person-to-person exchange in enhancing clean technology cooperation. Debbi Seligsohn of the World Resources Institute described a program that gathered an interdisciplinary team of experts from China and the US to explore the various issues involved in CCS deployment, and then organized a US study tour for participants, to be followed soon by a parallel China tour. By linking the people working on the ground in China with their counterparts in the US, the program helped to highlight important issues and challenges in CCS deployment, and stands a good chance of catalyzing long-term international partnerships.
In sum, then, the workshop illustrated several important lessons for international environmental cooperation. First, as China, America, the EU, and other nations struggle to ramp up clean technology deployment, such expert exchange programs will need to become a more common feature of the international landscape. Second, economists and policymakers should prioritize the issues of stakeholder consultation, financing, and intellectual property. CGS has been blessed to witness a sea change in the prospects for international environmental cooperation- but the hard work is yet to come.
"to prepare the ground for developing large-scale facilities for zero emission electric power using coal as a feedstock. Options for hydrogen production as well as for production of synthetic fuels, and provisions for heat integration with surrounding industries will be investigated too. In this endeavour CO2 capture and permanent storage - including use for enhanced oil or gas recovery (EOR or EGR) - constitute an inherent and decisive prerequisite."
Because they focus on a key climate change mitigation technology- CCS- the STRACO2/COACH projects represent an important case study in international environmental cooperation, hence CGS's interest. Briefly, CCS is a technology that envisions capturing carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustion and "storing" it in impermeable geological formations, preventing its escape to the atmosphere. CCS is typically envisioned as a major "wedge" in reducing global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, since it theoretically permits the use of abundant fossil fuels without contributing to the change in the planet's carbon balance. As one workshop speaker noted, many GHG reduction scenarios envision almost 30% of reductions coming from the large-scale deployment of CCS (see Rob Socolow and Steve Pacala's classic wedge paper on this). Problem is, it's far from a commercially-viable technology, hence the importance of the workshop. Deployment of CCS entails overcoming a number of challenges, including finding suitable geologic formations and developing an adequate regulatory framework for storing the carbon.
The STRACO2/COACH project is wide-ranging, including carbon storage site qualification and certification and financing. A particularly interesting feature of the STRACO2 project was the use of questionnaires to survey the CCS field in China, and which provide interesting insights into the prospects for China. Some 60 forms with questions on policy and finance, technology outlook, etc., were sent to a variety of environmental, energy, research, and consultancy firms in China, with 35 responses. These indicated that 43% of respondents see CCS as an "extremely important" technology for combatting climate change, while an additional 57% ranked it as "important." Respondents listed (in ranked order) high cost, unproven technology, underdeveloped law and policy, and underdeveloped technology as the most important barriers to CCS commercialization in China. Large majorities of respondents also reported that developed nations for pay for the development of CCS projects before commercialization, and that emissions trading offers the best prospect for long-term CCS financing. Notably, a significant majority also indicated that EOR technology, which involves injecting CO2 into oil wells as oil is withdrawn, represents the best storage option. Finally, respondents listed safety and responsibility as the most important considerations for developing a CCS regulatory regime in China.
The workshop also revealed a number of more general considerations and points of interest. There is a significant degree of suspicion over whether carbon can be safely stored underground, and whether "leakage" of carbon dioxide may pose a health risk to surrounding communities. China's geological storage potential also appears to be less favorable than in other countries, calling the widespread deployment of CCS into question. Several gaps were assessed in China's CCS capabilities, particularly in modelling technologies. The question of financing is also thorny; while most Chinese respondents indicated that developed countries should pay for the development of CCS technology, it's unclear how this might occur. Several experts, for example, spoke against inclusion of CCS in the Clean Development Mechanism, an important means of expanding clean technology in China. Perhaps most notably, one workshop speaker assessed the future of CCS as "uncertain," stating that its capabilities are "often assumed, not assessed."
In addition, the STRACO2/COACH project points out several significant issues for international clean technology cooperation. First is the need for robust stakeholder consultation: many in China remain suspicious of CCS. Second, governments will have to engage in significant discussion over intellectual property issues, and ensure that broader industrial and science/technology policy is aligned with clean technology cooperation. Much more attention will also have to be given to the details of financing and incentivization for clean technology.
Finally, the workshop highlighted the utility of person-to-person exchange in enhancing clean technology cooperation. Debbi Seligsohn of the World Resources Institute described a program that gathered an interdisciplinary team of experts from China and the US to explore the various issues involved in CCS deployment, and then organized a US study tour for participants, to be followed soon by a parallel China tour. By linking the people working on the ground in China with their counterparts in the US, the program helped to highlight important issues and challenges in CCS deployment, and stands a good chance of catalyzing long-term international partnerships.
In sum, then, the workshop illustrated several important lessons for international environmental cooperation. First, as China, America, the EU, and other nations struggle to ramp up clean technology deployment, such expert exchange programs will need to become a more common feature of the international landscape. Second, economists and policymakers should prioritize the issues of stakeholder consultation, financing, and intellectual property. CGS has been blessed to witness a sea change in the prospects for international environmental cooperation- but the hard work is yet to come.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Intellectual Property Rights and Clean Technology in China
In a previous post, China Greenspace (CGS) made the case that weak protections for intellectual property rights (IPR) would imperil the transfer of clean technology to China. If a series of articles by Ian Harvey of the UK Intellectual Property Institute is correct, CGS may have been way off the mark, and that such perceptions are incorrect.
Harvey argues that, contrary to popular belief, IPR protection is impressively strong in China. He cites the statistic that 90% of suits by foreign patent holders against Chinese entities for IPR violations are successful, versus 35% in the United States.
It's unclear to CGS whether the rigor Harvey identifies in China's IPR protection scheme applies equally to more pedestrian technologies as well as to cutting-edge technology that will be necessary to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nonetheless, Harvey's articles provides much food for thought, and an impetus for CGS to humbly re-think its earlier assertions.
Harvey argues that, contrary to popular belief, IPR protection is impressively strong in China. He cites the statistic that 90% of suits by foreign patent holders against Chinese entities for IPR violations are successful, versus 35% in the United States.
It's unclear to CGS whether the rigor Harvey identifies in China's IPR protection scheme applies equally to more pedestrian technologies as well as to cutting-edge technology that will be necessary to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nonetheless, Harvey's articles provides much food for thought, and an impetus for CGS to humbly re-think its earlier assertions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
