An Inventor's Response, Dr. Keith, I question how incentive can be factored in.
The foundational concept of IP is that those who invest the time and effort and risk the initial capital investment, can hope for a return on that effort and risk. The issue of invention incentive may be a secondary, even lower, consideration in the overall GE issue. Yet, it does have it's importance in helping us find the best technologies. I propose an 'X-Prize' type of incentive be established to substitute for the formal IP incentive. It could have categories along your suggestions. Some form of 'Prefered Contractor' status for the winning team(s) could be considered. Yet, finding un-invested/objective people with in-depth working knowledge of the many important issues which would agree to sit on such a panel may be as hard as finding the funding. This panel would, in essence, be creating the first prototype for a planetary GE advisory board. You mentioned "Aircraft to deliver payloads to 70,000 ft.". I would add to that category aircraft which could operate: A) Within specific regions of the larger types of tropospheric clouds. There is no current craft which can safely and routinely maintain station in and around larger cloud structures due to the turbulence and wind shear activity. There are designs options to do this yet there has never been, until now, a need (customer). The Need: Regional level induced precipitation, non-marine cloud brightening and even cloud creation can provide needed ancillary options for a broader GE campaign. The need for regional level modifications of a broader GE effort has long been recognized yet rarely addressed. Advanced AC designs can open up these important areas of interest. B) Within the mesopause. PSC *and* PMC reduction offers important GE options. This GE approach has gained little notice and consideration. However, it is an option which entails *no substance injection* and has a highly short wave polar thermal effect as well as the potential benefit of possibly reducing Ozone Depletion. This represents, as you state, a *"high leverage"* means. Again, advanced aircraft designs can open up these important options. A few final thoughts: The search for additional GE options should be an on-going effort. The relative few options which have gained attention have their strengths and their weaknesses and, in my view, should be advanced. However, creating an on-going means to seek out and support new ideas, such as through a prize system, could; A) Provide a transparent and sound form of incentive for future innovation. B) Help show that the general GE issue is not being subjected to the 'invested interest' of the original few concept/promoters. C) Create the first non-in-house effort in building a type of 'GE over-sight' board. The Oxford GE Group's effort is a in-house level effort which provides good guidance. These are all important steps which need to be done sooner rather than later. Ken's Challenge: I challenge members of this group to come up with definitions of "SRM experiment" or "SRM technology" that could be used to make determinations in a court of law. SRM Technology/Action= That technology or action which has a *'reasonably knowable' *short wave effect upon the interregional global environment through the management of solar radiation related geophysical processes. This is in contrast to those technologies and actions which pose 'reasonably knowable' long wave effects upon the interregional global environment such as, but not limited to, CDR. Reasonably knowable? Long wave vs. Short Wave? We need to leave the gental persons of the Bar *something* to 'work out'. Best, Michael On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 6:15 PM, David Keith <david_ke...@harvard.edu>wrote: > Ken has it right. A central problem with attempts to restrict patenting > of SRM technologies is to make sensible distinctions about what should and > should not be included.**** > > ** ** > > In order to explore these issues further, Granger Morgan and others held a > meeting in DC on April 3rd to address exactly these issues. Attendance > included were technology developers, IP experts, legal scholars, scientists > etc. (I presented remotely, helped to organized, but was not able to make > it in person.)**** > > ** ** > > Several of the posts on this thread have pointed out, that (1) there is no > single system of patenting, (2) there are already patents, (3) patents > might not be that important, and most of all (4) the distinction is muddy. > **** > > ** ** > > These are all good points and were all discussed, though of course not > resolved, at the meeting. **** > > ** ** > > My view is that the underlying issue is to incent transparency in the > development of these technologies, and that restricting IP *might* be > useful to help incent transparency. I am not convinced that IP restriction > is practical. **** > > ** ** > > I do think that government funding for SRM research can and should include > specific guidelines that incent transparency and restrict > commercialization. **** > > ** ** > > While a generalized restriction on IP might be unworkable, research grants > can (and do) include specific provisions about IP.**** > > ** ** > > Here is an example of how one might make the distinction between *core*and > *supporting* IP for which restriction does not make sense:**** > > *Core***** > > **• **Specific kind of particle that enables some specific feature > of SRM**** > > **• **Measurement method that is uniquely applicable to SRM.**** > > *Support***** > > **• **Aircraft to deliver payloads to 70,000 ft.**** > > **• **Computer programs for dispatch management**** > > ** ** > > I think efforts to incent transparency should be focused on technologies > that have:**** > > 1. *high leverage* (huge outputs for small inputs, e.g. SRM and not CDR > or regular mitigation)**** > > 2. and technologies for which objective performance measurement is > difficult (see attached slide).**** > > ** ** > > David**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto: > geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Caldeira > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 18, 2012 11:55 AM > *To:* r...@llnl.gov > *Cc:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [geo] Keith weighs in...**** > > ** ** > > In more practical terms, in most cases of interest it will be extremely > difficult to define what constitutes a "solar radiation technology".**** > > ** ** > > Is a mirror on the ground or a white roof a "solar radiation technology"? > To some people *yes*, to others *no*.**** > > ** ** > > Most tools have multiple uses. What if I come up with a way of producing > fine aerosols and that technology also has industrial uses?**** > > ** ** > > I would like to see somebody try to come up with a clear scope of what > would be unpatentable in this domain. My feeling is that there is no clear > scope around which a consensus can form, unless that scope is extremely > limited.**** > > ** ** > > The same definitional problem plagues efforts to ban "geoengineering > experiments".**** > > ** ** > > Trying to ban things depending on whether they do or do not comprise > examples of "solar radiation technology" or "geoengineering" is likely to > produce a hopelessly twisted morass that will benefit no-one but the > lawyers.**** > > ** ** > > These are vague terms that different people use to refer to different > things. Let's define what we want to proscribe or have in the public domain > without resorting to the use of words for which there is no consensus > definition.**** > > ** ** > > I challenge members of this group to come up with definitions of "SRM > experiment" or "SRM technology" that could be used to make determinations > in a court of law.**** > > ** ** > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Ken Caldeira < > kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> wrote:**** > > A key difference is the ability of a small number of actors to make a big > difference. > > Many think that a primary risk with SRM is a small number of rogue actors > acting without a broad consensus.**** > > ** ** > > With emissions reduction and most forms of CO2 removal from the > atmosphere, the main concern is that nobody is acting sufficiently. **** > > ** ** > > Direct Air Capture does not present a significant "rogue actor risk".**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Rau, Greg <r...@llnl.gov> wrote:**** > > Should/could this logic extend to CDR? Why (not)? - Greg > > Researchers warn that technology that could stop global warming must stay > out of private hands > Anne C. Mulkern, E&E reporter > Published: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 > LAGUNA NIGUEL, Calif. -- Researchers working on a technology they say > could stop global warming want the government to keep it out of private > hands, a lead investigator said this week. > > David Keith, a Harvard University professor and an adviser on energy to > Microsoft founder Bill Gates, said he and his colleagues are researching > whether the federal government could ban patents in the field of solar > radiation. > > The technology, also known as geoengineering, involves a kind of > manipulation of the climate. Shooting sulfur -- a reflective material -- > into the stratosphere could compensate for the warming effect of carbon > dioxide and cool the planet, Keith said. > > It could be very effective but also has the potential to provoke conflict > between nations, Keith said. > > "This is technology that allows any country to affect the whole climate in > gigantic ways, which has literally potential to lead to wars," Keith said. > "It has this sort of giant and frightening leverage." > > Keith spoke about the technology and his work on climate and energy Monday > at Fortune magazine's Brainstorm Green conference. The Harvard professor of > applied physics and public policy runs the philanthropic Fund for > Innovative Energy and Climate Research. > > Gates began funding that group out of his personal wealth after meeting > with Keith and other advisers on climate. The fund, which has spent $4.6 > million since 2007, is bankrolling the research into solar radiation. > > Keith began studying solar radiation about 20 years ago, "when no one else > was working on it," he said. Now others are investigating it, "the taboo > has been broken and there's suddenly a fair amount of research happening > and people are beginning to think more seriously about it." > > Could the government ban patents? > > With people talking about it more openly, some researchers believe it's > time to make sure precautions are taken to prevent international conflict. > Some of his colleagues last week traveled to Washington, D.C., where they > discussed whether the U.S. Patent Office could ban patents on the > technology, Keith said. > > "We think it's very dangerous for these solar radiation technologies, it's > dangerous to have it be privatized," Keith said. "The core technologies > need to be public domain." > > Those familiar with patent rules, he said, described it as mostly > uncharted territory. "There's not much legal precedent," Keith said. > "Nuclear weapons are a partial precedent." The United States could not ban > patents in other countries but has influence, he explained. > > "Patents are mostly symbolic in this area anyways," he said. "The issue is > to try and find ways to lower potential tensions between countries around > these technologies by sending signals that it's going to be as transparent > as possible." > > In addition to potentially stoking international political problems, the > technology carries other risks. The particles could hold the Earth's > temperatures constant, Keith said, but that has side effects. > > "If you keep increasing the amount of carbon dioxide, and you keep also > increasing the amount of sulfur in the stratosphere, you can hold the > surface temperature constant," Keith said. "All sorts of other things begin > to go more and more wrong as you have more and more CO2 in the atmosphere. > > "So this is not a perfect substitute," Keith said, "but it might be a very > effective way to reduce risk over the next half-century." > > The work on solar radiation is one part of energy research Keith is > involved in. He also runs a startup called Carbon Engineering, which is > trying to build the hardware to capture carbon out of the air. The company > has received about $3.5 million from Gates and has spent about $6 million > total. > > Lack of a broad social consensus > > At the conference, where many are talking about innovations, Keith warned > that those won't be enough on their own to stop climate change from > becoming a severe problem. > > "No technical fix solves this problem without some sort of broad, social > consensus that the problem is worth solving," Keith said. "I don't think > we're there yet. > > "It's not a question of if the politicians are screwing up," he added. > "Yes, they are, but really, we have not convinced enough of our fellow > citizens that they really should take this problem seriously." > > That involves getting people to think about their great-grandchildren as > well as people in other countries, he said. > > Keith also spoke critically about what the country has done so far on > climate. People are involved in symbolic actions instead of meaningful > ones, he said, like focusing on producing better plastic instead of looking > at the really big sources of carbon emissions, like airplane travel. > > In the United States, about $260 billion in public and private dollars was > spent last year on clean energy, which is about 0.4 percent of gross > domestic product, Keith said. With that kind of spending, "you should > expect to really see the brakes go on" greenhouse gas levels. > > "Except emissions were up 7 percent in 2010 and almost certainly more last > year," Keith said. > > That means either that the view that cutting emissions should be easy is > wrong, or that the way the money has been spent is not effective, he said, > "or both." > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.**** > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > -- *Michael Hayes* *360-708-4976* http://www.voglerlake.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
