Climate Change Bill Includes IP Protections

moogsynth writes "Buried in section 329 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (H.R. 2410), voted in recently, are measures to oppose any global climate change treaty that weakens the IP rights in the green tech of American companies. Peter Zura's patent blog notes that 'the vote comes in anticipation of the upcoming negotiations in December as part of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. ... Previously, there was sufficient chatter in international circles on compulsory licenses, IP seizures, and the outright abolition of patents on low-carbon technology, that Congress felt it necessary to clarify the US's IP position up front.'"

Comments

I'm so sick of the American Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't a bill about something be only about something?

"We will bone you hard but we will give you a reach-around..."

Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress

[Snaller]

As banana republic there are certain things which must be done. This is one of them.

Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Unfortunately, that is a messy one. It is easy to suggest(and very likely desireable) that bills not include bundling to sneak things through. However, since it is strategically desirable to do so in many cases, you would actually have to prohibit the practice to keep it from happening. Trying to draft a workable definition of "about something, and only about something" that excludes abuses without excluding legitimate conduct, and doesn't rely on "good faith"(a commodity known to be in short supply near most legislative chambers) is virtually impossible.

In a case like this, it would be trivial to argue that, since technology is almost certainly a component of any viable response to climate change, and since IP is arguably connected with technological development, IP protection is arguably related. If you are subtle enough, you could easily slip in broad enough wording that your climate change bill has ramifications for all kinds of IP, while ostensibly remaining "on topic".

It might be possible, and would certainly be desirable, to curb the worst abuses; but there is essentially no way to attack the (large) grey area.

Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress

[Darkness404]

What really needs to happen is a line-item veto type thing for congress. Where they can choose to support only part of legislation, if that part passes, the bill passes, if that part fails, that part of the bill fails.

Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress

[FiloEleven]

A topical anonymous first post is a rare occurrence.

The American Congress looks out for the political class (i.e. themselves) and for whoever lines their pockets. This is very hard to change.

Congress's preferred method for doing so is to attach unrelated unpopular measures to popular multi-hundred page bills. I don't believe that this clause is such a case, but it happens often enough and there are probably other unsavory tidbits hidden within this bill.

The only way Congress will stop such a practice is if we force them to. To that end, DownsizeDC has drawn up the One Subject at a Time Act. This bill would force Congress to bring every measure to a vote instead of burying them inside some behemoth legislation named "Rekindle The American Dream Act of 2009."

Public pressure works: see for example the 224 co-sponsors (over half the House) of The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, which you may not have even heard of yet. But the Campaign for Liberty organized a call-in campaign that has been running for a month, maybe a little longer. C4L has around 100,000 members, easily less than a thousandth of the population, and they've already got half the house behind their bill. The phone call is the most effective means of public pressure. OSTA will law by this time next year or sooner if you call your congressmen and get four friends to do the same.

OSTA is a bitter pill for Congress to swallow, yet you'll be hard pressed to find 10 average Americans against its principles. If just a hundredth of those who say "it sounds like a good idea" were to actually call and ask their congressmen to support it, the congressmen would have no choice.

Seriously. Call. Slashdot 'em.

Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress

[realmolo]

The problem with line-item veto, or any kind of system that tries to minimize the practice of "sneaking things into" a bill, is that the party in power (majority party) can simply choose to remove any part of the bill they don't like, or ADD whatever they want to any bill, confident that they will be able to pass it.

Basically, you have to be careful about any kind of legislative system that does to much to increase the power of the majority. The current system makes sure that EVERY bill is a compromise on multiple issues. Yeah, that means that most bills have all kinds of ridiculous things attached that we could probably live without, but it some of those attachments are GOOD, but would never manage to get passed if they weren't part of some larger bill with wide support.

Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress

[sumdumass]

You also have the problem of congress critters actually reading the bills they vote on.

Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress

[icebike]

Except that line item vetoes, as we know them, apply only to appropriations bills, allowing the executive to strike specific expenditures.

No one has proposed a line item veto allowing the editing out of specific words or phrases other than appropriations. ,

The kind of line item you imagine might allow the executive branch to change the meaning of a law which disallowed a specific act/event into one that specifically required that same act/event.

So, be careful what you wish for.

Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress

[demachina]

"see for example the 224 co-sponsors (over half the House) of The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009"

That is a pretty easy bill to garner widespread support. After the last year of shenanigans out of the Fed and Treasury I think just about everyone is realizing fiat currencies are bad, as is letting a hand full of people who don't really answer to anyone control it.

A week or so ago a couple Japanese nationals were caught in Italy trying to smuggle what appear to be $135 billion in U.S. Treasury bearer bonds in to Switzerland, in $500 million and $1 billion denominations. Either Japan was trying to quietly dump their vast T-bill holdings in Switzerland because they don't trust the U.S any more and didn't want to be too conspicuous about it, or there are some other shenanigans going on. If they are genuine Italy may have erased a big bunch of their deficit thanks to a customs checkpoint who found the false bottom in a suitcase.

There are strong suspicions Bernanke and Paulson intentionally froze up the credit markets to coerce $700 billion out of Congress and transfer to Wall Street. The hundred plus billion that went to AIG went in one door and out the other to a number of large firms who desperately needed payoffs on their credit default swaps that AIG couldn't pay. Paulson's old firm Goldman Sachs got billions of dollars with no strings attached from U.S. tax payers through AIG, and chances of AIG paying it back are slim. The firms who had credit default swaps through AIG on their toxic mortgages came out smelling like a rose thanks to the U.S. tax payers and Paulson pulling strings to protect his old firm.

There are also rumors the Fed has been using their printing press to intervene in the stock market at the end of the day to manufacture the unusual rally of recent months. One sure way to break the psychology of a depression is to make the stock market always go up. Unfortunately doing it by printing funny money makes the entire U.S. economy a sham.

Its not even a rumor, its a fact Bernanke has been using the Fed to print money to buy U.S. treasury bills to prop up the massive U.S. government debt and to try to keep treasury and mortgage rates down. That stinks no matter how you look at it, the U.S. fed printing money to bankroll U.S. government debt, and since T-bill rates are spiking lately it doesn't seem to have even worked.

Everyone thinks its a wacko's rant but fiat currencies really are inherently dangerous. They are fine when responsibly managed and there is no stress, but as soon as a crisis develops and irresponsible managers start printing money to get out of it, they can wipe out people's life savings in no time through hyperinflation.

Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress

[EvilAlphonso]

Either Japan was trying to quietly dump their vast T-bill holdings in Switzerland because they don't trust the U.S any more

It would be hard to blame them for that. If you look at the numbers from the point of view of a lender, there's a snowball in hell chance of the US repaying its foreign held debt. Without a deus ex machina, the interest on the existing debt will be the most expensive part of the US budget in a couple of years... from that point on, the debt will increase steadily without any need for deficit spending.

Re:I'm so sick of the American Congress

[steelfood]

GP isn't so much proposing a line item veto, as a line item vote. Veto powers apply to the executive, but GP is talking about the legislative process.

GP wants legislators to be able to vote on specific parts of a bill, and only the parts that pass would continue to the next step in the process.

Re:America is full of itself

[thedonger]

Not any more. The climate may have been changing for the last 5 billion years, but the buck stops here! As a nation we officially oppose any changes in the climate. We are one people for one season, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all! Mostly.

Re:America is full of itself

[hedwards]

But, I don't want summer, can't we go back to worrying about nuclear winter?

Re:America is full of itself

[DigiShaman]

America seriously has attitude problems...

Because we would be the nation most punished by the Kyoto. Duh!

America is many things. Being sadomasicistic isn't one of them.

Re:America is full of itself

[thedonger]

I miss those days. Commies were red, beer was cold, and homosexuals were flaming! These days I work with two guys from former eastern block countries, some beer is supposed to be served less-than-ice-cold, and everyone is gay. Where is W.O.P.R. and a game of thermonuclear war when you need it? Hell, the government probably hosts it on EC3...

Re:Karma whoring for science

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, a 404 page. That's awesome.

I think you meant http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

Re:America is full of itself

[Martin Blank]

Search "Kyoto Protocol" in wikipedia and see what you get, a Map with all countries green except for the US.

That's the "signed and ratified" map, not the map of countries which are going to make their goals. The same article includes a chart showing that a significant portion of the industrialized nations not only failed to reduce their CO2 output from 1992 to 2004, but increased it dramatically. Most of the nations increased their emissions to at least a small degree. Of the nations listed, only Denmark, Germany, and the UK unambiguously reduced their emissions, and Australia and Norway are only included as decreasing when land use and forestry are taken into account.

I would suggest that it's not only the United States that is having problems with the protocol.

It's a token law.

[tjstork]

Pretty much the Congress is covering its rear over what will likely be a huge fight over the economic cost of global warming compliance. Let's be real, it's going to be expensive and its going to mean a dramatic reduction in our standard of living, and so everyone is looking to say they were against it, right up until they vote for it.

Bottom line is, a Treaty is the Law of the Land and it trumps other law. In the pantheon of things, a Treaty ranks just below the Constitution and below that is other law. Shrewd critics, on both sides of the aisle, have long noted that the Treaty is a pretty good way to subvert the Constitution, because it only needs the Senate to approve, not the house, and a treaty carries so much force.

Re:It's a token law.

[MobyDisk]

You should read this month's Scientific American cover story "The Top 10 myths about Sustainability", which discusses why the sustainable approaches do not lower the standard of living.

This is a point that always seemed obvious to me: investing in technology never lowers anyone's standard of living. The only reason it seems otherwise is because the proponents of such arguments ignore things like choking on car exhaust in their standard of living calculations, but make sure to point out that they will have to downgrade to a 43" TV from a 52" to save power. Nevermind the fact that it pays off the long term.

Re:It's a token law.

[tjstork]

You should read this month's Scientific American cover story "The Top 10 myths about Sustainability", which discusses why the sustainable approaches do not lower the standard of living.

Scientific American is wrong and by the end of this summer I'll have an open source computer model that explains why. The problem is increased efficiency demands increased complexity. This complexity implies that that the cost increase of a more efficient system is actually exponential, not linear, such that, going from 10% efficient to 50% efficient is pretty cheap, but it gets way more expensive after that.

This raises the price of the good, which in turn, causes some people to stop buying that product. Because there are less purchasers, while the complexity driven capital cost remains the same, the unit cost goes up. So, more people drop off, and the cost goes further up. Eventually, the good cannot be produced at all.

Right now, you see this in Health Care in the USA. Everyone can blame it on the lawyers or the capitalists but really a lot of it is just sheer complexity of care. Complexity drives the cost up, and a ton of people drop out of the system, driving costs up more for everyone else. For health care, the only way out is rationing of some sort, coupled with mandates to keep everyone in the system, but that doesn't really control costs as much as it does stave off the doom of complexity for a bit longer.

We'll see the same, though, as we exhaust our resources of any kind. You might have more complex systems that can use them more efficiently, but they will get so expensive that what will happen is that the resource will not get used at all. A drop in the standard of living is inevitable.

Re:It's a token law.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with health care in the US is the doctors make sure more people cannot become doctors, allowing them to charge as they please.

Specialists especially.

the US has too few doctors per capita, yet good candidates are turned down by schools, as the school has reached its AMA quota

Re:It's a token law.

[Zordak]

Actually, the GP is nearly on target. A treaty has the force of a statute, and can permit the President, with the Senate's approval, to do things that could not be done by the House and Senate together with the President's approval (via statute). I forget the case (sorry, out of law school, so no more free Westlaw access), but Justice Holmes held pretty clearly that treaties are not bound by the same "Congress shall nots" that limit statutes. When the Rhenquist Court started showing signs of actually giving the Commerce Clause some meaning other than "Congress can do whatever it feels like," the Greens got nervous that they wouldn't be able to get their environmental legislation approved (since Article 1 Section 8 does not give Congress the power to regulate the environment), and started advocating that treaties were the way to go, since they are not limited by Art. 1 Sect. 8 and the 10th Amendment.

As an interesting exercise, does this mean that the President, via treaties, could do things like limit freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion, since the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law ..." without mentioning treaties? It may sound far fetched, but I'm not aware of any case that has held the contrary, which would leave us with just Justice Holmes' analysis.

Re:It's a token law.

[drago177]

So I may be missing something, but it sounds like you're saying that if all the systems only got 50% more efficient, and everyone was forced to join, sustainability is actually possible without destroying demand?

I am a numbers guy, and I haven't seen them, so you may be right - we might have a lower standard of living here in the US. But if we don't curb global warming, I see huge refugee camps forming, where people starve to death and start wars (and the defense dept agrees). So be sure to include those factors in your program: the # of dead parents and starving children. And come to think of it, if New Orleans refugees in Texas were any indication, the US will not be a happy place either, although they'll probably be alive and fed well.

I'm not trying to troll, but its how I feel and can't figure out a less inflammatory way of sayin it. Please try to extract the logic part w/out the emotion :)

Re:It's a token law.

[Max Littlemore]

From my personal experience, a low emissions lifestyle can make for a much higher standard of living than a high emissions one. Good housing design is a good start, using passive solar desing techniques to make comfortable living spaces which don't require as much fuel.

When I was in my teens I lived on the verge of a rainforest with a small generator powered by the creek which fed us and about 10 other houses. We had stereo, TV, lighting and a computer (Amstrad CPC 464 it was), all of those cons, and a beautiful setting to boot. My standard of living was much higher than any I have experienced since.

Often higher efficiency can be achieved with lower complexity and a subtle shift of focus.

Scientific American is wrong and by the end of this summer I'll have an open source computer model that explains why.

Making statements like that silly. Your computer program modelling something within your narrow paradigm will be able prove absolutely that an article in a magazine is wrong? Give me a break.

You can make a model to explain just about any point you are trying to make but unless it takes into account the flies buzzing around the bullshit ~150 kms from where I am sitting, it will never be an accurate representation of reality and to assert that it is is pure arrogance.

Re:It's a token law.

[khallow]

The problem is increased efficiency demands increased complexity. This complexity implies that that the cost increase of a more efficient system is actually exponential, not linear, such that, going from 10% efficient to 50% efficient is pretty cheap, but it gets way more expensive after that.

Let me save you a summer. Your model utterly fails when you apply it to integrated circuits.

Re:It's a token law.

[Anonymous Coward]

what a crock of shit... you're blaming US health care costs on complexity? Take a look at :

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person

The US spends more on health care than anyone, yet universal access to health care is pathetic. Complexity has nothing to do with it, but having middle-men (insurers etc) whose primary goal is to make billion dollar profits is the cause. In other countries, certain things (eg healthcare) are regarded as a right everyone has (akin to freedom of speech in the US - which conveniently costs nothing), yet in the US free healthcare is considered some kind of radical socialist ideal not fit for a free market economy.

This extends not only to health car but other sectors. As long as there are people making money (big money) out of the status quo, there's always going to be huge resistance to any change.

Increasing efficiency with a specific technology may be exponential (eg increasing efficiency of combustion engines, or even bicycles) but totally ignores new breakthroughs.
Random example - telescopes: a limit was reached using single mirrors. They displayed a Similar exponential increase in weight, construction costs, time and resources for a linear gain in performance. But new tech and methods and research led to developments such as the Kek telescopes (segmented mirrors) with orders of magnitude more performance, using a fraction of the previous materials/effort).

Having said that, if ever they manage this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power - if they finally manage that.... all bets are off :)

 

Re:It's a token law.

[sumdumass]

This is something that is somewhat contested still. I have read his argument/opinion and don't agree with it. I will go on to explain why later but,

The funny thing here is that congress's power to do anything because of the commerce clause was granted by the supreme court after it already ruled the programs unconstitutional. That's somewhat important because when the Rhenquist Court started showing signs of actually giving the Commerce Clause some meaning, they were actually reverting that movement away from the unconstitutional ways. Now what funny or interesting about this is that a future court could view the subversion of the constitution as a negative and reverse this previous ruling with treaties. So at best, it's possible that given the right treaty, it could be negated within a matter of time.

Of course that would depend on whether the supreme court interpreted the constitution or thought of it as a living document and decided that "freedom of speech" as you mentioned, was only reletive to what society thought at that time.

Now, here is my objections to his ruling and it happens to be most of the controversy surrounding it that others have expressed. Article VI of the constitution says "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;". (it actually says more but this is what we need to work with.

Here is says that all treaties made, and which shall be made, under the authority of the united states. Two problems with the anything goes in treaties argument. First is that both congress and the president are sworn to uphold and protect the constitution. The president is sworn with "will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." but congress has no leniency (also, congress's oath is not mentioned in the constitution.) So it would seem that either by constitution or congressional rules, that the treaty would have to be in line with the constitution in the first place or they aren't allowed to adopt it. However, when we look at the supremacy clause, it makes a distinction between treaties already made and treaties that will(shall) be made. It says made under the authority of the united states.

To me, and quite a few others, this should mean that the president nor congress have the power to only create treaties within the limits of the constitution because the participants authority is only derived from the constitution which prohibits prohibits certain actions and only allows others. To this extent, It is where I disagree with the Holmes opinion. In it, he says "The language of the Constitution as to the supremacy of treaties being general, the question before us is narrowed to an inquiry into the ground upon which the present supposed exception is placed." he then goes on to talk about the living document in how we can't rely on what the framers meant 100 years ago and need to breath our own experiences into it. I don't buy the living document idea as not only could it be used to expand the powers of congress, it could also be used to allow indefinite detention of terror suspects, warrant-less wire taps or searches, and so on. As soon as we break away from the intentions of the founders, we are more or less making crap up as we go. The constitution allows for changes and it should be the only way it can be changed (as long as the amendment is constitutional).

Anyways, a constitutional court with a strict constitutional interpretation would most likely reverse the idea of a treaty trumping the constitution.

Re:It's a token law.

[toQDuj]

Health care: see Denmark, or even Cuba!
Efficiency: Households in Denmark use 1/2 the amount of energy as those in the US. And we're even much further north than f.ex. NY.:
Denmark: 160.98 GJ/year
US: 327.38 GJ/year
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita

Don't tell me you _really_ need all that energy. A few cheap slabs of isolation in your houses will reduce the energy use dramatically, without much increased complexity. The Danes did it with houses dating (mostly) from the turn of the previous century, and are living in luxury with good health care. The US (or populated parts of it) must be able to achieve similar goals.

B.

Re:It's a token law.

[ibbey]

Economics 101 assumes that the two sides of the bargain are on relatively equal footing. If one side of the bargain has an unfair advantage, then economics 101 no longer applies. That is why there are laws against insider trading in the US.

That's also why econ 101 doesn't apply to health insurance. Even if you get rid of things like pre-existing condition limits, the consumer will never be able to adequately judge which health insurance provider is best for them any more than they were able to judge the relative risks/rewards of an ARM vs. a fixed rate mortgage. The market is just to complicated and specialized for even a well educated consumer to make a decision, so they are forced to rely on a possibly unscrupulous insurance broker, or maybe just throw a dart at a board to choose the "best" health care plan for them. Adding more insurance providers would only make a difficult situation even worse, while minimizing the one benefit that the big insurance providers have: economies of scale.

this article from this month's New Yorker looks at the city with the most expensive health care in the US (almost double the national average). It looks at quality of care, success rates and a variety of other factors, yet the only place where McAllen, TX is above average is in cost. So it asks where all that extra money goes. Interestingly, while it's not really accurate to say that competition is the cause of the increased costs, it is fair to say that capitalism is.

The article is very definitely worth reading. It brings up several key issues that I have not heard addressed in the health care debate previously. It doesn't propose a solution to the funding issue (single payer, public option, or stick with private insurers), but it does propose some simple fixes that will go a long way to reducing health care expenses regardless of which system we end up with. There's no single magic bullet that will fix the health care crsis in America, but the smarter care suggested by the article will do a lot more than just adding more doctors or insurers.

Re:It's a token law.

[tjstork]

My standard of living was much higher than any I have experienced since.

Then, why don't you live there now? Are you sure you are not confusing a fond memory of youth in an exotic and beautiful setting with the grief of being older in a more "civilized" world?

You can make a model to explain just about any point

You are absolutely right, but what I'm looking for.

On my web site I have a simple climate calculator in Javascript for calculating the cost of CO2 reductions. It has an exponential term that users can enter the increasing cost of a good due to its increasing complexity. I have another exponential term relating to the cost of fossil fuel energy, which, can also rise due to resource exhaustion related to population growth. I subtract the two and that tells me whether or not the savings is break even or not. In this way we can say whether or not there is a return on the investment in efficiency, and on there I spit out a number that it will cost some x amount of trillions of dollars to drop the planetary CO2 enough to lower the temperature by so many degrees, and that, doing so will cause us to save so many (perhaps negative) dollars on energy.

But there's two holes in this model. First, if we did not invest more in energy efficiency, and the price of energy actually dropped, then, we would invest that money somewhere else and accrue those benefits. That's one way our standard of living is reduced. We won't be spending on curing cancer or building spaceships. We'll be buying better light bulbs.

Secondly, and most importantly, is the effect of turning a rental type cost in energy purchases into a capital outlay. In order to save energy, you have to make some capital investment. Like, I could save money over several years by putting in new light bulbs, but, that's a capital investment. At some point, I may just choose, and there will be some percentage of people that choose, to just have less lights. That too, is a reduction in the standard of living, and what's the economic impact of that?

Ultimately, of course, the proof of the model will be in its validation. What I'll be looking to do is ultimately predict different kinds of consumer responses to all of this energy changes and bans and increased costs, because, that's valuable to know for marketing and also for picking stocks.

Re:It's a token law.

[khallow]

I am a numbers guy, and I haven't seen them, so you may be right - we might have a lower standard of living here in the US. But if we don't curb global warming, I see huge refugee camps forming, where people starve to death and start wars (and the defense dept agrees). So be sure to include those factors in your program: the # of dead parents and starving children. And come to think of it, if New Orleans refugees in Texas were any indication, the US will not be a happy place either, although they'll probably be alive and fed well.

Why include these factors? Human life doesn't have equivalent value everywhere. As I see it, even in the absence of any global warming, there's a strong likelihood for massive human die-offs. Further the burden of these problems is concentrated on the people who are most causing the problem. Namely, high population growth regions coupled with weak food and legal infrastructure.

Also, Bush is gone. We don't need to exaggerate the effects of hurricane Katrina any more.

Re:It's a token law.

[icebrain]

In other countries, certain things (eg healthcare) are regarded as a right everyone has (akin to freedom of speech in the US - which conveniently costs nothing),

There's a fundamental difference between those two examples.

Negative rights, like freedom of speech and freedom from unreasonable search, are protections of things you already have. They are things which are truly free--as you point out, it costs me nothing to speak my mind--and you can exercise them at any time, even if nobody else is around.

Positive rights, like the "right to health care" or the "right to an education" are different. They are not free. In order for you to have your "right" to health care, someobdy else must provide it for you--and claiming it's a "right" implies that you can force them to provide that service to you. Also remember that someone else has to pay for that health care; does that give you the right to take that money from them by force, even if they don't want to pay?

Re:America is full of itself

[malchus842]

When the rules apply equally to all countries, no problem. When China and India get a pass and the US would get economy destroying limits, well, then it's a major problem.

I have news for you - the US is a drop in the bucket compared to China and India.

Kyoto is broken.

Whats wrong with that?

[spyder-implee]

I'm generally against IP, but if this helps make green power technology more profitable it's really not that bad is it?

Re:Whats wrong with that?

[SanguineV]

Imagine your (parents') house has a small electrical fire threatening to burn it down. The fire brigade will licence you a fire extinguisher for twice the cost of the house. Your options are:
- a house with a small scorched area and be bankrupted
- live in a burnt out foundation with your savings

Sounds like a great solution to making "green power technology more profitable it's really not that bad is it?"

(Yes I am ignoring insurance etc.)

Re:geo engineering

[Anonymous Coward]

If your actions don't negatively affect my health and well being in any significant way, you can do anything you want.

As soon as your behavior leaves your realm and affects mine, I'll try to be tolerant, but it gets bad I might need to defend myself.

Live and let live.

Re:America is full of itself

[znerk]

... a Map with all countries green except for the US.

... unless you're not color-blind, and notice the handful that are gray (indicating not only that they have not ratified it, but haven't even signed it). The U.S.A. seems to be the only country that has signed but not ratified it. I won't even go into how well most of the other "large nations" are doing at actually meeting the protocol.

In other words, thanks for the inflammatory comments, now get back under your bridge.

Re:America is full of itself

[Rakishi]

The US is the single largest carbon emissions producer in the world by a decent margin. China is second and India is far away in fifth place.

On a per capita basis it's even worse as the US produces five times as much co2 as China and sixteen times as much as India.

So no, it's only a drop in the bucket if your intelligence makes our previous president look like nobel prize winner.

Re:America is full of itself

[siddesu]

"Punished"? And I thought it was about "leadership" and "taking responsibility".

Re:America is full of itself

[tpgp]

Because we would be the nation most punished by the Kyoto. Duh!

You're also one of the nations most likely to be punished by climate change (although losing Florida is probably more reward than punishment).

A win for big Oil?

[MrKaos]

Considering that the oil companies own a lot of energy technology patents it's quite possible that this is a bad thing because they still control when that technology will be released and use those patents offensively for any one re-inventing a technology that is actually effective.

Unintentionally, this bill could be consolidating the oil companies control of the energy market because viable technologies are not being allowed to make it to market.

Re:A win for big Oil?

[MrKaos]

I'm probably lost here, but I'm confused why it is bad.

Because the patents that are owned by the oil companies can be used the same way software patents are being used, offensively, to block new innovations (or even old innovations) getting to market.

Re:America is full of itself

[Scamwise]

Someone obviously knows absolutely nothing about the CO2 emmissions of various countries.

Fair warning: this post will make you think.

[znerk]

I'm generally against IP, but if this helps make green power technology more profitable it's really not that bad is it?

I'm generally against giving up my personal freedoms, but if getting implanted with a chip that allows me to be tracked accurately to within 3 meters will help stop the terrorists it's really not that bad, is it?

Uhm. Yeah. It is. Pork in your bill is always bad, and the IP laws are screwy enough, kthxbai.

Oh, and another thing... start substituting the word "expensive" when you read "profitable". It makes no sense to me to vote ourselves an automatic 400% increase in price for "green power" technologies, especially if we're excluding any ideas on making "green power" more affordable (read "more available") simply because they come from another country, and/or might step on copyright/patent toes in this country. (Do you really think China gives a rat's ass about violating American laws? Ask NEC about the counterfeit factories (yes, plural; 18, to be precise) they found because someone RMA'd a DVD player that NEC didn't even make. The workers thought it was a legitimate operation, they had NEC's name and logo all over the building and the uniforms, not just the products. Here, have a link.)

(Off-topic rant) My take on IP: 7 years (with a one-time extension of the same duration) was reasonable; 150 years is not. Let the mouse go already, I want my public domain works.

--
Please read and think before you respond or moderate. Thank you.

Re:Fair warning: this post will make you think.

[MaskedSlacker]

It doesn't happen anyway. You're a fool if you think long-term IP monopolies foster innovation. What they foster is a legal industry that sucks millions out of actual productive uses of capital, thus lowering the overall standard of living.

America never would have become an industrial nation if we hadn't simply ignored British patent laws, exactly the way China is ignoring ours.

Re:America is full of itself

[icegreentea]

Yeah. I'm from Canada, and while I'm proud of my country, I wince everytime I read some halfassed newspaper editorial talking about how America has to act and ratify the Kyoto, like ever country ESPECIALLY CANADA *chest thump* has done, while ignoring that we've failed epicly. Suppose to have a 6% reduction, instead we have a 20% increase. Whoops. So now we're moving the goal posts.

Yeah, you guys have to get your act together (and we do too). But frankly, Kyoto at this point is a joke, even ignoring China and the US not signing. Shit sucks.

Re:America is full of itself

[Rocketship Underpant]

Even environmentalists who attended the conference hated the Kyoto treaty. It was based entirely on political concerns and wrangling rather than actual environmental data or facts.

Democrats are just looking out for the envionment

[Anonymous Coward]

...as long as their big corporate donors are protected.

And then somebody will tell you the Democrats really are different than the Republicans. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

Re:America is full of itself

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Why is "per person" the standard? If using birth control reduces greenhouse gas emissions, why should a country be penalized for doing so?

Re:America is full of itself

[Anonymous Coward]

here is the stats from 5 YEARS AGO
Over two years ago, China over took America. India is number 3 and will pass America in about 2 years. In terms of PER CAPITA, we are also down the list. In 2004, was our highest per capitia, and we were at #10. Since that time, we have gone down slightly, while many other nations have moved up and have surpasses us.
  And comparing China and india to America in terms of PER CAPITA is a joke. It is TOTAL pollution that matters.

The other issue that you forgot is that CURRENTLY China emits more TOTAL POLLUTION (ignoring CO2), then America has COMMULATIVELY. We NEVER allowed it to get anywhere near as bad as China has. Likewise, even india and Russia are major polluters in the world.

To balance this on the west's back is just plain wrong. The west MUST deal with this by encouraging all nations to think long term. To do this, we must impliment a tax on ALL CONSUMED GOODS BASED on CO2 emission and pollution that went into it. IOW, if something is consumed in Ill, and it was made in texas, than the amount of CO2 from its power plant, the trucks to transport it, and even the ingrediants that went into it should figure into it. OR, we can just say that Texas had ex amount of CO2 from there, and then apply a tax on it. Something from france which uses heavy nukes would have less tax due to power. OTH, China has LARGEST TOTAL AMOUNT OF CO2 and by far, the largest amount of pollution and should be hit the highest tax. This will encourage ALL major polluting countries to re-think how they are handling things. Hopefully EU will re-think kyoto which is proving to be WORTHLESS.

Re:America is full of itself

[MaskedSlacker]

No, but I can think of more than a few congressional cretins who would.

Re:America is full of itself

[MaskedSlacker]

No he's arguing that the only thing that matters is total global emissions, and that under the current Kyoto rules, any decrease in the US would be more than offset by the increases from larger outsourcing to China.

Maybe you're confused, but reducing carbon emissions isn't about being FAIR so that everyone gets to do just as much environmental damage as everyone else, it's about reducing carbon emissions.

Re:America is full of itself

[YouDoNotWantToKnow]

Yeah, ditching your SUV is like the most masochistic thing possible. Not.

Re:America is full of itself

[toQDuj]

True, but a bad start is better than not participating at all. At least it shows us (non-US) where you (US) stand. The annoying bit was that the treaty was heavily adapted that even America would join, then passed, and then mr new president decides it is not good for the industry (although Denmark has a thriving industry, thankyouverymuch). Really quite frustrating.

B.

Re:Sad?

[TheSync]

nyone have anecdotes for green technology IP that originates in the U.S.?

Efficient polymer solar cells UCLA

Angle-independent anti-reflective coating for solar cells RPI

Printed solar cells Semiprius

Concentrating photovoltaic technology Greenvolts

Shallow drilling geothermal GroundSource Geothermal

Re:America is full of itself

[TheSync]

ESPECIALLY CANADA *chest thump* has done, while ignoring that we've failed epicly. Suppose to have a 6% reduction, instead we have a 20% increase. Whoops. So now we're moving the goal posts.

And it is really sad because Canada has endless hydropower and invented the CANDU nuclear fission system!

This is a Monsanto rule.

[Hurricane78]

And it was totally obvious that this happened. Monsanto hat huge revolving doors with the government.
Seriously. Microsoft, the oil industry, the pharma industry, the media industry... in terms of the chance to fuck us all up, they are all complete jokes, compared to that company.

There was a very well-made reportage on the French-German TV channel arte, looking behind it in a serious manner:
English: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_OJcPKEYDE
German: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7781121501979693623
French: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8723985684378254371
Also available via BitTorrent.

Re:America is full of itself

[Kirth]

> Saying that signing the Kyoto is sadomasochistic is ridiculous. That would be like calling
> a 500 pound man who puts himself on a diet sadomasochistic.

Right. And it's not like we europeans have a lower standard of living, _despite_ of consuming only half the amount of oil, and producing half the amount of co2 per capita.

Re:America is full of itself

[Martin Blank]

It was signed by the Clinton administration, but never submitted to the Senate for ratification, because the Senate had already passed a resolution overwhelmingly against it. The Clinton administration didn't want the embarrassment of signing it and then having it shot down in flames by the Senate.