A price for ideas - fair?

The United Nations’ first draft of a new treaty to stem global warming suggests ways for countries to stem global warming also by sharing clean-energy technology. Richer nations were urged to aid developing economies in adapting to effects of rising temperatures. The text will now be refined by 192 countries in negotiations to forge a new deal.

As has been noted in our blog earlier, technology transfer has not been happening at the desired pace and between the desired parties. A large portion of it has been between developed nations.

Is there a reluctance to part with technology? Is it linked to the price of innovation? An interesting debate in the west today is on the same topic.

The United States Chamber of Commerce is expressing growing concern that moves to spread new energy technologies to developing countries could erode the intellectual property rights that have driven commercial efforts to innovate for generations.

The group and representatives of General Electric, Microsoft and Sunrise Solar gathered in Washington to launch the Innovation, Development & Employment Alliance, or I.D.E.A. The initiative is aimed at pressing Congress and the Obama administration to ensure that global climate-treaty talks don’t weaken protections on who can profit from new technologies that provide abundant energy without abundant pollution.

This issue came up in a recent question-and-answer session by Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, in which he proposed that — at least on vital large-scale technologies like systems for capturing and storing carbon dioxide — intellectual property rights issues might best be dropped to foster international cooperation.

That didn’t go over well at the time with a top official from General Electric.

Should profits come first, or the larger benefit to the planet? Will innovation happen only if there is assured incentive?

Charging licence fees would bring in the profits for the developer but can the poor nations afford do? The better choice to them will seem to be that of using the existing technology and keep polluting.

Is this debate a typical reflection of the growth-profit-motive vision of capitalism that expects rewards for contributions to society? Is there a need to focus on the moral compass in the issue of global warming where the west cannot deny its role as the main cause?

Can the developing nations arm-twist technology and economic aid out of the rich world?