>From an inventors point of view, 1) What is the intellectual property ie. *legal * distinction between regional weather modification and geoengineering?
2) The declaration of one form of environmental modification being intentional and another being non-intentional has no ethical/legal relevance if there is 'reasonable knowability' of the effects of the action. Thus, should non-intentional SRM methods, such as FF use be subject to patent laws and/or other social restrictions? 3) The US standard for patentability is reduced to 3 basic concepts. *(A) New:* What about SRM is new? At this point of understanding....not much. * (B) Nonobvious:* What about SRM is not obvious to someone normally schooled in the prior art? At this point in our understanding of the 'prior art'.....not much. *(C) Useful:* In the case of GE, is that not largely an issue of policy as opposed to patentable technology? One last thought on patent restrictions for SRM and GE in general. *There is no global/universal patent and/or means of enforcement. * ** The need for global cooperation on the GE issue in general and the different technical forms of such will most likely be in the area of international policy and not that of patent rights. Consider that, under current US patent laws, a fringe group or individual can (at least) apply for a GE related patent for the sole purpose of keeping that technology from being used as a form of GE. *They do not need to be the inventor*, just the first to file an application. A few thousand dollars in application fees could materially influence the overall GE issue....one way or the other. (Side Note) The patenting of a SRM related concept by someone other than the recognized 'origionator/inventor' has already happened (Benford/diatomaceous earth). Best, Michael * * * * On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Ken Caldeira < kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> wrote: > 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. > -- *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.
