In the year In January 2021, newly inaugurated President Joe Biden signed Executive Order (EO) 14008. If you missed it, don’t worry. Most of the news coverage covered the events earlier in the month, and this executive action passed with relatively little fanfare, despite its major impact on the climate technology community.
Essentially, EO 14008 puts efforts to mitigate climate change high on the federal government’s priority list. One way this was revealed was the US Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) announcement in June of an exciting new program, the Climate Change Mitigation Pilot Program (the USPTO is not known for being clever with words). Henceforth, this program will be known as CCMPP for short.
The CCMPP is designed to “accelerate patent applications for climate-positive innovations that reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” according to the official announcement. For the pilot to increase the production and distribution of climate technology, for potential funders, obtaining a US patent would increase the technology’s viability, protect the value of intellectual property, and challenge investors for their stake.
A patent gives the inventor exclusive intellectual property rights. In the capitalist system, the idea and practicality of patents makes sense. Profits derived directly from the use of the invention go exclusively to the owner. Even President Abraham Lincoln once said, “The patent system added the fuel of ambition to the fire of genius.
Therefore, if a given technology meets the essential requirements of the CCMPP, it will bypass the average wait of 18 months to obtain a patent. Additionally, the application fee has been waived.
But what if this pilot did just as much — or more — harm than good?
Lincoln didn’t think about climate change
When an innovation such as a hypothetical GHG emission reduction technology serves the public good and can influence the course of the current climate crisis, the implications of monopoly ownership become insidious given the climate’s life-or-death risks. Crisis.
Aidan Hollis, a professor of economics at the University of Calgary, described the negative impact of climate technology patents on holding well in a recent Grist op-ed. Citing a new technology that melts aluminum without producing carbon dioxide, Hollis describes the benefits the method brings to wealthy aluminum producers and countries that can afford to license the machinery. However, Hollis continued, many developed countries and manufacturers have to wait 20 years for patents to expire and the technology to enter the public domain, but the world cannot wait that long to make discoveries that will help save our planet. “
The patent system added fuel of interest to the fire of genius.
And the climate technology patent woes are unfolding. At a time when communities around the world are acutely and painfully feeling the effects of climate change, protecting the rights of a potentially life-changing technology raises moral and ethical dilemmas. Should one person (or a public board) be allowed absolute power and distributor control of technology? Furthermore, as the timetable for ending global warming by 2030 is getting shorter by the hour, should patenting any technology that aids this goal even be allowed?
In terms of accessibility, does the concept of climate technology patents reinforce the notion that the rich will survive the climate crisis and emerge on the other side, while the poor will bear the brunt of extreme weather and commodity shortages? Conversely, should the individuals who create the technology be expected to shoulder the burden of solving the climate crisis without being compensated for their efforts?
And who exactly is the patent program intended for? Because of the imprecise language in the pilot program’s “qualifications” section, a question immediately comes to mind: Can an auxiliary GHG generating technology qualify for the expedited application process offered in the CCMPP?
An example. If Company X develops a way to cool homes without releasing HCFCs, can Company X apply for an expedited patent through the CCMPP, even though the GHG emission reduction effects are integral to the machine’s primary purpose? It makes sense to allow such applications to continue.
However, because the language is not clear, applicants who object to the ancillary effect can easily state that they are using the pilot program to further their own economic interests. This proposal is supported by one of the CCMPP’s vague application requirements: “The applicant believes that accelerated patent examination will have a positive impact on climate.” Much compliance is in the definition of “good faith.”
Another example. Company X has removed toxic HCFCs from its products, but the company’s real purpose is to cool buildings and sell refrigeration units, not to reduce GHG emissions and have a positive impact on the climate. CCMPP may be seen as a faster route to market for Company X, giving it an unfair economic advantage.
A high-paying injection of the executive branch
The Biden administration aims to address the historic precedent of unequal access. The White House created the Justice 40 Initiative, promising that 40 percent “of the overall benefits of certain federal investments will flow to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized, underserved, and overburdened by pollution.”
In the year With the timetable for ending global warming by 2030 shrinking by the hour, should patenting any technology that helps this goal even be allowed?
Michelle Moore, CEO of Groundswell and Senior Advisor in the Obama Administration’s White House Office of Management and Budget, spoke to GreenBiz about the relationship between this initiative and the CCMPP. Moore said, “The USPTO’s program to accelerate the patenting of climate mitigation technologies benefits scientists, researchers, inventors, and entrepreneurs. [and] Historically underrepresented creators… and that really helps realize the promise of building the creative wealth that historical IRA investing is unlocking.
The Justice 40 program and the CCMPP got their start as a result of EO 14008, memorably linking the effectiveness of the former to the benefit of the latter.
And the CCMPP is moving forward. As of last week, 71 applicants were submitted and 28 were accepted. CCMPP will only allow 1,000 applications to proceed until June 5.
Fortunately, the federal bureaucracy can help stimulate the climate technology sector while increasing universal access. As with all government initiatives, only time will tell the true success or failure of the program.
