- Toronto
- Geoengineering, Climate Change, Global Governance, International Relations, Intellectual Property, Food Security and Insecurity, Global Catastrophic Risk, Anthropocene, Global cities, Complexity, and 15 moreClimate Change Adaptation And Mitigation Strategies, Climate Change Adaptation, Basic Income, Urban Planning, Arctic Governance, Artificial Intelligence, Emerging Technologies, Security Studies, Environmental Sustainability, Environmental Security, Climate Change and Food Security, Climate Change in Developing Countries, Climate Change and Its Impact on Food Security and Agriculture, Ecological Economics, and Limits to Growthedit
A number of commentators have expressed concern about the role of intellectual property rights (IPRs) in climate engineering (CE) research and governance. However, these concerns have often been couched in general terms, and diverge in... more
A number of commentators have expressed concern about the role of intellectual property rights (IPRs) in climate engineering (CE) research and governance. However, these concerns have often been couched in general terms, and diverge in the relative importance that they attach to the issue. Whether, how, and why IPRs might matter for the governance of CE activities has
yet to receive a comprehensive treatment; thus the policy and governance implications remain completely unclear.
To untangle the issue, this paper focuses on patents and trade secrets as the most relevant categories of intellectual property, and develops a framework within which to situate IP-related
concerns, specifically as related to direct air capture, ocean iron fertilization, and stratospheric aerosol spraying. The paper shows that there is no a priori “yes or no” answer to the question of whether IPRs are desirable and appropriate for “geoengineering.” Rather, the question of whether they ought to be encouraged or discouraged is highly conditional. We must first ask “What are the specific challenges that IP claims might pose for the technological domain in question?” Next, we must explicitly foreground normative concerns by asking, “Given the scale and distribution of
potential risks and benefits, what is the appropriateness of introducing private property rights?” Only after we have answered these first two questions can we reasonably ask “What is the best
way to incentivize research,” and determine whether IPRs should be recommended or discouraged. The paper concludes by calling for an enhanced research program among CE and IP scholars on the relationships between IPRs and CE research, development, and governance.
yet to receive a comprehensive treatment; thus the policy and governance implications remain completely unclear.
To untangle the issue, this paper focuses on patents and trade secrets as the most relevant categories of intellectual property, and develops a framework within which to situate IP-related
concerns, specifically as related to direct air capture, ocean iron fertilization, and stratospheric aerosol spraying. The paper shows that there is no a priori “yes or no” answer to the question of whether IPRs are desirable and appropriate for “geoengineering.” Rather, the question of whether they ought to be encouraged or discouraged is highly conditional. We must first ask “What are the specific challenges that IP claims might pose for the technological domain in question?” Next, we must explicitly foreground normative concerns by asking, “Given the scale and distribution of
potential risks and benefits, what is the appropriateness of introducing private property rights?” Only after we have answered these first two questions can we reasonably ask “What is the best
way to incentivize research,” and determine whether IPRs should be recommended or discouraged. The paper concludes by calling for an enhanced research program among CE and IP scholars on the relationships between IPRs and CE research, development, and governance.
