RSS

December 3, 2010

Salvador Santino F Regilme, University of Osnabrück, Germany, Gold Contributor (77)

Dear Jan,

Thanks for sharing your views. The tone of your article is somehow optimistic albeit very ‘techy’. Your idea on knowledge transfer and collective learning online sounds very novel and promising. However, its novelty could also be one of its serious shortcomings since it appears that there was apparently a lack of sufficient explanation that there is indeed a favorable socio-political climate that would indeed support such kind of online initiatives. Hence, feasibility issue is something that you want to look at.

Perhaps it would interesting for you to elaborate on the prospects of how your proposal could be happening in the near future? (considering that we need an urgent trans-Atlantic cooperative solutions – urgency is an issue; How do you foresee the impact of these online initiatives in the institutional policy decision-making table?)

Regarding the issue of democratic accountability: What are the normative justifications for promoting an online global community (which arguably be limited only to those with internet access?, will this lead to political marginalization of other key stakeholders who are not really that attuned to online technology)?

One may even argue that the usage of the internet is only limited to a select social class especially in the case of developing countries. Just think about how trans-Atlantic cooperation (which is indeed the focus of the entire workshop, in terms of political agency) should try to involve China and India as the top polluters in the world. How would this online initiative be feasible for millions of people who don’t have access in the internet? And assuming that everybody has and will indeed do sustainable environmental practices based on this initiative, how do you see the role of trans-Atlantic cooperation? What can you say about the role of the states in particular, where much of the political faith and democratic responsibility rest upon?

Thanks,
Santino

December 3, 2010

Edson Ziso, Willy Brandt School of Public Policy, University of Erfurt, Silver Contributor (46)

Dear Jan

Thank you for your article. I will try to be very short in my observations.
You do highlight interesting ideas that in my view are plausible, only some of them run into several problems of applicability.

For example, and at the risk of repetition, allow me to emphasize Santino's concerns on the online initiative. The 'web 2.0-based grassroots governance by all members..' would only work if all countries had reached a relatively similar technological level. Before we even talk of internet, millions of people who matter are actually yet to make a phone call in many parts of the developing world. Added to that, in those countries where internet exists (often with poor service), government or state controls on it are a massive stumbling block. Cyberspace is contested territory due to national security (and other) concerns.

Secondly, i was eventually guided by your initial remarks that 'this proposal does not only address "classic" state actors'. This was consistent with your excellent assertion that 'climate change are matters of global public concern'. I liked that. My fear however is that by so doing, at least for purposes of this guided debate, you risk alienating yourself from a TransAtlantic co-operation. A consensus seems to be emerging on this platform that indeed the issue of climate change does not have to be a TransAtlantic affair. Yet the theme, to my understanding, is how the EU and US can co-operate to make your otherwise attractive proposals work?

In short, your article seems to turn its back on the theme, i.e the EU and US co-operating to create the very incentives you outline so well. In all this i hope i am not misunderstanding your views.

Best
Edson

December 3, 2010

Jan Schierkolk, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Gold Contributor (86)

Santino,

thanks for your comments.

Firstly, as you can read, I am mindful of both the lack of democracy in the world and of the "digital divide", and I am looking for ways to bridge and eventually close it. If anything will achieve that, in my opinion, it is its the connection to the global challenge posed by climate change, actually converting it into a chance. This is the best vehicle I could come up with for that. Your critique of many people in developing countries being excluded is very valid, but not if you juxtapose my proposal, which tries to cure this, to the current status quo, or even current dismal efforts against it. Please don't confuse them.

Also, please compare those left out of this for a transition period under my idea to those left out of the process now, and seemingly forever: virtually ALL OF US, as long as we are not heads of state. This is neither equitable nor efficient in tackling the tasks at hand.

Secondly, I tried to keep it as little techy as possible while still conveying the gist of my idea in 1500 words. On the other end, I almost expect people to say I wasn't concrete enough. Given the constraints, and the complexity of my idea, I had to weigh the two. And given the nature of this web 2.0-based open think tank (what an irony, but a lucky one) I thought I could assume this much pre-existing knowledge with members. Let me know if not, and what you want me to explain to you, Santino. Privately, that is, unless you see something that you think others may not understand either. Because I would really like this debate to be as fruitful and as little obstructed as possible for all us.

Thirdly, I said we need a few, or one major government to jumpstart this thing by providing technology, staff, and money. Once the recognition incentive structure really kicks in, it will pull support by itself. Looking at the current political situation in Germany, preparing for elections in 2013 (or sooner (; ), it is maybe the no. 1 target country I have in mind. Enough said (;

What current governments also can and have to do is to push the point that acting green makes you more influential and thus wealthier and safer in this world, for example by doing what I outlined in a comment under Julia's article: support and tangibly reward countries with strong sustainability policies, be it in international organizations and elsewhere (Example, Finland's bid for a UNSC seat). Make that an OFFICIAL, EXPLICIT DOCTRINE. Eventually, however, we will need something to quantify "acting green" for this to really unfold its full potential. This is what I hope to have come up with, albeit still in an inchoate form. By the way, I have much more detailed ideas on any of this, but I'll just wait for questions about concrete things so we stay focused.

Fourthly, making the system accessible to everyone, be it by technical simplification as far as possible, or by referred to participation education, i.e. any form of inclusion, is certainly a top priority, which I abundantly tried to make clear in my essay. Deficiencies until this is 100% achieved (if ever) are regrettable, but by no means a reasons to not try this and leave anyone of us worse off on all those accounts, especially participation - let alone climate change...

Fifthly, the "socio-political climate" is indeed not an easy one, but luckily NOT because this would cost too much, or substantially harm someone (besides big tech monopolists. But they will be convinced, not disowned, and until then they can't do anything as long as the public gets the concept and supports it). Here, the problem is much more the fact that this is so new in ITSELF: especially people significantly older than us, if not miraculously bright, or already used to Facebook or other Web 2.0 applications, are those currently in charge. And younger ones are mostly not tuned into the details and conundrums of efforts to combat global climate change - yet. So as of now, most simply cannot see EITHER 1. what's actually possible by now OR 2. how urgently we need completely new approaches. Approaches that combine the specific skills and abilities of both of those camps, and especially those who connect them. I want to reach both groups, connect them, and change all of that, and I would like all of you to help me with that, be it by helping to refine the concept by asking constructive questions or come up with own ideas, or by communicating both to others.

In that spirit, I am looking forward to more remarks and questions. Thank you.

Jan

December 3, 2010

Jan Schierkolk, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Gold Contributor (86)

Dear Edson,

I responded to your "digital divide" reservations in my (simultaneously written with yours) answer to Santino. I know it is a problem, but I am trying to cure it here, and not acting here will certainly leave everyone worse of. Including poor people in developing countries. On this note let me say that I myself have sufficient experience outside our Western abundance bubbles, and my previous comments on other articles, as well as my own article here, are inspired by it.

Also, I know cyberspace is a contested territory. But it belongs to all of us, and we have to wrestle power over it even further from national governments, or from corporations, IF they want to harm GLOBAL public good in any way. This doesn't mean that it doesn't need rules (by far not), but especially cyberspace demonstrates the need to make them bottom-up, emotionally put, if we want to transfer the noble experiment of democracy alive into the middle of this century.

Like I said, I devoted my article (and limited space in it) more to the complex concept itself than to political strategies (which I am working on though). I think this idea, once understood (the main hurdle), is powerful enough to bring people on board. Therefore I propagate it here.

Lastly, I indeed risk alienating myself. From whoever is (knowingly or not) obstructing common efforts to tackle climate change and other global issues. Sorry if this sounds cheesy. I don't aim to do so, however (sounding cheesy OR picking fights, haha). If organized Transatlanticism would be more in tune with the ideas, opinions, people, and potential of OUR generation on both sides of the great pond (and elsewhere!!), this would be easier. But I think this is a central and much appreciated aim of the Atlantic Community. Therefore I have thankfully chosen it as an outlet for my idea, hoping it will serve it well.

Best,

Jan

December 3, 2010

Philip Strothmann, Free University Berlin, Gold Contributor (76)

Dear Jan,

first of all let me thank you for your interesting article that indeed contains fresh ideas which you missed in our pieces. However, just like Edson, I'm quite puzzled by your approach to the overall theme of this workshop. While certainly a novelty, your proposal actually addresses a broad variety of actors ranging from cicil society over corporate stockholder to governments but plain and simply has nothing to do with the question of how to embrace action by the US and EU on climate change.

Moreover, while you acknowledge the enormous problem of the digital divide, you simply put it away by saying that you are "trying to cure it here" yet I don' t find any proposal how you would want to do it? Just like Santino and Edson I regard this issue actually to be one of the crucial bottle necks of your proposal. Giving people access to the internet is not as easy as you make it sound, so I would love to hear how you seek to do this in general and more specific within a very short timeframe (I don't think I've to outline again why time is an issue here).

Before going into further detail, I question your understanding of the current situation. You ask governments to provide the technology to the pool yet it is less the government but corporate actors that possess technology and patent rights. Moreover, even if you argue with research from universities, you have to consider that - especially, but not limited to - in the US research is often funded by companies that follow their market driven interests. Moreover, you ask for governments to encourage "acting green", yet isn't this entire debate over the question why governments themselves can't commit themselves to "act green" enough to find common ground?

Having said that let me go into detail on your proposal.

You argue that accountability is impossible, "because while states negotiate, individuals and businesses emit greenhouse gases". To this end I wonder why everybody in science talks about specific targets for countries if it was not possible to assess emissions as you imply. In contrast, we can - maybe not as precisely as we would like to - assess emissions. Without going into further detail, the entire ECTS is based on the idea that we can do it. And every country to the UNFCCC reports its emissions. The current debate with regard to accountability is less so much about whether we can or not, but what instruments we should use, who should be able to monitor and so on. These are technical, not fundamental questions.

Moreover you argue that with state-based emission reduction targets the idea of per capita emission rights would not be applicable and furthermore state that an injustice within one country itself would occur. Without wanting to go into detail, I contest this assessment. Short and simple example: The ones who drive more polluting car have to pay more then the ones with the small cars.

Now let me get to the core of your suggestion: The open patent pool. In short, you seem to neglect entirely the economic drivers behind most innovations. It is the many companies and entrepreneurs that drive innovation and frankly I do not see a way in your proposal how you want to substitute this driver if the economic incentive is gone. Moreover, just take a look at the debate around medical patents. South Africa once asked President Bush to allow it to produce generic drugs to combat AIDS. Bush said he couldn't do it due to his believe that it would be against the principles of the free market. I believe that there are few issues as complex as the entire patent system question and having followed this debate in various sectors, I sincerely doubt the practicability of your idea.

In addition, knowledge sharing is only a very small part of the cake. As I outlined in another comment, knowledge does not imply action. Only because you know how to put a solar panel on your rooftop, you still can't do it. Either due to a lack of availability, money or other reasons. I really don't believe the patent issue is the biggest hurdle, taking China as an example (though they're not really strong on enforcing IPR issues… ;)

Actually I could point to more problems but I consider your approach to be too far off - maybe too innovative - to make it into a policy recommendation. Due to a lack of taking political and economical realities into account, a way too optimistic assessment of what the internet can achieve and a very weak link to state actors.

Let me say this though. I like your optimism and thinking "out-of-the-box" approach and If it was applicable, I'd be the first to endorse it :)

Thanks for your input, Philip

December 3, 2010

Julia Franziska Grauvogel, University of Tübingen, Silver Contributor (38)

Dear Jan,

let me start my saying that I really liked your attempt of thinking beyond the usually discussed issues and providing a truly innovation solution. However, what might have been an over-emphasis on feasibly approaches in my (and Phillips) paper as you suggested, lacks in your essay. Moreover, I agreed with Phillip’s assessment that you have interpreted the idea of coming up with transatlantic policy recommendations quite broad, to describe it in a friendly manner. I would like to raise three issues that seem crucial to me.

Just as Phillip I was stunned to read that according to you accountability is something impossible to achieve. As regards this issue, I want to bring up another aspect not mentioned thus far. Phillip talks about accountability in terms of emission accounting, but if I understood you correctly, you are also concerned with accountability to the people (and hence your attempt of including them on a broader internet-based basis). I don’t want to argue that the UNFCCC process is anywhere near to idea, however, there has been the tendency to include the relevant constituencies (Young people, indigenous people, business, women, farmers etc.) - a process that I find promising and that I would like to be seen encouraged, why not in addition to your proposal. I was present in Copenhagen last year which was the first summit were the youth was recognized as an official constituency (YOUNGO), and even though it was only a very small step, I found it very inspiring that both the secretariat and country delegations came to YOUNGO hearings, felt and were obligated to answer... maybe a first step towards more accountability?

Secondly, you pointed out the state-driven and negative nature of current solutions to climate change as a major problem. I would argue that already today the process is not only entirely state-driven and negative. The purchase of offsets on an individual level might be one example, and many other initiatives (cities investing into renewables and changing its entire structure) are just two examples. It is certainly true that in the end climate change mitigation is about emission reductions, which is necessarily a "negative" - as you termed it - exercise. Or maybe not? It goes without saying that this process has to be doubtlessly supported by technology transfer (and issues whose importance has already been raised in or discussion repeatedly), and this is where your idea of a public patent pool for environmentally friendly could kick in. The crucial question for me is: where does incentives for the usage of these technologies come from? It could be either intrinsically (something I would like to see but I don`t expect for all actors) and secondly based on coercion, that is regulation on a country level or as the result of internationally negotiated treaties. It is for this very reason that I am insisting - even though I really, really like your idea - on the importance of international negotiations.

Finally I would like to know how your approach is supposed to relate to mechanisms already in place. I guess we all agree that climate change is a truly pressing issue, so I would strongly insist on our solutions and proposals being as ready to be put into action as possible… If I understood your proposal correctly, much or most of what shall be achieved by the global patent pool is aimed at technology transfer – an issue that is and has been already for a long time part of negotiations within the UNFCCC framework. How shall your pool relate to this?

I am really looking forward to your clarifications and last but not least I hope that you don’t feel encouraged to think out of the box by our remarks, because that would be the last thing I intended! ;-)

Julia

December 4, 2010

Jan Schierkolk, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Gold Contributor (86)

Dear Philip,

here are my responses to your remarks (I’ll deal with Julia’s separately). I apologize already for the length, but they made it necessary, or sometimes at least desirable, to reduce further misunderstandings:

I am puzzled, too (: - by how you cannot read the instructions, “set up this thing”, as directed to EU and U.S. governments, even though others are eventually addressed, too. I am literally writing that this will need a government jumpstart, as well defined as the limited volume of the article allows, and that EU and U.S. governments are best positioned to provide it. Let alone to fund this system. Got detailed questions?

Further, I am especially puzzled by the fact that after complaining about private actors being addressed, too, you rightfully point out that the needed patents are often in their hands. I wrote that those patents can be bought by the fund, and later governments would have clear incentives to donate them. So I am tempted to question something, too, here. But won’t do.

About Europe: you know well that there are public and semi-public institutions, especially in Europe which are capable of much innovation (e.g. universities, Fraunhofer, Max Planck institutes, and so on in Germany). One idea to use this concept would be, as student fees are low here, to tell students and junior researchers that for the time of their training a part of what they come up with ends up in the fund. Also, one could attract more students from developing countries (which Europe needs anyways, given demographic challenges), by letting them study for free under these conditions. And after their education, when they are well-versed in pool principles, they can support their home countries, be it by going back and setting up collaborative research and manufacturing facilities there, or by contributing further from Europe. Either way, this practice would soon multiply.

About the U.S.: yes, public research there is often funded by companies, which is increasingly true in Europe, too. But even assuming those companies don’t see the potential in this: universities there are themselves wealthy enterprises, sometimes in the billions. AND they are competing for the best talent, and those willing to put up with five digit or more tuition payments – for which universities almost each employ entire, costly marketing departments. Much of this, however, could be replaced by the appeal and indication of excellence that quantifiable world-saving has, when competing for bright and often idealistic students. Just think of how important student semi-revolutionary leaders pulled followers to certain universities in the 60s and 70s. Without saving the world. Well, our revolution could well be a more efficient one.

In both cases: we are all scientists, so it should come a bit more understandable how a system that globally quantifies and honors contributions to combating something as dangerous as climate change would totally work with vain people like us – just in case even our discussions here are not enough of an indication. Look at what minor issues our craft is willing to fight over just to make a name for themselves, often even for their entire lives – in ANY discipline.

Also, concerning private capital, never underestimate the willingness to do good (in return for recognition) of rich Americans, see Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and the many other billionaires, or even just millionaires. Or even look at the masses of small donations for Obama’s campaign - Impossible in Europe. Imagine how THAT could be tapped into by something that quantifies even the smallest contribution and lets everyone in your neighborhood know about it - if you want that. That would even appeal to Europeans, who otherwise often think charity is the state’s business and you do enough by paying higher taxes than elsewhere. Which would be fine, too, as states themselves could donate…

Next point: I am not saying you couldn’t assess individual emissions. But negotiations (and science’s focus) is on states’ emissions because individuals are logistically even infinitely less able to get together and agree to collective emission cuts. But in this currently only negative game, cuts by someone else would be necessary for anyone to cut themselves. And as there is always someone who doesn’t care or even actively free-rides, no one else makes decisive first steps. This is true among individuals, as well as states. Yes, to use your example, the ones with the polluting cars pay more than others, but would you as someone not overly altruistic but poor think that because the Cayenne driver pays a few bucks more everything is fair now, to the point that you could act for his good, too? And what is with individuals from (differently taxing) countries? So the game has to be made both individual, AND POSITIVE to work, which I explicitly outlined.


About the digital divide: again, this is pressing in our world, but concerning my proposal it can only be a mid-term large-scale effect, while probably well a small positive side-effect in the beginning. But again, it would clearly have positive effects on that account. I like my proposal a lot, but you honor it a bit too much by asking of it to solve all the problems of the world right away. Then I have to disappoint you (:

This lets a few more details be warranted to answer most obviously following questions: as I am writing, in the beginning, the fund would be controlled by a board of big contributors anyways. Otherwise no one would contribute before the recognition concept has taken hold. Therefore, no one is disenfranchised as long as there is no public franchise for mere technical reasons.

That this system soon may easily serve to alleviate the digital divide by providing research for items that directly benefit the poorest (like only few private actors do these days) is self-evident. Firstly, you could oblige producers of goods made from that technology to register their customers and spouses (against gender gaps) with the pool. Then, recognition points can be awarded for anyone who sets up collaboration centers in villages, where people can access knowledge, apply it, and contribute back. And even for positive changes in employment rates in their area. The entrepreneur could get a share of the employees’ (themselves entrepreneurs) recognition points, thus incentivizing productive environments, in return for paying or feeding them and respecting their rights. What they deliver would not necessarily, but increasingly, be what we usually see as “research”, like the solar panel on shacks-example, for a start. In its ideal form, those would be integrated workshops that also commercially supply goods to their neighborhoods or even cities, lowering prices through more competition. And once you have people in the integrated system as workers there, they can also take part in democratic decision making, for which they would be educated by again others, maybe in that same workshop. They could then more secretly and safely (because anonymously) rate their employer and ring alarm bells in the case of mistreatment, if built into the system. So here I essentially gave an example for what I mean by potentially blurring the lines between profit- and non-profit enterprises, who now make profits but also are incentivized to serve public needs. The difference is that part of the profit is recognition. It would also (globally!) signal the good nature of a certain manufacturer, overcoming many of the dilemmas we have today when we try to figure out how something was produced on the other end of the planet. Once firms and people are in this system, they have much more of a voice even locally. Good conduct is even more lucrative if at least some base their buying decisions on it – for which they, too, could be rewarded if you integrate shops into it. So gradually, this could expand, geographically and over sectors, IF set up properly from the start. But most features could come incrementally and still leave everyone better off than without this system being attempted. Eventually democratic and open to innovation from within, there are few limits to imagination, if in global public interest.


To your reservations about what you call “the core of my suggestions”: I don’t neglect economic drivers behind innovation. I take them as they are and try to upgrade them. And I want to do so the smooth way, which is why I would give every company the choice to take part in this or not. Given that many of them spend outright crazy amounts on their reputation already, this has to be worth something to them eventually. And the costs will keep rising as consumers are better informed than ever about the costs (also: elsewhere) of their actions. Charity works best to counter that, but the main problem with it so far is that it is not quantifiable enough for top managers. So we have to change that and we’ll see. Now you could own a quantifiable reputation score. Do you know what last came about when something previously unowned, or at least unattainable for the innovative (land, goods, means of production) got “commoditized”? Capitalism, with its entirely new incentives to work and innovate. On top of this, it wouldn’t take long for at least some business leaders to realize that the sooner you contribute, the more your points multiply over generations of products. Then it can become a simple calculation: making a sizeable contribution, against even an in their mind small chance, can pay, if the unlikely prospect is to eventually be praised by millions both as a company and individuals. Without those types of calculations you wouldn’t have lotteries or high-risk research, or in a reverse sense, insurance against hurricanes.

Good that you bring up the scandalous medical patent situation. I slightly, and in a very hidden way, hinted at it in my piece, and wondered whether I should be explicit (no space though). I should have defined “regular goods” better though, and that even medicine falls under it for our purposes here. The main difference there is that, as I put it, ARGUABLY, we currently can afford not extending our knowledge to those who need it in order to see the next year, because their well-being doesn’t affect ours directly enough. Here, climate change is the big game changer. Dirty development elsewhere means very direct effects on the West, too. Yes, Aids affects the West, too, but it won’t disappear here (enough) by helping Africans. And the public doesn’t see the suffering there unless it wants to.

But while we’re at it: once the system is in place, we could have it deal with any global or regional public issue, as determined democratically, by all members or a subset (see next para). The membership, in this case the doctors and pharmaceutical scientist among them, would demand that anyways, at the very least to get recognition in the most efficient way available to them. You think they wouldn’t do that? Just look at those who already trade their well-payed Western jobs to work for Doctors Without Borders and the like for a while, even WITHOUT most people valuing their sacrifices. Let people like President Bush doubt it all they want (wouldn’t have been the only thing he got wrong), but once it takes off there will be no stopping the free market forces 2.0 – those of everyone’s measurable reputation. And GWB’s problem here was really about classic patents being touched against their owners’ will – which itself can change, at the very latest when the collective pool community starts out-inventing them. This we see already happening with cell phone apps, news (“I-reporters”, blogs, Facebook&Twitter 2009 in Iran, notably even in the face of opression…), and will see it in the realm of much more complex (since long already: operating system creation! See Linux,…) and even capital-intensive services in the future – IF incentivized. And it’s hard to think of a better analogy than Wikipedia. By the way, heard of Encarta lately, Microsoft’s former electronic encyclopedia market leader and to-pay-for rival? No, because its GONE, out-invented by Wiki, i.e. ALL OF US.

To get back to subsidiarity, i.e. as local-as-possibly sovereignty over local issues: If you said, for instance, that issues touching only Africa (tbd democratically) should be decided only by those registered in Africa, you already would have taken out a great deal of global inequality. All this would be possible under the system. And inequality resulting from huge inner-African disparities of electronic access would follow, at least BECAUSE THEY WOULD THEN BE VISIBLE to everyone. This is a big difference to now, where poor countries (or any countries’) elites can give the masses a national anthem, a soccer team, and then justify running everything internationally.

One last point on the digital divide: who would have DREAMED of current cell phone proliferation in Africa ten years ago…? Now you can even have a wireless bank account with it! Why not the same rate of invention with laptops? There’s one for 100$ now, I think by the Gates Foundation. Imagine to what that can still sink if properly incentivized. And don’t tell me now how much 100$ still is for many people. I know. The point is: we’ll get there, even without my idea. But it can even accelerate this process without doing harm.

Yes, Philip, knowledge is not everything. But everything starts with it. Of course it will take time, especially for capital-intensive things. Which is why I want to set that bar as low as possible with technologies. And why not add a micro-lending program on top? Or other things that are already out there? Most of them would be enhanced by a system that tracks your reputation (now even when you change places!). Remember, reputation in traditional communities, in addition to mothers’ sense of responsibility, is already the main reason why micro-lending works, to everyone’s surprise even with the poorest.

Philip, I really valued some of your questions, and eagerly took them as opportunities to shed some more light on what I am talking about. However, as you see, one tiny question has to lead to huge answers by me given the complexity of this. Therefore, I have to ask all of you for something:

Frankly, I know this is a competition, but misunderstandings that are sometimes so obvious that it’s hard to think they are not willful really don’t make for productive group work. It would be easier to take questions clearly driven by sheer curiosity and respond to THEM in according detail. Let us separate them from others, and I am happy to continue like this. I really have thought this through for almost a year now, so please don’t call me out on obvious things, if that is your intention. If this long time thinking about it hinders my ability to recognize things as less obvious to others, then apologize. To discern that, more careful and polite questioning on your part would help, because:

Unlike my treatment of your pieces (mostly (; ), most of you seem to be unable or unwilling to appreciate the many positive (and here: truly novel) features in mine, except for the occasional introductory or ending phrases. But maybe I should see this, given the nature of this being a competition, as the greatest compliment you guys can make me – and I appreciate it (: But then please expect a little more simple but respectful disagreement instead of explanations this long, especially on a Friday night (:

Cheers,

Jan

December 4, 2010

Ntambaazi Williams George, University of Osnabrueck, Germany, Silver Contributor (41)

Hello Jan,

Great idea (collaborative knowledge pool with digital grassroots envolvement)

I strongly believe in the global virtual information society irrespective of the infrastructural and institutional bottlenecks in giving people competences to make informed and intelligent decisions. How I wish this was policy mandate No. 1 for the EU and US as leaders of the global virtual society. It can unlock the world, It can do wonders for climate change...though the idea is too much of the future

December 4, 2010

Philip Strothmann, Free University Berlin, Gold Contributor (76)

Dear Jan,

first of all let me thank you for your answer that clarifies a lot and please believe me that I did not seek to misunderstand any of your points, but maybe did so because I might not have read it carefully enough given the time I had for doing so.

Now let me ask you where you actually state that the US and the EU should be the ones who should go forward? Maybe you implied it given by the overall theme, but in your article you refer only in your second sentence to both. Aside from that you use "governments".

But I don't wanna be picky and given the time try to answer in brief. On the question of more detail, I wonder where the money shall come from that you envision to be used by the fund to buy patents? Especially I would love to know whether you would regard that as a complementary proposition to everything that's already in place (thus with additional financial contributions) or whether you want everything else to stop and shift to your proposed system? Especially when it comes to government funding? And isn't spending public money without clear accountability for it one of the most important points republicans in the US fight with? Accordingly I would love to know how you want to overcome this problem of giving "american tax payers' money away, without having control over it, to do good somewhere in the world" (think of it as a phrase of a typical republican ;)

Moreover, I love your optimistic "we're all scientists and we love to share our wisdom" argument, but doesn't that apply only for the science community that is rather apart from the business one? And isn't it the latter that ensures that great ideas from scientists actually become products with patents? Isn't it often the combination of public knowledge into one combined piece that makes it an innovative product?

Moreover, your entire system seems to me being based in incentives and good will. Correct me if I got that wrong, but don't you think that we need regulation as well? Maybe you could explain to me how you would like to link your proposal with a regulatory framework around it?

Again, I'm not asking your proposal to cure all problems, but if you want to make use of the internet in the way you do (especially if we talk about justice and equal accessibility) I still don't see any chance to get everybody online in the timeframe we would need them to? I like your explanation how it should work a lot and I would love to see that happening, but I can't help remain very skeptical about its applicability.

Moreover, again I like your explanation on what the motivation for companies should be. However, you talk about "reputation scores" and the like and I don't know whether this will really be enough to encourage companies to give up what sets them apart from their competitors - their patents.

In addition, if I understand you correctly, you take climate change as an issue that has to concern everybody (unlike AIDS in Africa) because it will eventually effect us all. My point however is that I really believe that in our own societies we find way too many people that still wouldn't care AND that climate change is too abstract. I said this before: SO2 pollution (acid rain) was directly visible, had direct effects and a clear cause that could be targeted rather easily. Climate change is not clearly visible to the majority of our people, it has no DIRECT influence on many (slow timeframe, people adapt) and thus they would not be more committed to act than they are now.

I'm not going into detail on your other points. However I'm looking forward to discuss them with you in person at some point. You're truly trying something innovative here and that's exactly what I always seek to get from the delegations we send to the G8/G20 Youth Summit. You indeed have tried to cover many aspects and I'm really impressed by that. Don't get me wrong if I criticize you on your points, because I think this answer alone gave us the chance to understand better what you've in mind and where you're coming from.

Still: I love your vision, I doubt its applicability ;)

December 4, 2010

Jan Schierkolk, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Gold Contributor (86)

Hey Julia (and Edson, since you made a similar point),

thanks (to you two) for your remarks, for their tone, and for your obvious efforts to bridge divides. That is for instance how I take your YOUNGO suggestion, Julia. Yes, I think it’s nice that there are children representatives at UNFCCC conferences now, maybe that influences one or another delegate personally. But even if so: they have pretty strict instructions; and this little symbolic representation is still light-years away of how much inclusion there should, and I argue, could be. I’m not against mentioning it, but not if space in our group document is limited, which I assume it is.

I’ll try to keep it shorter now, because I already touched upon much of what you said in my above response to Philip:

I meant (impossible) accountability as: everyone being responsible for their own actions. So states that govern people, especially if they are largely free individuals, will (and should) never perfect their regulations (and enforcement) to the degree necessary to completely keep everyone in line enough to reach workable climate goals. That is unless there are strong incentives for those individuals to behave differently by their own free will, derived from a strong positive need. And I don’t know a stronger one than the one for social recognition. Even money is less valuably in many cases. This is also a philosophical difference I guess. So any additional disagreement with this basic premise, absent new angles to look at it from, will from now on respectfully be accepted. But disagreed with (:

About your point that the current process is not entirely negative: I agree, and much is done without the incentive structure I propose. But it is far from enough, so we should think about anything we can do to change this. That I did, and I still haven’t heard substantive arguments against trying it, especially considering how insignificant a failure of this attempt would be compared to not having tried it.

Relating to this, let me answer your question on my proposal’s relation to initiatives in place, like e.g. the CDM, while bypassing too much detail now: none of them are ends in themselves, but they are there for a purpose. At the same time, the pool is an addition and doesn’t conflict with them (as it also doesn’t conflict with property rights because of its voluntary nature). The worst thing that can thus happen (for them) is that the pool makes them irrelevant because of its success. Or do you see a problem? Remember it’s also your tasks to show me where I’m wrong in your opinion, not mine (; But I would tell you if I saw something that would let me doubt. And as I said, I already spent quite a while looking for that.

To respond to your standard theme of critique – feasibility: if you don’t see the advanced merits of the concept, that’s OK, too. Then take the most immediate ones, which are compelling enough. This is the beauty of it. I say it will clearly lead to much more in the future, but already has tangible benefits right away. So:

Have any EU or U.S. government take money, buy the right (see criteria), already-proven-to-work patents, and put them into the basic stage 1 pool structure I outlined. With that, firms and entrepreneurs in developing countries could create far more jobs and sustainable development than with current forms of Western aid, which is hardly ever really effective, often fosters corruption, and not seldom is mostly there to help Western suppliers of goods and services. Read Dambisa Moyo for that, or ask Edson, I assume. The selling-our-stuff- part is even official policy under the current German Foreign Aid Minister Niebel, by the way. To stay with the German example: out of that budget (hopefully soon 0,7% of GDP, as promised for half a century), take say, half, for the pool. Anything else than spending 0,7% will increasingly disturb relations with other countries, and thus climate negotiations, by the way.

These 0,35% of German GDP are already HUGE money for our purposes, about the total sum of German development assistance now – additionally, so you don’t even hurt entrenched classic foreign aid interests, or some efforts that are actually efficient. With that money in the pool, you could substantially green the development process and thus cut GHG emissions in much of the global south. And to elaborate on political feasibility: the German Green Party’s platform states the fulfilment of the 0,7%-of-GDP-for-aid aim as a top priority, while Social Democrats are at least not strongly against it (or even for it, don’t know by heart) and certainly won’t want to look heartless by prioritizing this fight. Now look at current polls, and at a) the likelihood of at a least Red-Green, possibly Red-Green-Red coalition and b) the Greens’ probably unprecedented relative weight in it. The next federal elections are in 2013 at the latest, and this is enough time to really identify the right technologies and have the concept of the basic pool structure ready to go. Voila. But for that we need to propagate the idea NOW.

I told you I had to weigh long-term and short-term practical aspects. But would you really have preferred an article like these last two paragraphs? I don’t. Here’s why:

Lastly, even leaving discussed feasibility and immediate benefits aside: maybe contrary to you, I see this student competition much more as an opportunity to insert a new idea into the debate, for which the threshold is lower, than to tell governments with hundreds of staffers which of the options they are all pondering already they should chose.

I hope you appreciate this asked for sense of reality.

To end on a more harmonious note: the best thing is, if we do only look for short-term recommendations, that we can in fact combine my idea with much of your approaches. Otherwise I'd have to take up the entire space anyways, just to get it across. So we can from now agree to disagree, and if our recommendations are ever enacted, time will tell (:

Good night,

Jan


By the way, a slight correction for paragraph 3 of my response to Philip: of course it has to say "and later FIRMS would have clear incentives to donate them"... it is late (: so in addition to fundamental issues let me know if you stumble across more slips like this one if they hinder comprehension

December 4, 2010

Jan Schierkolk, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Gold Contributor (86)

Hey Philip,

next round, now really liked reading from you. Tried to keep it short now, not as successfully as I wanted, so I plunge right into it:

Stating something once and then continue to imply it should be enough if the theme of the competition itself eliminates any doubt, so yeah, don’t be such a stickler (;

I agree, public money has to be wisely spent, if at all. As I am a German, I took the German context in my answer to Julia: fulfill decades-old promises and increase aid to 0,7% of GDP. Anything else will keep burdening climate talks themselves heavily. This lets us, politically luxuriously, not touch other spending in the process of setting up the pool. This leeway, however should be used to take the time to analyze all aid expenditure carefully and eliminate ineffective measures. Any money freed up that way should go to the pool, if proven successful or promising until then, or else should be concentrated on efforts deemed efficient. Efficient in that context means: fostering green development and empowerment overseas, not German or European special interests.

In the U.S., that fight is a tougher one. We touched on that already. As a European, like I said, I would try to lead by example and use all diplomatic ways (gave examples) to make the point that the U.S. is not only loosing money, but is also hurting its influence and security interests by staying dirty. Also, the point cannot be made enough that the pool wouldn’t “just” benefit the world’s poor, but U.S. green growth (and much more) as well, if you think it through. As an American, I would do what I can to cut some of that insane defense spending to free up pool money, all the while also stressing its security benefits, as well as domestic employment provided by research and pool tech application - the main political arguments behind those defense spendings, and both can be taken over. Another good side of this is that you also really don’t have to cut defense spending much to come up with actually huge sums in the pool context. Say, 20-30 of those stealth bombers, or one of about 10 aircraft carrier naval fleets would get you pretty far already. But quantities aside, my point is: any meaningful action on climate change costs money. Given that, the pool is simply unbeatable value, if your priorities are really what everyone says: climate crisis aversion, even when leaving global sustainable development aside for political convenience.

Another path against political friction, if really necessary, would be to award pool research contracts to and buy existing technology (if useful) from THE SAME CORPORATIONS that today supply defense or other established research, much of which is dual use, or could easily be made so. GPS, or the internet itself are a good examples. And technology related to it, like I said, has to be a pool priority to work towards better inclusiveness. Imagine what a few years of dedicated research in sustainable development with additional staff in those huge facilities could do of something as great as the internet came out of there by accident. Or take material science. Advanced plastics that make cars lighter and thus more fuel consuming, or more compatible with sustainable propulsion like batteries or solar panels on their roofs, eventually. Green those corporations from within, you can easily do it if you pay for almost all their products. A side effect could be that U.S. military operations, too, could be made more sustainable (what an oxymoron), if the same people who make their hardware suddenly think about sustainability as an integral part of their business model anyways. Even small proportions there would make a big difference, considering current overall emissions - which are hardly ever talked about. Imagine a publicly discussed "climate footprint of the Iraqi occupation". Outlandish today, right? Because those different realms are so disconnected. The pool would change that, too, through collaboration of the most different people. Let alone bridging cultural divides between countries or regions.

No, we’re not all idealistic scientists. But we’re almost all VAIN scientists, highly susceptible to things that make us look good. Extreme case: something that measurably proves how important we are. Big difference. For most, it won’t be goodwill. And need not. And we can still use it!

Of course we need regulation, too, at the very least because it will in many cases be more easily applied, or the progressing perfection of the recognition system takes too long to reach that corner. Or things that under all circumstances must be forbidden and punished to prevent the odd sociopath who doesn’t care at all about his/her image from doing them. But the good part is that recognition incentives would also pave the way for more stringent regulation. Think of national environmentalist lawmakers whose actions lead to recognition by the global democratic community for their nation, or if really desirable for them personally. May not go down well with some nationally (like Nobel Peace Prizes (; ), but others could point to the resulting measurable increase of their nation’s or leader’s influence abroad.

We wouldn’t need everyone personally online for the system to get to workability. If you have one person in every village who once per week visits the next town (and there interacts with the pool, even if indirectly), that alone can lead to huge improvements in that village. Remember that the pool could specifically cater to such cases, like by providing portable starter’s kits, “knowledge for solar panel installation worker”, or knowledge for firms to produce sets of “more sustainable harvests with cheap means and better seeds” and the like (think of currently outright maliciously engineered commercial seeds that die after one season or even erode the soil faster, etc.). The point is: the connection doesn’t directly have to lead to the end consumer, that can come bit by bit. And trust me, even the internet is hardly ever as far away as you think in developing countries. Plus technology evolves, take my cell phone in Africa example. People mostly have to see the opportunities attached to something, and most times they will find a way. Paying for it sometimes is the bigger issue, but hey, if you create a successful business around using it… And all of these adverse conditions could, largely unlike now, be specifically be catered to! Speaking of current development assistance projects: they could be dedicated to spreading pool collaboration means and education!

Yes, patents set companies apart from competitors, but arguably even more: their brands do. Which is another form of good ol’ reputation. And compare prices of shirts with or without (genuine) Nike Swoosh on them – or any other article, even high tech. Just look at what different industries PAY to keep the brand up. What’s a coke but water, sugar, and brown stuff with a distinct, but not overly fantastic taste, once you think about it? That marketing money can theoretically all go to charity, IF it’s impact is measurable (check). By the way, imagine feeling a bit better while drinking a coke. What a selling proposition. Even works with CO2 offsets for flight passengers. And laughable amounts of saved rain forests per crate of beer bought. That example shows: for most people it’s actually about being able to THINK they did something good. It’s just that with more and more information it gets ever harder to fool yourself with measures that are not substantive. And that can be tapped right into, once quantified.

I don’t think that there will be a person left completely untouched by climate change in ten years. And for until then, enough people (and their votes and money) already care to make a difference. That care is the gold to back up the recognition currency. And its prize keeps rising.

Yeah, looking forward to that talk! And to the wiki. I bet it will help us pool our ideas for the benefit of everyone (:

Jan

December 7, 2010

Christopher Connolly, New York University, Silver Contributor (29)

I agree, we need to find an appropriate forum for technological innovations that are critical to combatting global warming. An interesting alternative—let the military do it. Airliners, cameras, GPS, microwave ovens, and the Internet have all been derived from military inventions. If the US, with its huge military spending, could make the military “green,” we may see some interesting results. The US Navy is already developing biofuel-burning F-18 fighter jets and hybrid-electric warships. It’s only a matter of time before these innovations find a civilian use.