Give free access to intellectual property to enable developing nations to implement CO2 reducing technologies.

Technology is key in preventing global warming. Technology created the industrial revolution and will create the green revolution. We cannot leave less developed countries behind while the developed world moves forward into a new green age. Developing countries can make use of many technologies to reduce emissions, such as ways of producing renewable energy, that the developed world already employs on a regular basis. At the moment such technologies are too expensive for them. However developed countries would be giving up a competitive advantage and gaining little in return. If companies couldn’t hold on to their intellectual property rights they would have little incentive to invest in the creation of better technologies that may be even more important in reducing CO2 emissions. Should we hand over intellectual rights and hope companies will continue to develop much needed low carbon technologies?

Give free access to intellectual property to enable developing nations to implement CO2 reducing technologies.

Yes because... No because...

IP needed to allow developing countries to be efficent users of energy.

How can we expect developing countries to reduce their CO2 emissions if we are not willing to give them the necessary technology to actually reduce their CO2 emissions. If they do not have access to such technologies, or have to pay high prices it means they are really not available.

Developing countries are often the most wasteful in their energy use compared to the size of their GDP, this is because they don not have the technology(innovation/training/skills/expertise) to make their industry more efficient at using energy.

The stand taken by India regarding Reduction of CO2 emissions is totally justified. India do need time and support of developed nations regarding it. Forcing only India to reduce CO2 emissions is not justifiable as it will adversely affect the Indian Economy. Developed nations stand not acceptable.

Green technologies are the new up and coming sector for entrepreneurship among the industrialists today. Simple economics states that when more companies enter a field , there is healthy competition and the prices further go down and there are advancements in techniques which causes further accessibility of these technologies. I am a strong believer that CO2 reduction technologies may be directly provided to the developing nations with operation and maintainence information to keep these technology makers afloat.

Also the developing nations should utilize their local scientists to come up with their own indigenous technologies.

Who is saying India should be the only one cutting down on carbon emissions? We want the entire world too.

And it will not adversely effect the Indian economy, technological innovation has always improved GDP not vice versa.

Give free access to intellectual property to enable developing nations to implement CO2 reducing technologies.

Yes because... No because...

Intellectual copy rights should be retained to keep alive the spirit of competition thus advancement/amelioration/progress

Competition does not rely on copyrights and other IP. Such IP does encourage the development of new technologies however competition is made much fiercer if there are not such limits as IP rights essentially give a monopoly for a limited period of time in which the developer can charge high priced to recoup the cost of creating the technology in the first place.

It is however difficult to hand out the technology without access to the IP as who then maintains it? Essentially this just moves the cost to the maintainence and serviceing that is to be done later, it just means the developing country pays later and in installments rather than all at once.

Companies should have a strong incentive to make better products(that means they need their label on their products and not have to distribute copy rights freely).

The fruits of technology can be distributed charitably to countries that can not afford it, without handing out intellectual property rights.

Presently any decision is based on monetary factors, the distribution of technology for free is a non-economically viable option.

If technology is distributed for free, then there will be no pressure for the countries to utilize it to its fullest capacity, given how people treat free things like Giffen goods:
As we know that the true value of anything is known only when we earn it, the distribution of technology for free, will ultimately dilute the value of the technology.

The developing countries are also some of the most populated in the world and even if a small premium is taken for technology distributed it will lead to huge incomes for the companies. As a result the companies will also have an incentive for further research and technology development.

Companies are not countries. When companies retain copyrights, companies can branch out into developing countries and improve their products there, using local recruits/trainees.

Developing 'Countries' need not pay, since 'Countries' do not invent/distribute/improve products/ideas/technology (not directly, not outside the public sector).

Inventors need to obtain patenting rights to protect their technology from being re-engineered/copied/stolen. A company needs to own its product for the same reason.

Debates > Give free access to intellectual property to enable developing nations to implement CO2 reducing technologies.