Copenhagen Conundrum 6: Technology Transfer v Green Jobs

Posted on 18. Dec, 2009 by Ross in Climate Change, Government Policy, New Technologies

In the final part of our Copenhagen Conference Focus, we look at the only thing which the politicians and negotiators are likely to agree to at the ailing summit: the need for technology transfer of energy efficiency technology and renewable energy to developing countries.

All the commitments on this issue came early in the conference, with virtually no opposition from anyone involved. The Anglo-Indian initiative to create a global network of Climate Innovation Centres for Technology Transfer, initially suggested by the Carbon Trust and the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, was immediately accepted. The offer from the USA for $350 million for clean energy research in developing countries, announced at the beginning of the second week in an effort to stave off growing disillusionment at American inflexibility, was also quickly accepted.

With initiatives and finance in place, Copenhagen moved on and started to try and broker deals in other areas, but why was there no argument over technology transfer?

Unlike other areas of the Copenhagen conference which require certain levels of national sacrifice (spending of public money, restrictions on living conditions and the economy, etc), technology transfer has very little to do with governments. The sacrifice necessary to realise climate change technology transfer must be made by businesses which own the patents, perform the research and bear the risk.

Most businesses are characteristically reticent about such technology transfers, fearing loss of competitive advantage, surrendering marketplaces and breeding long-term competitors. Politicians, however, see technology transfer agreements as an easy carrot to dangle in place of stronger emissions reductions or greater levels of mitigation funding.

However, their cavalier approach to technology transfer on the international stage is incompatible with their own domestic economic and environmental agendas.

During the recent global economic slump, most of the world’s developed countries committed substantial amounts of their financial rescue packages to green infrastructure projects, seeing the opportunity to combine future improvements in carbon emissions with the immediate need to provide and safeguard jobs. Such environmentally friendly policies were often sold to electorates on the basis of the positive impact on the economy through massive job creation.

Therein lies the problem, though. Technology transfer increases competition in the marketplace and increases the likelihood of some or all of the manufacturing required for climate change technologies to be outsourced overseas. By promoting technology transfer, governments are putting a dent into the number of jobs that they are able to create domestically.

It is, of course, a win-win for the developing countries: something that there has been little of at the Copenhagen conference. Technology transfers help their domestic economies to grow, their exports to increase, and their own internal development to be cleaner and greener too.

However for developed countries, technology transfer represents a fight with businesses long after the ink on Copenhagen has dried.

Image of the Bella Centre in Copenhagen by UN Climate Change @ Flickr