An issue for Copenhagen

When the world convenes in Copenhagen, Denmark, for further talks about what to do about global warming and climate change, most of the press attention will inevitably be focused on what America and China have failed to do to achieve their carbon reduction targets.

But that is not the only issue that ought to be discussed. Indeed, it is probably not the most important one.

I happen to believe that global warming is a theology. Either you believe in it or you don’t. I happen to be agnostic on the issue, but I realize that many fervently believe that it is happening, and I appreciate their religious sensibilities.

I also understand that most Americans become more agnostic (if not atheistic) about the issue the more they understand that this will have a negative impact on their personal economic security. The president has tried to make the case that green jobs can spring from green action on the environment, but frankly, nobody really believes him.

He also said that he cares about the deficit, and nobody believes him on that either.

One of the philosophical battles that is raging under the headlines concerns intellectual property.

The far left of the world has an antipathy to intellectual property. They hate the idea that some people might want to make a profit over things that they see are good for society. They hate intellectual property when it comes to the development of life-saving drugs. They hate intellectual property when it comes to movies or music.

They believe that if people invent things that make society safer, or protect the world, or heal the sick, then those inventions should be shared with everybody. It is a nice concept, but it is totally unworkable in the real world. The fact of the matter is that without the rewards that come with innovation, innovation will simply not happen.

The lefties have applied this philosophy to green technologies. They believe that if innovators invent things that save the environment, then those inventions should be shared with the world immediately. Sure, the inventors should get some compensation, but they should be given the ability to protect their intellectual property.

This concept would be laughable if it weren’t so scary. And the problem for inventors and entrepreneurs who want to invest in green technology is that Copenhagen will be dominated by the far left, and they hate intellectual property.

The president probably won’t talk about this when he goes over to Europe next month. (And trust me, the way his poll ratings are going, he is going find any excuse to get out of the States and get to Copenhagen.)

Mr. President, you can’t talk credibly about green jobs and not talk about the intellectual property that goes with creating them. Not if you want to get some credibility on the issue, at least.

Visit www.thefeeherytheory.com.