1/n
@KanitkarT @tjayaraman
Thank you for clarifying that the source of your claim that developed country patenting in climate mitigation technologies has collapsed from 2009-10 to 2017.
This allowed me to go back and look through the data.
A (long) thread on innovation.
@KanitkarT @tjayaraman
Thank you for clarifying that the source of your claim that developed country patenting in climate mitigation technologies has collapsed from 2009-10 to 2017.
This allowed me to go back and look through the data.
A (long) thread on innovation.
2/n
Firstly, as per your article, I don't think that you can use 2017 as the cut off for the analysis, because as noted in the OECD metadata "figures for the later years may be decreasing because of legal delays for publishing patent information."
Firstly, as per your article, I don't think that you can use 2017 as the cut off for the analysis, because as noted in the OECD metadata "figures for the later years may be decreasing because of legal delays for publishing patent information."
3/n
Taking 'priority date' as the best reference date for the patenting (described in the metadata as "closest to the invention date ... To measure inventive activity, patent should be counted according to the priority date"), then data completeness is described as follows :
Taking 'priority date' as the best reference date for the patenting (described in the metadata as "closest to the invention date ... To measure inventive activity, patent should be counted according to the priority date"), then data completeness is described as follows :
4/n
1. EPO: "complete up to 2016"
2. USPTO: "almost complete up to 2016"
3. PCT: "complete up to 2017"
4. Triadic and IP5: "almost complete up to 2016".
You can't use 2017 as the cut off, doing so implies that OECD patenting in almost all technology domains has collapsed 👇.
1. EPO: "complete up to 2016"
2. USPTO: "almost complete up to 2016"
3. PCT: "complete up to 2017"
4. Triadic and IP5: "almost complete up to 2016".
You can't use 2017 as the cut off, doing so implies that OECD patenting in almost all technology domains has collapsed 👇.
5/n
But, your broad point is correct even if we take an earlier cut-off. There's been a decline in annual patenting in CC mitigation technologies since 2008-10.
Your claim that this applies to all developed countries and all subsectors is not correct if we don't take 2017
But, your broad point is correct even if we take an earlier cut-off. There's been a decline in annual patenting in CC mitigation technologies since 2008-10.
Your claim that this applies to all developed countries and all subsectors is not correct if we don't take 2017
6/n
But more importantly, the conclusions you draw are problematic in a number of ways.
1) Patenting across the technology lifecycle. We know that patenting is most intensive at early phase of technology development, when fundamental ideas are being protected.
But more importantly, the conclusions you draw are problematic in a number of ways.
1) Patenting across the technology lifecycle. We know that patenting is most intensive at early phase of technology development, when fundamental ideas are being protected.
7/n
Thus, once a technology reaches maturity then typically patenting to slows down (see below). Moreover, once a technology reaches this stage, cost declines are typically driven by process improvements in manufacturing and economies of scale, not by fundamental research.
Thus, once a technology reaches maturity then typically patenting to slows down (see below). Moreover, once a technology reaches this stage, cost declines are typically driven by process improvements in manufacturing and economies of scale, not by fundamental research.
8/n
So, from the slowdown in patenting, particularly in wind and solar, its possible to draw an opposite conclusion from the one you do: these technologies are now mature, commodified, and competitive, with cost declines now driven by manufacturing improvements not research.
So, from the slowdown in patenting, particularly in wind and solar, its possible to draw an opposite conclusion from the one you do: these technologies are now mature, commodified, and competitive, with cost declines now driven by manufacturing improvements not research.
9/n
2) Patents as stock not flow.
Thus a decline in the annual publication of patents means our technological capacity to mitigate is still growing. See below, left is flow, right is stock: note how cumulative RE patents look logistic, exactly as expected from a mature tech.
2) Patents as stock not flow.
Thus a decline in the annual publication of patents means our technological capacity to mitigate is still growing. See below, left is flow, right is stock: note how cumulative RE patents look logistic, exactly as expected from a mature tech.
10/n
3) Patents as a sole indicator of innovation.
Patents cover only a small part of the innovation process, ignoring other drivers like learning by doing/economies of scale. Declining patenting rate doesn't equal declining performance improvement; the opposite has been true👇
3) Patents as a sole indicator of innovation.
Patents cover only a small part of the innovation process, ignoring other drivers like learning by doing/economies of scale. Declining patenting rate doesn't equal declining performance improvement; the opposite has been true👇
11/n
4) Misattributed causality.
You state: "But since the Copenhagen Accord signalled the end of legally binding commitments to emissions reduction by the developed countries, technology development in climate change mitigation technologies has registered a significant fall".
4) Misattributed causality.
You state: "But since the Copenhagen Accord signalled the end of legally binding commitments to emissions reduction by the developed countries, technology development in climate change mitigation technologies has registered a significant fall".
12/n
First, massive logical inconsistency: you state (correctly) that developed countries ex-Russia et al only reduced their emissions by ~4%. If these legally binding commitments were so unsuccessful in driving emissions down, why were they so successful in driving patents up?
First, massive logical inconsistency: you state (correctly) that developed countries ex-Russia et al only reduced their emissions by ~4%. If these legally binding commitments were so unsuccessful in driving emissions down, why were they so successful in driving patents up?
13/n
Second, causal simplicity. Patenting activity is driven by a number of things: policy strength, stage in the business cycle, technology maturity, exogenous factors like energy prices. Ascribing the fall in patents to a single and - frankly - spurious cause is problematic.
Second, causal simplicity. Patenting activity is driven by a number of things: policy strength, stage in the business cycle, technology maturity, exogenous factors like energy prices. Ascribing the fall in patents to a single and - frankly - spurious cause is problematic.
14/n
So, here humble conclusions:
1. You misread and oversimplify the evidence on technological innovation. You appear to be so keen to argue what India SHOULD not do (laudable), that you don't assess pragmatically what CAN be done (not so laudable)
So, here humble conclusions:
1. You misread and oversimplify the evidence on technological innovation. You appear to be so keen to argue what India SHOULD not do (laudable), that you don't assess pragmatically what CAN be done (not so laudable)
15/n
2. The decline in CCMT patenting which you rightly point to is a result of numerous causes, some good, some bad. RE has reached technological maturity; 2008-9 saw the end of a massive business cycle upswing and energy price surge; policy is not strong enough outside RE.
2. The decline in CCMT patenting which you rightly point to is a result of numerous causes, some good, some bad. RE has reached technological maturity; 2008-9 saw the end of a massive business cycle upswing and energy price surge; policy is not strong enough outside RE.
16/n
3. We should be concerned about the decline in patenting, but not equally in all sectors. We should be concerned about the lack of acceleration in early innovation in sectors where mitigation techs are most immature: aviation, industry, heavy duty transport, etc.
3. We should be concerned about the decline in patenting, but not equally in all sectors. We should be concerned about the lack of acceleration in early innovation in sectors where mitigation techs are most immature: aviation, industry, heavy duty transport, etc.
17/n
4. Responding explicitly to how India should respond to Guterres' call to progressively phase out coal:
a. Not in industry, technology is not ready.
b. Not yet in power, but India can look to peak and plateau thermal coal use by 2030 & have a very low coal system by 2050
4. Responding explicitly to how India should respond to Guterres' call to progressively phase out coal:
a. Not in industry, technology is not ready.
b. Not yet in power, but India can look to peak and plateau thermal coal use by 2030 & have a very low coal system by 2050
18/n
Finally, I want to apologize for the tone of my first tweet in response to your article.
These are my honest, considered opinions. I disagree fundamentally with a number of your points; I have concerns about certain of your data.
But I hope we can debate with respect.
Finally, I want to apologize for the tone of my first tweet in response to your article.
These are my honest, considered opinions. I disagree fundamentally with a number of your points; I have concerns about certain of your data.
But I hope we can debate with respect.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
