Climate Geoengineering Governance - Council On...

June 2014 | New Delhi, India

CEEW Conference Report

Climate Geoengineering Governance

23 - 24 June 2014

ceew.in/publications

Thapar House 124, Janpath New Delhi 110001 India

Tel: +91 11 40733300

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

CE

EW

Confe

rence

Rep

ort

Ju

ne

2014

ceew

.in

Climate Geoengineering Governance Conference Report

New Delhi

23-24 June 2014

Copyright © 2014 Council on Energy, Environment and Water

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval

system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,

recording or otherwise, without prior permission.

A report on the conference organised by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water

(CEEW) and the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (InSIS) on ‘Climate

Geoengineering Governance’ held at Hotel Le Meridien, Janpath, New Delhi on 23-24 June

2014.

The views expressed in this report are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the

views and policies of CEEW or InSIS.

The Council on Energy, Environment and Water (http://ceew.in/) is an independent, not-for-

profit policy research institution, chaired by former Union Minister Suresh Prabhu. CEEW

addresses pressing global challenges through an integrated and internationally focused

approach. It does so through high quality research, partnerships with public and private

institutions, and engagement with and outreach to the wider public. The International Centre

for Climate Governance has ranked CEEW as India's top climate change think-tank two years

in a row. In 2014, the Global Go To Think Tank Index ranked CEEW 1st in India in three

categories.

Council on Energy, Environment and Water

Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi 110001, India

ABOUT THE ORGANISERS

COUNCIL ON ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT AND WATER

The Council on Energy, Environment and Water (http://ceew.in/) is an independent, not-for-

profit policy research institution, chaired by former Union Minister Suresh Prabhu. CEEW

addresses pressing global challenges through an integrated and internationally focused

approach. It does so through high quality research, partnerships with public and private

institutions, and engagement with and outreach to the wider public. The International Centre

for Climate Governance has ranked CEEW as India’s top climate change think-tank two

years in a row. In 2014, the Global Go To Think Tank Index ranked CEEW 1st in India in

three categories.

In less than four years of operations, CEEW has engaged in more than 60 research

projects, published 35 peer-reviewed policy reports and papers, advised governments around

the world over 80 times, engaged with industry to encourage investments in clean

technologies and improve efficiency in resource use, promoted bilateral and multilateral

initiatives between governments on 30 occasions, helped state governments with water and

irrigation reforms, and organised more than 75 seminars and conferences.

Among its major completed projects, CEEW has: published the 584-page National Water

Resources Framework Study for India’s 12th Five Year Plan; written India’s first report on

global governance, submitted to the National Security Adviser; foreign policy implications

for resource security; undertaken the first independent assessment of India’s 22 gigawatt solar

mission; analysed India’s green industrial policy; written on the resource nexus and on

strategic industries and technologies for India’s National Security Advisory Board; facilitated

the $125 million India-U.S. Joint Clean Energy R&D Center; published a business case for

phasing down HFCs in Indian industry; worked on geoengineering governance (with UK’s

Royal Society and the IPCC); published reports on decentralised energy in India; evaluated

energy storage technologies; created the Maharashtra-Guangdong partnership on

sustainability; published research on energy-trade-climate linkages for the Rio+20 Summit;

produced comprehensive reports and briefed negotiators on climate finance; designed

financial instruments for energy access for the World Bank; designed irrigation reform for

Bihar; and a multi-stakeholder initiative to target challenges of urban water management.

CEEW’s current projects include: developing the Clean Energy Access Network (CLEAN)

of hundreds of decentralised clean energy firms (an idea endorsed by Prime Minister Singh

and President Obama in September 2013); modelling India’s long-term energy scenarios;

modelling energy-water nexus; modelling renewable energy variability and grid integration;

http://ceew.in/

supporting India’s National Water Mission; analysing collective action for water security;

business case for energy efficiency and emissions reductions in the cement industry.

CEEW’s work covers all levels of governance: at the national level, resource efficiency and

security, water resources, and renewable energy; at the global/regional level, sustainability

finance, energy-trade-climate linkages, technology horizons, and bilateral collaborations,

with Bhutan, China, Iceland, Israel, Pakistan, Singapore, and the US; and at the state/local

level, CEEW develops integrated energy, environment and water plans, and facilitates

industry action to reduce emissions or increase R&D investments in clean technologies.

INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE, INNOVATION AND SOCIETY

The Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (InSIS) researches and informs key

contemporary and emerging issues and processes of social, scientific, and technological

change. We combine the highest standards of scholarship and relevance to pursue and

disseminate timely research in the UK and worldwide. We collaborate with leading thinkers

around the world and welcome them to Oxford as visiting researchers. We nurture early

career researchers through research fellowships in our various programmes.

InSIS is based at Oxford University’s School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography,

one of the world’s largest and most vibrant centres for teaching and research in the field.

InSIS is a member of the Oxford Martin School, established at the University of Oxford in

2005 to foster innovative thinking to address the issues of the 21st Century. As an

interdisciplinary institute, InSIS welcomes the participation of researchers from all

departments of the University of Oxford in its research programmes and outreach activities.

InSIS receives funding from the Oxford Martin School, the European Research Council, the

UK Economic and Social Research Council, the CSPVM Trust and other public and private

agencies.

CONTENTS 1. Background and Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1

2. Key Messages from Keynote Speech and Special Addresses ........................................................ 3

2.1 Keynote Speech: Evolving Indian environmental policy as a context for the governance of

climate change ................................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Special Address: Key issues and India’s role ............................................................................ 4

2.3 Special Address: A scientist-driven global process ................................................................... 4

3. Conference Sessions and Key Discussions ..................................................................................... 5

3.1 Issues and Research under CGG and EuTRACE ....................................................................... 5

3.2 The Science of Geoengineering and Response of Indian Monsoon to Geoengineering of

Solar Radiation .................................................................................................................................. 6

3.3 Issues of Ethics, Economics and Environment posed by Geoengineering ............................. 7

3.4 Issues of International Law and Governance in Geoengineering ......................................... 10

3.5 Possible Governance Structures and Processes.................................................................... 12

4 Summary of Discussions ................................................................................................................. 15

5 Way Ahead: Future Collaborative Research - Some First Thoughts ............................................. 17

5.1 The science of geoengineering ............................................................................................... 17

5.2 Appraisal of techno-economic feasibility ................................................................................ 17

5.3 Assessment of social feasibility .............................................................................................. 18

5.4 Exploring ethical dimensions .................................................................................................. 18

5.5 Defining the legal framework and enforcement mechanisms.............................................. 19

6. Profile of the Speakers ................................................................................................................... 20

7. List of Participants .......................................................................................................................... 29

CEEW- InSIS Climate Geoengineering Governance Conference Report | 1

1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

Human-induced climate change poses threats to the survival and livelihoods of communities

across the world. Early debate on possible responses focused on mitigation which aims at

reducing carbon emissions by consuming less energy or by reducing the carbon in the energy

produced. In the last decade there has also been increasing discussion of adaptation, which

aims at building capacities and infrastructure to better cope with climate change impacts.

Under discussion now, within the scientific community and partially within policy circles, is

a third option – that of climate geoengineering. Defined as the ‘the deliberate large-scale

manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change’, the

term covers a wide range of technologies, which work either by reducing the amount of sun's

radiation reaching the earth (solar radiation management – SRM) or by removing carbon

dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere (carbon dioxide removal – CDR) as CO2 emissions are

the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.

There is growing international interest in climate geoengineering. The Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) included geoengineering in its Fifth Assessment Report

(2014) and held its first expert consultation on geoengineering in 2011.1 Earlier, the Royal

Society UK had published an initial assessment of technologies and put forward

recommendations.2 Geoengineering research and related governance questions have been

discussed at the national legislative and executive levels in various countries. Congressional

and Parliamentary reports and hearings have been held in the United Kingdom3 and the

United States4,5

respectively, and other studies have been commissioned by the German

federal government.6

Research has shown that any large scale implementation of climate geoengineering

technologies is bound to have cross-boundary effects. However, there is a governance gap,

particularly at the international level, for governing the choice and implementation of any

geoengineering intervention by individual nations. No existing institution appears to have the

mandate or capacity to govern the upstream process of laying down proactive research and

1Ghosh, A. 2011.‘International Cooperation and the Governance of Geoengineering,’ Keynote Lecture to the Expert

Meeting on Geoengineering, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Lima, 21 June. Available at:

http://ceew.in/pdf/AG_International_Cooperation_IPCC_21Jun11.pdf. 2Royal Society. 2009. Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty. London, UK: Royal

Society. 3House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. 2010. The Regulation of Geoengineering. London: The

Stationery Office Limited 4Gordon, B. 2010.Engineering the Climate: Research Needs and Strategies for International Coordination.Committee

on Science and Technology, House of Representatives, United States Congress, Washington, DC. 5United States Government Accountability Office. 2010. Climate Change: Preliminary Observations on

Geoengineering Science, Federal Efforts, and Governance Issues. United States Government Accountability Office,

Washington, DC. 6Rickels W., et al. 2011. Large-Scale Intentional Interventions into the Climate System?Assessing the Climate

Engineering Debate. Scoping report conducted on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research

(BMBF), Kiel Earth Institute, Kiel.

2 Background and Introduction

governance mechanisms.7 And the existing landscape of multilateral environmental

agreements varies in terms of its relevance to governing the deployment of geoengineering

technologies.8 Meanwhile, research activities are gaining momentum, even though the vast

majority of researchers might currently be concentrated in a few developed countries, thus

raising questions about the legitimacy of the research and exposing governance deficits.

The Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) and the Institute for Science,

Innovation and Society (InSIS), University of Oxford, organised a two day conference on

Climate Geoengineering Governance in India on 23-24 June, 2014. The conference aimed at

examining the governance arrangements that may be needed to ensure that experimentation

or deployment of any of the large range of geoengineering technologies being proposed are

safe, fair, effective and economic. It saw participation of experts in multiple disciplines from

across the world. The speakers included seasoned administrators and policy makers, social

and political scientists, techno-economic experts and practitioners in international law.

The conference commenced with Dr Arunabha Ghosh, CEO, CEEW, welcoming the

participants and setting the context for the day by highlighting the past incidents of

geoengineering experiments. In 2012, 100 tons of iron sulphates were dumped into the ocean

near the northwest Pacific coast by the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation. This

experiment in iron fertilisation attempted to boost phytoplankton numbers and restore salmon

populations. Although salmon runs in the next year quadrupled to 226 million fish, the action

was viewed with outrage as it had been entirely unregulated. There had been no consideration

for the effects on other marine ecosystems. This case highlights the need for governance

frameworks in the nascent field of geoengineering.

The two day conference was split into six sessions with the following themes:

Issues and Research under CGG and EuTRACE

The Science of Geoengineering

Issues of Ethics, Economics and Environment posed by Geoengineering

Issues of International Law and Governance posed by Geoengineering

Possible Governance Structures and Processes

Future Collaborative Research – Some First Thoughts

7Ghosh, A. 2014.‘Environmental Institutions, International Research Programmes, and Lessons for Geoengineering

Research.’Working Paper, Geoengineering Our Climate Working Paper and Opinion Article Series. Available at:

http://wp.me/p2zsRk-av 8Blackstock, J.J., and A. Ghosh. 2011. ‘Does Geoengineering Need a Global Response – and of What

Kind?’Background Paper, Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative, Royal Society UK, March.


2. KEY MESSAGES FROM KEYNOTE SPEECH AND SPECIAL

ADDRESSES

2.1 Keynote Speech: Evolving Indian environmental policy as a context for the

governance of climate change

J.M. Mauskar, former Special Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, GoI

Mr. J. M. Mauskar highlighted that from early Vedic deification of the natural environment to

Ashoka’s decree for protection of wildlife and forests, India has been conscious of her

environment and her responsibility towards conserving it. Modern-day India’s constitution

incorporates the concept of sustainability, indirectly, by directing that material resources be

distributed for the common good. Environmental law making emerged after the Stockholm

Conference of 1972, when a series of laws, preventive as well as protective, came into being.

Not only did India reform its legal framework with global developments, but it also set the

tone of the global negotiations when Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the then prime minister of India,

said, ‘poverty and need are the worst polluters’ at the Stockholm Conference.

Mr. Mauskar informed the participants that two amendments were introduced in 1976 into the

Constitution of India to recognise the duty of the state and its citizens towards the

environment. Although India recognized her duty to the environment early on, Indira

Gandhi’s words still resonate strongly with the ongoing debate on action against climate

change. Mr. Mauskar also emphasised that the government’s primary obligations are to

eradicate poverty and continue economic and social development. The imperatives of climate

change are secondary, especially on the state-level, where local priorities may clash with

national ones. However, India has developed a National Action Plan on Climate Change and

is exploring low carbon growth strategies. Her judiciary has proactively ruled in favour of

environmentally benign development. One of the key points involved in creating a

sustainable economy is to abandon the idea of continuous growth. India is trying to strike a

balance between its national priority of poverty elimination and the need to act on

environmental imperatives.

Mr. Mauskar concluded by highlighting that the governance of geoengineering is just as

important as the development of the technologies that will make geoengineering possible and

a democratic approach in doing so is paramount. India will continue to play a positive role in

climate change deliberations, but her stance will be driven by the principle of equity, inter-

generational as well as intra-generational, and her development imperatives.

4 Key Messages from Keynote Speech and Special Addresses

2.2 Special Address: Key issues and India’s role

Suresh Prabhu, Former Union Minister, GoI; Chairperson, CEEW

Acknowledging the need for geoengineering governance, Mr. Prabhu highlighted several

ethical, socioeconomic and political issues which should guide its form and content. A

holistic framework would enable assessment of geoengineering technologies beyond the

questions of their techno-economic viability. Moreover, governance structures should have a

global outlook and not aim to benefit only the countries that designed or are promoting them.

In this regard, the effectiveness of market-based mechanisms in combating climate change is

also questionable.

Borrowing from his past experience as a policy maker, Mr. Prabhu also pointed to the welfare

concerns that dominate the minds of the legislators and will do so in case of geoengineering

as well. He concluded by highlighting that India as a country faces more negative

consequences of climate change than others. Therefore, it is in her interest to proactively act

on climate change challenges.

2.3 Special Address: A scientist-driven global process

Nitin Desai, Former UN Under-Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs

Research on climate change earlier was science led; later it was moved under the umbrella of

IPCC. Given the dangers of politicising science, as is sometimes perceived in IPCC, Prof.

Desai argued for a scientist driven process for research related to geoengineering technology

as well as governance.

Such a process will have to be transnational and participative. It will have to address the

concerns of scientific uncertainty, avoid narrow perspectives towards solutions (as in case of

the Montreal Protocol) and evaluate impacts rigorously to circumvent moral hazards. The

keywords of prudence, foresight and responsibility can guide the research to inform and help

develop a robust governance process which is crucial before any deployment.

A scientist driven process is essential as climate change negotiations have not moved forward

since the Kyoto Protocol, which itself was below expectations. Moreover, records of

collaboration in science are better than those in the geopolitical sphere. There is

unwillingness amongst nations to accept concrete and sincere solutions. However, acceptance

towards changing the current patterns of consumption, redefining the concept of growth and

reforms in the political processes is a must for any genuine action against climate change.


3. CONFERENCE SESSIONS AND KEY DISCUSSIONS

3.1 Issues and Research under CGG and EuTRACE

The Climate Geoengineering Governance Research Program (CGG) and EuTRACE

(European Trans-disciplinary Assessment of Climate Engineering) are two organizations in

Europe involved in the area of geoengineering governance. In this session, high-level

principles for geoengineering were presented by speakers from the University of Oxford and

IASS Potsdam. Two lectures and a subsequent discussion session were moderated by Peter

Healey, InSIS. Prof. Steve Rayner, InSIS, took to the floor first and introduced the CGG

before discussing the Oxford Principles.

The CGG research programme is a collaboration of the Universities of Oxford, Sussex and

University College London (UCL). It is funded by the Economic and Social Research

Council (ESRC) and the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) of the UK. It aims

to explore governance issues around geoengineering and geoengineering research, with three

themes:

Robust research on ethical, legal, social and geopolitical implications of

geoengineering approaches;

Guidelines for development of governance and regulation;

Stimulation of dialogue between key stakeholders on the possible role of

geoengineering.

The architects of the project have based it around pursuing the framings of geoengineering

through technical, legal, ethical and social lenses. There are dilemmas of control involved,

which concern research and implementation, possible lock-in associated with some

technologies and the level of public acceptability that each technology carries. Regulatory

requirements must also be made clear. InSIS at the University of Oxford has attempted to

address the third of these points by developing the Oxford Principles. These outline the way

the development of geoengineering should be approached. Geoengineering should:

Be regulated as a public good;

Involve the public in decision making;

Openly disclose and publish results of research;

Have independently coordinated impact assessment;

Have a clear governance structure in place before deployment.

These principles, being high-level, can be used in any approach to geoengineering, yet can

also provoke discussions and help develop more robust or technology-specific guidelines.

Emerging issues in geoengineering concern the assignment of responsibility for governance

and defining how geoengineering research should be conducted. Due to the nature of the

technologies and their impact, being able to distinguish research from implementation is

crucial. Addressing where the laboratory ends and deployment begins, will have to be part of

the development of geoengineering governance frameworks. Prof. Rayner also emphasized

6 Conference Sessions and Key Discussions

the importance of Indian participation in the geoengineering debate, given its previous role in

climate change deliberations. The collaboration between CEEW and CGG will help avoid

any ethnocentric approach and facilitate inclusion of overlooked viewpoints. The relationship

can also serve as a platform to develop future collaborative research.

Dr Harald Stelzer introduced EuTRACE, part of the SIWA project (Sustainable Interactions

With the Atmosphere). It is funded through the EU FP7 Coordination and Support Action

scheme. Its focus is to review existing knowledge, identify gaps, develop recommendations

and help facilitate communication between science, policy and society. The EuTRACE

Principles were developed to ensure:

Minimization of harms;

Protection of the environment;

Fairness and sustainable development;

Adherence to the precautionary principle;

Transparency and participation;

Freedom of scientific research;

International cooperation.

These are similar to the Oxford Principles but could be partially legally binding at the EU

level. Again, they remain high-level and are intended to guide policy development.

Governance itself could be approached in three ways: Zero regulation, soft laws or legally

binding laws. These are not mutually exclusive. Policy options also extend to different

domains (atmosphere, ocean, land) and hold different goals and approaches to include:

A wide range of stakeholders;

Active deliberations and open decision making;

Discourse opened to varied perspectives.

It was stressed that the emergence of geoengineering poses a large market gap that could be

filled by unsuitable players. A geoengineering research race should be avoided as this would

complicate regulation and disregard international considerations. International cooperation is

therefore essential. Coordination can be achieved through some of the existing international

legal instruments such as the London Protocol or the Convention on Biological Diversity.

3.2 The Science of Geoengineering and Response of Indian Monsoon to

Geoengineering of Solar Radiation

Any governance framework for research and deployment of geoengineering has to be framed

with a basic understanding of the science and technologies concerned; the likely impacts,

opportunities as well as challenges. This session was focused on understanding the science of

geoengineering with emphasis on response of Indian climate to it.

Climate geoengineering technologies are broadly classified into two categories. SRM and

CDR. Prof. Bala Govindasamy, IISc Bangalore, introduced both technologies and highlighted

their comparative advantages and disadvantages. SRM is used to reduce the amount of

incident solar radiation the Earth receives. Proposed mechanisms to accomplish this include

the use of space mirrors to deflect sunlight before it reaches Earth, the use of aerosols in the


atmosphere to reduce the greenhouse effect, or modification of the Earth’s albedo by

changing the amount of sunlight reflected from the ground. CDR refers to methods that

accelerate the removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This can be accomplished by

removing CO2 at its source of emission (for point-source emissions) or by enhancing natural

CO2 sinks such as forests.

SRM is relatively cheaper than CDR and can rapidly reduce Global Mean Temperature

(GMT). However, it acts only on the effects of climate change, without dealing with the root

cause (excessive carbon dioxide emissions) or addressing the problem of ocean acidification.

Moreover, a sustained high rate of warming might be experienced if SRM is abruptly

terminated and temperatures might rapidly rise to original growth pathways. This is called the

termination effect. Conversely, CDR acts on the root cause of climate change by removing

CO2. It addresses ocean acidification and is less risky than SRM. However, implementation

of CDR would take much longer than that of SRM and would be more expensive, also it

would take longer to have an effect on global warming.. It was suggested that termination

effect of SRM could be avoided by gradual introduction of CDR with simultaneous

withdrawal of SRM technologies, in order to address a climate emergency.

Dr Govindasamy’s presentation included an analysis of precipitation extremes by calculating

changes in the 99th percentiles of rainfall predictions with and without geoengineering

regimes. Geoengineering resulted in greatly reduced extreme precipitation events, though the

intensity of this effect varied with deployment of different SRM technologies. It was also

highlighted that the differences between SRM and CDR and the side effects they pose would

lead to trade-offs that must be considered when deciding on a possible geoengineering

regime. A compromise between increasing temperature and predicted decline in precipitation

would be required. The time taken to deploy a technology and the time taken for it to have

any effect on global warming must be considered.

Dr Saroj Mishra, IIT Delhi, discussed the effects of geoengineering in India’s context. One of

the most economically important periods in the year is the monsoon season which begins in

July and ends in October. Important climatic factors that affect the formation of the monsoon

each year are the meridonal and temporal temperature gradients around the equator.

Geoengineering may change these temperature gradients, with adverse effects on the

monsoon. Three climate models were used, each with their own biases, to assess the impact

of geoengineering on Indian climate and all showed a decrease in precipitation over the

Indian peninsula when geoengineering was used. Evaporation rates, large scale moisture

convergence, surface temperatures, etc. all reduced as well. Despite the models’ biases and

the preliminary nature of the results, these raise concerns regarding possibility of

disproportionate impact of geoengineering on tropical climates and particularly the Indian

monsoon. The session concluded by calling for more research into the potential effects that

geoengineering may have on global and regional climates.


3.3 Issues of Ethics, Economics and Environment posed by Geoengineering

Climate geoengineering is slowly gaining interest in international policy circles. In the

background of climate change politics, discussion over geoengineering invariably raises

many ethical concerns. This session was focused on developing an understanding of the

ethical, economic and environmental issues related to geoengineering, the risks associated

with different technologies and the possible mechanisms to manage them. Dr Vaibhav

Chaturvedi, CEEW, introduced the speakers and moderated the ensuing presentations and

dialogue.

3.3.1 Framing the debate

Dr Rose Cairns, University of Sussex, pointed out that geoengineering exists so far in the

realm of discourse and limited research. It is a set of hypothetical ideas and not a set of

technologies which people might have opinion about. Framing the discourse correctly is

therefore critical, as not only it involves description of what is but it also implicitly forces the

idea of what should be.

In study a conducted in the UK and the US, participants were asked to rank a set of opinions

about geoengineering in order to identify patterns in the public perception of geoengineering.

One narrative involved posing ‘geoengineering as the only solution’ in the post-climate-

change world and thus trying to create space for climate authoritarianism. This type of

framing closes the debate altogether from further discussion. Another opinion viewed

‘geoengineering as a political project, trying to shift the focus away from socio-economic

solutions’, while few others ‘sought more research’ or believed that ‘climate can’t be

controlled’, and so favoured the mitigation route.

Although the study has its limitations, it reveals that there is a diversity of framings of the

geoengineering debate and that these reflect the diversity of political and ethical positions.

Also, there seems to be a lack of public trust. Conspiracy theorists believe governments are

already manipulating the climate. This implies that geoengineering, if used, would

immediately be blamed for any unexpected outcome from climate change mitigation or

adaptation strategies. Having a democratic debate is therefore essential and involving social

and ethical sciences can help to open up this debate.

3.3.2 Ethical issues and challenges posed by geoengineering

In view of the direction that the discourse on geoengineering is taking, Dr Harold Stelzer,

Project scientist, IASS-Potsdam, elaborated the associated ethical concerns. He pointed to the

risk of moral hazard due to geoengineering. Contemplating the use of geoengineering could

create an illusion of safety, that geoengineering is an ‘insurance’ technology. This would lead

to delayed action in mitigation and adaptation strategies. Similar concern was raised by Prof.

T. Jayaraman, TISS, who questioned the ethical basis for development of such technologies.

Technologies like SRM do not address the causes of climate change (high carbon growth

pathways and lifestyles). They rather amount to mere technological fixes.


Geoengineering the climate also reflects on our perception of nature; our willingness to

manipulate it rather than explore our own boundaries within it. Further, geoengineering might

disproportionately affect certain regions. This raises the concern of distributive justice. The

concept of inter-generational justice is also profound as future generations would not be able

to undo a geoengineered world. The risks from geoengineering would be socially produced

but the compensation burden would fall disproportionately on some individuals.

3.3.3 Compensation funds

Prof. Julian Savulescu, University of Oxford, delved into the principles which could possibly

serve as the basis for compensation funds for harm due to geoengineering and the structures

and mechanisms for any such funds. Using various case studies, Prof. Savulescu argued that

of three principles – ‘Polluter pays’, ‘Beneficiary pays’ and ‘Ability to pay’, none could

justifiably be used alone for financing compensation. A hybrid of these principles may

provide a workable basis though. However, the problem of detection and attribution of the

damage can complicate the compensation mechanism.

With ethical positions rooted in the principle of egalitarianism, it was reasoned that victims

should be compensated for harm not under their control. It was argued that the harm caused

by geoengineering should not be treated differently from other anthropogenic climate related

harm or natural disasters. To meet these concerns, Dr Savulescu suggested that a general no-

fault climate compensation scheme, with contributions from all nations (a certain percentage

of their GDP), could be used to compensate for damages from geoengineering. This would

overcome the challenge of detection and attribution and would also be fair from the victims’

perspective.

3.3.4 The economics of mitigation versus geoengineering

Prof. P.R Shukla, IIM Ahmadabad, threw light on the economics of geoengineering options

based on the integrated assessment models and the IPCC’s fifth assessment report. He

highlighted that though mitigation costs vary widely, they are relatively modest compared to

overall economic growth under idealized assumptions. These costs are exclusive of the

benefits of mitigation like reduced impacts as well as other co-benefits (e.g. improvements in

local air quality, health benefits, etc). However, as mitigation strategies are delayed, their

costs would increase. Geoengineering comes into the picture if one doesn’t go for timely

mitigation measures.

However, geoengineering may have adverse implications, such as irreversible climate

impacts from SRM and compromised food security due to BECCS. Going forward with

geoengineering therefore raises multiple concerns. Prof. Shukla posed an interesting

question- that if geoengineering solutions are cheaper than mitigation actions, then why

shouldn't the world target stabilization below 2OC, e.g. 1

OC or even 0

OC implying no increase

in temperature at all ? This could be the immediate step to avoid the risk of a moral hazard. If

geoengineering costs are high, then they can be treated as insurance options.

The economics of mitigation are not as challenging as they appear to be. However, financial

trasfers to developing countries would be required. Geoengineering costs could cause parties

to take unilateral action that might cause damage elsewhere. Altered pay-offs among

partieswould add to a trust deficit. Hence, keeping the precautionary principle in view,


geoengineering governance (as a part of climate governance) should focus on a middle

ground rather than consider extremes, assess the costs and benefits of geoengineering and aim

to redistribute the net gains fairly.

3.3.5 Differentiating within geoengineering technologies

The term geoengineering is being applied to a spectra of technologies such as SRM and CDR

(Carbon Dioxide Removal). Prof. Anand Patwardhan, Faculty, School of Public Policy,

University of Maryland, began his presentation by underlining the need to have differentiated

and more nuanced use of the term geoengineering, as the two technologies are fundamentally

different.

In fact, many CDR technologies have already been recognised as legal mitigation strategies.

This blurs the line between geonegineering and other mitigation technologies. These include

biological storage of carbon, aforestation and Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and

Storage(BECCS). There is no consensus over whether the ongoing modification of urban

areas by painting roofs white is a mitigation or geoengineering strategy. CDR is no longer a

remote possibility. In order to meet the two degree target, a large percentage of integrated

assessment models (IAMs) choose negative emission strategies for deployment in the latter

half of the century, with BECCS playing a prominent role. Particularly in the situation of

delayed action and high peaking, a net negative emissions scenario seems inevitable. CDR

technologies are already available and appear very attractive from a cost point-of-view as

they come with discounting. These also allow for deferring the mitigation burden to future

generations by delaying action, making them attractive for a political economy.

Different CDR options will have different governance and deployment pathways depending

on their application. Whether we choose to enhance natural sinks (marine or terrestrial) or

create new artificial sinks, these options will fall under different jurisdictions

(domestic/international) and lay down different pathways from technological, risk and policy

standpoints. There are technological and scaling up challenges with both CCS and bio-

energy, which are compounded in the case of BECCS. These may have positive as well

negative interactions with other issues such as competition with food (rising crop prices with

rising carbon prices), enhancing rural energy access or creating economic opportunities in

rural areas.

3.4 Issues of International Law and Governance in Geoengineering

This session revolved around understanding the international governance ecosystem within

which the geoengineering governance issues are being debated.

3.4.1 Different approaches and challenges to governance

Prof. Catherine Redgwell, University of Oxford, gave an outline of the approaches that can

be taken and the basic problems that must be dealt with while developing geoengineering

governance frameworks. Governance frameworks can be developed using three broad options

viz. adapting the existing frameworks, creating new frameworks, or having a set of general

principles which can guide, but are non-binding. They are neither mutually exclusive nor

permanent in their choice if used.


Looking at the option to adopt the existing frameworks, the Convention on Biodiversity

(CBD) has a broad scope in relation to biodiversity. The Conference of Parties (CoP) to the

CBD adopted a moratorium on ocean fertilisation in 2008 and invoked the precautionary

principle for climate geoengineering affecting biodiversity in 2010. The London Convention

(LC) and London Protocol (LP) can provide a framework for oceanic domain. However,

there exists no single treaty or institution with a sufficiently broad mandate to address all the

aspects of geoengineering regulation. The challenge of developing an entirely new treaty or

institution would be immense as there is little interest in law-making on this scale. The main

hurdles would be in eliciting effective participation from states, striking a balance amongst

competing policy imperatives and in enforcement. Non-binding guidelines such as the Oxford

and EuTRACE principles would pose issues related to multiple interpretations, trust,

transparency, control and enforcement. As the context and possible impacts of

geoengineering may differ significantly around the world, a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach may

suit the high level of general principles but would be inappropriate on a case-by-case basis.

The need for regulation arises out of the threat of risks. Therefore any regulation should aim

to:

Reduce risk;

Manage risk (e.g. through impact assessment);

Allocate risk.

However, there are pervasive uncertainties associated with geoengineering that encompass

economic and technological aspects and cannot be fully eliminated. The risks involved are

many and inter-related; any regulation will have to deal with often competing policy

imperatives. There is also a concern related to dual use of geoengineering technology

(militarisation), which necessitates concrete regulatory targets. A sovereign body could

decide to act unilaterally in its jurisdiction. Additionally, despite global consensus on the

structure of geoengineering governance, its enforcement will be difficult, given the poor state

of implementation of existing legal tools. In view of these challenges, any proposed

regulation would have to be evaluated across assessment indicators such as the level of legal

force they provide, the precision of their obligations, their capacity to evolve over time and

degree of inclusiveness.

3.4.2 Is geoengineering through Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) governable?

As the approaches and challenges in the development of geoengineering were being

discussed, an interesting but radical argument was put forward by Dr Cairns. She made a case

that Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI – an SRM technology) should be altogether

abandoned due to the myriad issues of risks, geopolitical stability and democratic governance

associated with it.

The appeal that SAI currently holds is that it is fast-acting, effective and cheap. However,

there is poor understanding of its effects on regional climate although ecological impacts due

to projected increases in diffused solar radiation and dangerous warming associated with the

termination effect are possible. The uncertainties in the science mean that the impacts of

SRM (including SAI) would be unknown until deployment. Since small releases into the


atmosphere will have a negligible effect on climate, research will require that deployment be

done on a full scale. Hence, building consensus on the level of SAI to be carried out will be

difficult. Lack of an opt-out option implies that SAI is ‘at odds with any kind of democratic

governance’. The associated risks would necessitate some form of central control of SAI

activities and hugely militarized infrastructure to ensure reliable operation. Unilateral action

by countries may lead to geopolitical tensions and regional destabilisation. Dr Cairns

maintained that these multiple concerns may not lend themselves to governance at all.

However, others argued that an effective governance structure can facilitate research which

may inform us more, even though more science may not necessarily resolve the problems.

3.4.3 National and international contexts to geoengineering governance

To formulate a governance framework for geoengineering, it is imperative to analyse its

probable interactions with international and domestic forces and frameworks. Shawahiq

Siddiqui, Indian Environment Law Offices, elaborated on several possibilities.

In international forums, geoengineering has marked a fundamental shift in climate strategies

from the idea of long-term measures to that of short-term GHG concentrations stabilisation.

Does this amount to a violation of the fundamental approaches of adaptation and mitigation

under international law, specifically under the UNFCCC? Do we have any legally binding

climate regime at all; how will geoengineering governance be positioned in this context?

Often the tenet of limited territorial sovereignty is invoked to prevent any significant harm to

(sovereign) others. However, in the absence of an internationally accepted definition of

‘significant harm’ who will define it? Can geoengineering be possibly used on the basis of

the ‘responsibility to protect’ principle? Or as an extreme scenario, might it be considered as

a global security threat and brought to the UNSC platform? These are questions

geoengineering will have to deal with on a global level.

On the domestic front, each state has a welfare imperative. In the event of negative impacts of

geoengineering on India’s population, what measures might the nation undertake and in what

capacity? Also, as geoengineering is being discussed in the context of climate change, the

concerns of equity and justice will be hard to negotiate. Many such concerns and intricacies

will have to be resolved in parallel to the exploration of geoengineering governance.

3.5 Possible Governance Structures and Processes

Following an extensive discussion over the science of geoengineering and the plethora of

associated issues, this session attempted to explore the possible shape and content that

geoengineering governance could adopt.

3.5.1 Will geoengineering technologies stabilize?

Prof Healey, InSIS, University of Oxford, emphasised that much of the framework for

geoengineering remains unclear, such as its boundaries, the actors and processes involved and

its programme of work. It is yet to reach out to a wide audience despite its global nature.

‘Stabilisation’ of a technology refers to all of these occurring, and generates, for a period of

time, a set of resources in which innovation can take place. This guides a community and


helps in transition from a technical construct to a socio-technical one. Geoengineering is

unlikely to stabilise in this manner, if at all, for several reasons. There is only one purpose

served by the variety of technologies that encompass geoengineering. There is little

characterisation of the field at the moment (due to the conceptual phase of the technologies)

and little funding available. There are even concerns related to geoengineering technology

getting weaponised. There is also uncertainty as to how intellectual property rights would be

allocated.

Professor Healey compared geoengineering with molecular science and medicine

respectively to analyse whether meta-stabilisation can apply to geoengineering. He concluded

that geoengineering may not stabilize like other emerging technologies and that the only

claim to unity it may ever hold is as a set of socio-technical options. The lack of consensus on

the nature of geoengineering as a technology or a governance process as well as the

polarisation between different technologies will impede its stabilisation.

3.5.2 Proposal for an experiment regulation process

There is a need for governance structures for experiments in geoengineering. To fill the

present gaps, Mr Tim Kruger, University of Oxford, presented the Earth Systems Intervention

Experiment Regulation Process (ESIERP).

The process involves the submission of proposed experiments to a publicly accessible

registry managed by a neutral agency, such as the IUCN (International Union for the

Conservation of Nature). The agency would then decide the domain of the experiment

(oceanic/terrestrial/atmospheric). Assigned governing panels or national authorities can pass

judgement on the experiment under national or international legislation relevant to the

domain. These rulings are useful in that they can guide future decisions. Such a framework is

also open to incorporation into future treaties. There is no regulation available for

experiments in the atmosphere, which poses a governance gap. The existing regulation for

oceans could potentially be adapted to suit atmospheric experiments.

An important issue that the registry would have to address is the clarification of intention for

each experiment. The effect of morality is evident in an experimental process. It is not

acceptable to perform animal testing in order to develop cosmetics, however this is allowed if

the purpose is to develop medicines. The suffering undergone by animals in both cases may

be equal, but we allow one experiment to proceed solely based on the appeal to morality that

the intentions of each experiment make. Ensuring intentions are made clear in geoengineering

experiments will help promote transparency in the research and development process. If this

declaration of intent is made legally binding, the experiments can be properly logged or

documented before they are allowed to proceed. Finally, the careful use of new and existing

frameworks can prevent the circumvention of regulations by the actors ‘defining themselves

out of the system’.


3.5.3 Governance structures to be shaped by moral and equity concerns

Mr. Mauskar listed measures such as clarifying intentions, studying natural analogues,

conducting thought experiments and keeping in mind the principles of equity and CBDR in

an attempt to identify effective and acceptable governance structures.

An argument for geoengineering has been based on moral ambiguity: there are natural

analogues to the proposed geoengineering experiments such as the eruption of volcanoes

(which are shown to cause drops in GMT). Why is there any need to regulate the release of

sulphates into the atmosphere? We also release CO2 into the atmosphere, for the most part

unregulated. To avoid such ambiguities, there should be a clear distinction in the intentions

for geoengineering to counteract natural climate change or anthropogenic climate change.

3.5.4 Governance imperatives

Dr Ghosh brought the session to a close with a more specific discussion of the governance

gaps in geoengineering and the problems that they pose. There exist some treaties that may

find relevance with geoengineering methods that are applied in different domains. Some may

be applicable to all technologies and some may be more focused in scope. However, these

might be applicable only during the deployment of the technologies. No such framework

exists for the research and development phases of the projects. To fill these gaps, InSIS at

Oxford and EuTRACE have come up with their proposed principles.

He also highlighted the less touched upon concern related to the role that politics would play

in geoengineering. Development of governance frameworks for research and deployment

would call for a balance between varying national interests and their associated ethical

concerns. Interest-based concerns will stem from preference for maintaining flexibility or

constraining others, while ethical concerns will call for choice between process legitimacy

and outcome legitimacy. Any structure would have to be able to identify decision makers,

monitors of actions and those who are responsible for solving disputes.

Dr. Ghosh also emphasised on identifying thresholds for research. These would dictate the

scale on which research could be conducted and what the applicable legislation would be.

The scale would also depend on the level of funding and the size or nature of the institution

conducting the research. Inspiration could be taken from other existing examples of

internationally coordinated research such as the European Centre for Nuclear Research

(CERN) or the Human Genome Project. These projects have flexible funding schemes and

compromise between contributions of human or capital resources across countries to promote

a more inclusive framework.


4 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS

There is an increasing international interest in climate geoengineering. The conference saw

detailed discussion over the science and technologies, ethics and economics, as well as the

legal and governance issues associated with geoengineering. The key points from the above

sessions are as mentioned below.

Unlike other technologies, climate geoengineering is a unique case as the boundaries between

research and development are unclear. Also, there are possibilities of lock-in associated with

some technologies and concerns about potential irreversible regional and global impact. In

absence of any current governance framework which can guide research and development of

geoengineering, EuTRACE and Oxford principles have been developed to guide the policy

development and identify governance issues. Though these are only high level principles,

trans-national research and collaboration is essential to impart these global outlook and

acceptance.

Often the different technologies are clubbed together under geoengineering. However, SRM

and CDR, the two broad categories, differ significantly in terms of their treatment of the

cause (emissions), timeframe of implementation and impact, and costs of deployment,

operation and termination. It is therefore imperative to assess the merits of different

technologies. Geoengineering is likely to have disproportionate impact on tropical climates,

which raises concerns of geographical equity and geopolitical tensions.

During the conference, various ethical concerns were identified, viz. risk of moral hazard,

distributive and inter-generational justice and side-lining of democratic debate. Involving

social and ethical sciences can help to overcome these challenges. In the past, controversies

surfaced once the technologies had been implemented. In this case of geoengineering,

because of the long ‘time-to-market’, plenty of prior deliberation is possible and this

opportunity should be best utilised.

While discussing the economics of mitigation vs geoengineering, it was pointed out that

mitigation costs are relatively modest compared to overall economic growth and

geoengineering would come into picture if one doesn’t go for timely mitigation measures.

Hence, keeping the precautionary principle in view, geoengineering governance should focus

on a middle ground rather than consider extremes. A general no-fault climate compensation

scheme, with contributions from all nations (a certain percentage of their GDP), was

suggested to compensate for damages from geoengineering.

During the discussion over the international governance ecosystem, various possible

strategies for geoengineering governance were put forward. These included adapting the

16 Summary of Discussions

existing frameworks, creating new treaties or developing non-binding guidelines. However,

one-size-fits-all approach won’t work for different cases and technologies and challenges of

international consensus and enforcement would remain. It was questioned whether

geoengineering (SAI in particular) is even governable at all. Due to lack of opt out option,

issues in delineating research from deployment and concerns of possible militarization and

regional destabilisation, few saw SAI as governable. While looking at possible governance

structures and processes, importance of domestic and international politics, moral and equity

concerns and need to balance diverse interests was highlighted. An experiment regulation

process involving self-registration of intended experiments with a public registry was also

proposed. Further, any governance structure would have to be able to identify decision

makers, monitors of actions and a dispute resolution mechanism. Given the context of global

warming, it was variously suggested that geoengineering governance can be incorporated

under the UNFCCC. The principles of equity and CBDR (common but differentiated

responsibility) will be of concern to many countries involved in action against anthropogenic

climate change, including India.


5 WAY AHEAD: FUTURE COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH - SOME

FIRST THOUGHTS A panel discussion moderated by Dr Ghosh explored five themes for future research

collaboration in climate geoengineering governance. These include:

The science of geoengineering;

An appraisal of techno-economic feasibility;

Assessment of social feasibility;

Exploring ethical dimensions;

Defining the legal framework and enforcement mechanisms.

5.1 The science of geoengineering

As a first step, Dr Anand B. Rao insisted upon having a clearer definition of geoengineering.

Geoengineering is often seen as a mitigation measure, while it may itself lead to unforeseen

changes in nature. Differentiating amongst geoengineering technologies is also significant

and necessary. Scientific research would better be conducted with an eye on alternatives and

past actions which cause anthropogenic climate change in the first place. Modelling and

simulating different global scenarios can yield useful results, but models can be misleading

and their results need to be viewed with caution and as projections rather than predictions.

Future research will have to look at regional and local variations in the impact of

geoengineering and not just global scenarios. Prof. S.K. Dash, CAS, IIT Delhi, pointed out

that it might not be possible to reverse the extreme events on a local level by reducing global

mean temperature through geoengineering. Dr Mishra echoed the same concern. Solar

radiation is concentrated around the tropics and varies with the seasons and the time of the

day. SRM may therefore generate a temperature gradient. Such changes in temperature

distribution at regional scale can lead to undesired climatic shifts at a local level, for instance

in the Indian monsoon.

5.2 Appraisal of techno-economic feasibility

As discussed in earlier sessions, due to current mitigation costs and need for financial

transfers to developing countries, geoengineering may appear more attractive to undesirable

actors. Future research will have to focus on costing of geoengineering technologies across

the life cycle of implementation (installation, operational and maintenance costs) and a cost-

benefit analysis against available alternatives (including their co-benefits).

Techno-economic analysis will be useful for descriptive and comparative purposes. For

instance, Prof. Shukla earlier pointed out that mitigation costs are relatively modest but will

rise as action is delayed. A lack of reliable data would make modelling difficult though, as

18 Way Ahead: Future Collaborative Research – Some First Thoughts

deployment is necessary for realistic assessment. Integrated assessment models may lessen

some uncertainties and help in visualising several scenarios.

Dr Chaturvedi opined that there might be regional differences in the costs and impacts of

geoengineering technologies which can alter their applicability. This was confirmed by Dr

Rao. A simulation of CCS based on cost, efficiency and access factors has revealed that it is

not relevant to India. However, other modelling research highlights CCS as an important

technology even for India. Dr Chaturvedi highlighted that the lack of understanding of cost

and technical parameters of geoengineering technologies is possibly one of the reasons why

these are not included in techno-economic modelling frameworks. Also, it is interesting to

note that geoengineering technologies are perceived by many as climate mitigation

technologies. However, these technologies also have potentially serious climate impacts.

Hence energy models that focus mainly on mitigation might not be the best fit for this class

of technologies unless current modelling frameworks are suitably modified to address both

the mitigation and impact dimensions of geoengineering technologies.

5.3 Assessment of social feasibility

Prof Healey highlighted that the usual process involved in policy making, wherein the

scientific community gives information to policy makers as a basis for decisions, will not be

sufficient in the field of geoengineering. Policies will have to be made without ‘short

circuiting’ social scientists or the public. Future research in geoengineering will have to be

multi and trans-disciplinary. Consequently, there is a need to create a common language for

different disciplines such as the natural, humanitarian and social sciences.

A comparative study of the policy making process in different nations is needed to help

engage the public in decision making. However, Dr Cairns cautioned that public engagement

shouldn’t be a book keeping exercise but should be effective and acted upon. Will a

unidirectional flow of information suffice or should this be a consultative or participative

process? Identifying the ideal form of engagement is challenging, however exploring the

hierarchy of forms of participation may help. Special attention will be required towards

protecting the rights of the poor, as their livelihood (predominantly agriculture) is at the

maximum risk of alterations. Future research will have to delve into these several aspects

associated with geoengineering and its impacts.

5.4 Exploring ethical dimensions

The ethical concerns of moral hazard, distributive and intergenerational justice, etc. as

identified in previous sessions will need to be investigated further and be factored in while

defining the boundaries of geoengineering. A question fundamental to the geoengineering

debate is: ‘At what point will researchers know enough to stop?’ The blurring of boundaries

between research and deployment introduces an ethical dimension to an apparently technical

issue.


Dr Ghosh drew attention to the need for priority that geoengineering should receive amongst

the alternatives to combat anthropogenic climate change. In the present political environment

of climate change discourse, this answer will need an ethical justification too.

Scientific thought experiments may help us identify the extent to which the climate could and

should be engineered. Studying the natural analogues to geoengineering, rather than the

experiments themselves would also be more acceptable – socially, politically, and ethically.

5.5 Defining the legal framework and enforcement mechanisms

There are multiple questions that future research needs to explore. The level of consensus on

research intentions, modality and methodology will be important in deciding its validity.

Should this be based on an interstate model or involve multiple stakeholders, similar to

internet governance? Should there be guidelines or legally binding frameworks? Appropriate

forums for the resolution of disputes need to be established. The recourse against unilateral

action by a single actor or a group of countries must also be agreed upon.

These answers are pertinent to an effective geoengineering governance system. Dr Ghosh

proposed to take note of existing international governance structures and weigh their merits.

Any rules and regulations will have to be flexible so as to be applicable in different scenarios.

It will be useful to strike a balance between ethical concerns and material interests. Presently,

no single treaty has a sufficiently broad mandate to address geoengineering or its existing

governance gaps. However, existing regulations can be applied in national and international

contexts. The problem of enforcement is paramount. Unfortunately, current international

conventions such as the International Whaling Convention (IWC) have members who flout

the rules but face international resistance in the form of moral opposition. This would be the

case with geoengineering as well.

Mr. Mauskar proposed that to start the process of geoengineering governance, an out-of-the-

box approach could be to issue voluntary declarations and promote self-reporting by a small

number of nations. This can have a bandwagon effect and draw in more nations. Given the

need to ground any governance framework in the principles of equity and CBDR,

geoengineering can be discussed at the UNFCCC forum. For any governance structure to be

effective, it will be crucial to involve the nations that are in proportion affected the most by

geoengineering, such as China, India and Europe.

There is also a lack of understanding about the scale at which geoengineering governance

should come into play. Future research on the dynamics and impact of large scale deployment

of such technologies will help resolve such concerns. As was proposed in the conference, a

collaborative, cooperative, and coordinated research through of creation of networks (the

four Cs) is what can guide the overall development of climate geoengineering governance.

20 Profile of the Speakers

6. PROFILE OF THE SPEAKERS

PROFILE OF INDIAN SPEAKERS

Vaibhav Chaturvedi

Research Fellow, Council on Energy, Environment and Water

Dr Vaibhav Chaturvedi is a Research Fellow at CEEW. Prior to CEEW,

Vaibhav worked as a Post Doctoral Research Associate at the Joint Global

Change Research Institute (JGCRI), a collaboration between the Pacific

Northwest National Laboratory, USA and the University of Maryland, College

Park, USA. He holds a PhD in Economics from the Indian Institute of

Management Ahmedabad, India and Masters in Forest Management from the

Indian Institute of Forest Management Bhopal, India.

His research is focused on Indian and global energy and climate change mitigation policy

issues- carbon dioxide emission stabilization pathways, low carbon and sustainable energy

policies, modelling energy demand, and water-energy nexus within the integrated assessment

modelling framework of the Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM). Vaibhav's recent

work includes analyzing nuclear energy scenarios for India, Indian HFC emission scenarios,

climate policy-agriculture water interactions, transportation energy scenarios, model

evaluation, investment implications for the global electricity sector, and modelling the

building sector energy demand scenarios for India.

Nitin Desai

Former UN Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs

Nitin Desai, a graduate of LSE, taught economics at two UK Universities,

worked briefly in the private sector, had a long stint as a government

official in India and then joined the UN in 1990 from where he retired in

2003. In India he was in the Planning Commission (1973-88) and later in

the Ministry of Finance as the Chief Economic Adviser (1988-90). In the

UN, where he was Under Secretary General for Economic and Social

Affairs, his major work was the organization of a series of global summits,

notably the Rio Earth Summit (1992), the Copenhagen Social Development Summit (1995),

the Monterrey Finance and Development Summit (2002) and the Johannesburg Sustainable

Development Summit (2002).


After his retirement he has been involved in a variety of public policy activities nationally

and internationally. He continued to assist the UN until December 2010 as Special Adviser

on Internet Governance to the UN Secretary General and the chair of the multi stake holder

group that organises the annual Internet Governance Forum. He is a member of the Prime

Minister’s Council on Climate Change and the National Broadcasting Standards Authority.

He is an Honorary Professor at ICRIER, an economic policy think-tank, a Distinguished

Fellow of TERI, an Energy and Resources Institute in India and is an Honorary Fellow of the

London School of Economics and Political Science. He is the chair of the Governing Board

of the Institute of Economic Growth and the Governing Council of the CUTS Institute of

Regulation and Competition. He is associated with many other NGOs and is a member of the

Board of Trustees of the World Wide Fund for Nature International, the Board of Directors of

Shakti Sustainable Energy Foundation and the Executive Council of the Nehru Memorial

Museum and Library. He writes a monthly column in the Business Standard.

Arunabha Ghosh

CEO, Council on Energy, Environment & Water

Dr Arunabha Ghosh is CEO of the Council on Energy, Environment

and Water (CEEW), an independent, policy research institution.

Having conceptualised CEEW, Arunabha led it in less than three

years to the number 1 ranking among climate-related think-tanks in

India and 15th globally. In January 2014 CEEW was ranked first in

India across three categories in the Global Go To Think Tank Index.

In March 2013, the World Economic Forum selected him as a Young

Global Leader.

Dr Ghosh is also associated with Oxford’s Global Economic Governance Programme and its

Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment. He sits on the Governing Board of the

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva.

Arunabha wrote the first report on India and global governance, led teams for the National

Water Resources Framework Study for India’s Planning Commission, for the first

independent evaluation of India’s National Solar Mission, and on strategic industries for

India for the National Security Advisory Board (Prime Minister’s Office). He has written on

the energy-food-water-climate nexus for the NSAB as well, the governance of climate

engineering technologies for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, clean energy

subsidies for the Rio+20 Summit, and on business models for off-grid energy, energy storage

technologies, and hydrofluorocarbons. His most recent publications include reports on urban

water and sanitation in India, and on renewable energy applications beyond electricity. He

was formerly co-author of three UNDP Human Development Reports.


With experience in more than thirty countries and having worked at Princeton, Oxford,

UNDP and WTO, Arunabha advises governments, industry and civil society around the

world on: energy and resources security; renewable energy; water governance and

institutions; climate governance (financing, technology, HFCs, geoengineering); energy-

trade-climate linkages; and international regime design. Dr Ghosh has presented to heads of

state, India’s Parliament, the European Parliament, Brazil’s Senate, the Andhra Pradesh

Legislative Assembly and other legislatures; trained ministers in Central Asia; and hosted a

documentary on water set out of Africa. His op-eds have appeared in numerous periodicals

and he has commented on radio and television across the world. Arunabha holds a doctorate

from Oxford, and topped Economics from St. Stephen’s College, Delhi University.

Bala Govindasamy

Professor, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

Dr. Bala is presently a Professor at the Center for Atmospheric and

Oceanic Sciences and the Divecha Center for Climate Change, Indian

Institute of Science, Bangalore. He has a Ph.D in atmospheric and oceanic

sciences from Department of Meteorology, McGill University, Canada in

1994. After two years of Post-doc at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics

Laboratory, Princeton University, he served as a “Physicist” (Climate

Scientist) at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)

between 1996 and 2008. While at LLNL, Dr. Bala used earth system models to understand

climate change.

Dr. Bala’s main research interests are modelling climate change, carbon cycle, land cover

change and geoengineering. He has published about 70 peer-reviewed research papers on

climate change and carbon cycle. Prof. Bala is the recipient of the 2008 Scopus young

scientist award for Earth Sciences. He and his collaborators Prof. Long Cao of China and

Prof. Ken Caldeira of USA won the prestigious World Meteorological Organization's

(WMO) Norbert Gerbier MUMM International Award for 2014 for their research paper in

ERL (Environmental Research Letters). He has served as a Lead Author for the carbon cycle

chapter and as a contributing author for the clouds and aerosols chapter in WG1 report from

IPCC in its 5th

assessment on climate change.

T. Jayaraman

Professor, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai

Professor T Jayaraman teaches at the School of Habitat Studies at Tata

Institute of Social Sciences. He holds an interest in climate policy,

https://www.wmo.int/pages/about/awards/guidelines_mumm_en.html#top

https://www.wmo.int/pages/about/awards/guidelines_mumm_en.html#top


nuclear issues and philosophy of science & technology. Under his leadership, a team of

Indian researchers have developed a model on the carbon budget approach that provides

indicative strategies for a more equitable distribution of carbon space. He holds a PhD Mishra

holds a Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics from University of Madras, Chennai

J. M. Mauskar

Former Special Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests

Spending more than 34 years as a Public Servant as an officer of the

Indian Administrative Service he has had 'hands on' experience of

International Trade, Investment Promotion, Overseas Investments,

International Contracts, Dynamics of Petroleum Sector and

Environmental issues, especially Climate Change. He has been closely

associated with major policy and regulatory initiatives in the domain of

trade, energy and environment for more than 15 years by virtue of his having occupied key

positions in the Ministries of Commerce, Petroleum & Natural Gas and Environment &

Forests. He has also been Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board. He has spent over five

years as Director on the Board of major Public Sector Undertakings such as ONGC, OVL and

OIL. Following his retirement he was associated with climate change negotiations and was a

member of several Central Government Committees.

Presently, as an Advisor to the Director in the Observer Research Foundation he continues to

pursue his keen interest in environmental and trade matters and their impact on India’s

international relations.

Saroj Kanta Mishra

Assistant Professor, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi

Dr Saroj Kanta Mishra holds a Ph.D. in Atmospheric and Oceanic

Sciences from Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. His research

interests and topical expertise include numerical modelling of the

global atmosphere; phenomenological and process studies and

climate change study. Dr Mishra is also the Associate Editor of Asia-

Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences and Editorial Board

Member of Global Meteorology.

Anand Patwardhan

Professor, University of Maryland

Anand Patwardhan is currently a faculty at the School of Public Policy,

University of Maryland, College Park. Prior to this, he was a Professor in the


Shailesh J Mehta School of Management at the Indian Institute of Technology-Bombay.

Anand has a BTech (Electrical Engineering) from IIT-Bombay and a MS (Environmental

Science & Engineering) and PhD (Engineering and Public Policy), both from Carnegie

Mellon University. Anand’s research interests are in the area of environment – climate

studies, focusing on mitigation and adaptation responses to climate change; including the

diffusion and adoption of clean technology and broader issues of science, technology and

innovation policy. He has been a member of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel

(STAP) of the Global Environment Facility (GEF); and a coordinating lead author for the

Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC). Anand is currently co-Chair of the Executive Committee of the Global Energy

Assessment, and is a member of the Steering Committee of the Programme of Research on

Vulnerability, Impacts and Adaptation (PRO-VIA) of the United Nations Environment

Programme (UNEP).

Suresh Prabhu

Chairperson, Council on Energy, Environment and Water

Mr Suresh P. Prabhu is Chairperson of the Council on Energy, Environment

and Water, India. He is former Union Cabinet Minister of Power,

Environment and Forests, Industry, Chemicals & Fertilisers, Heavy Industry

& Public Enterprises, and the Chairman of the Task Force on Interlinking of

Rivers with the rank and status of Union Cabinet Minister.

He has been a Member of Parliament (India) in the 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th

Lok Sabha (from 1996-2009). As a Minister with the Government of India,

he introduced reforms in the power sector that went a long way in protecting the environment

and ensuring sustainable development by conserving natural resources and bringing

electricity to remote corners of the country. Mr Prabhu is Global Ambassador of the Global

Water Partnership, Stockholm; Member, Global Advisory Council of the World Economic

Forum; Chairman, Climate Group India; and Member, CII National Council on Climate

Change, among other national & international associations.

Anand B. Rao

Associate Professor, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay

Dr Anand B. Rao is an Associate Professor at the Centre for Technology

Alternatives for Rural Areas (CTARA) at the Indian Institute of Technology

(IIT) Bombay, Mumbai. He teaches courses such as “Ecology and

Environment”, “Energy Sources and Their Utilization”, “Energy and Climate”

and “Energy Resources, Economics and Environment“ at CTARA and at the

Department of Energy Science and Engineering at IIT Bombay. His areas of

research interest include Energy and Environment, Climate Change,


Sustainable Development, Technology Assessment, Carbon Capture and Sequestration, and

Clean Development Mechanism. Anand received his Ph.D. from the Department of

Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA, focusing on

the techno-economic and environmental aspects of carbon capture systems for power plants.

His post-doctoral research, also at Carnegie Mellon University, was in the area of oxyfuel

combustion and a comparative assessment of different carbon capture technologies. He holds

a master’s degree (M.Tech.) in Environmental Science and Engineering and a bachelor’s

degree (B.Tech.) in Chemical Engineering, both from the Indian Institute of Technology

Bombay.

P. R. Shukla

Professor, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad

P.R. Shukla is a Professor in the Public Systems Group at the Indian Institute

of Management, Ahmedabad, India. He is a lead author of several

international reports on energy, environment, climate change and

development; including ten reports of the IPCC. He has been a member of

Indian delegation to the COP8 and COP9. Prof. Shukla is a consultant to

Governments and numerous international organizations. He has led several

international research projects and is a member of several international teams working on

integrated assessment modeling and policy studies. Prof. Shukla has been a member of

several prestigious National and International Policy Committees. He has co-authored

thirteen books and numerous publications in international journals in the areas of energy,

environment, climate change and development policies. He holds a Ph.D. degree from

Stanford University.

Shawahiq Siddiqui

Managing Partner, Indian Environment Law Offices

Shawahiq Siddiqui practices environment and development law and is

based in New Delhi.


PROFILE OF OVERSEAS SPEAKERS

Steve Rayner

Director, Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (InSIS)

Steve Rayner is James Martin Professor of Science and Civilization

and Director of the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society

(InSIS) at the University of Oxford where he also co-directs the Oxford

Geoengineering Programme. He has served on various US, UK, and

international bodies addressing science, technology and the

environment, including Britain’s Royal Commission on Environmental

Pollution, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Royal Society’s Working

Group on Climate Geoengineering.

He has received numerous awards, including the 25th Homer N. Calver Award from the

Environment Section of the American Public Health Association, the Pacific Northwest

National Laboratory Director’s Award for R&D Excellence and two Martin Marietta Energy

Systems Awards for groundbreaking work in risk analysis and global climate change policy

analysis respectively. He was included in the 2008 Smart List by Wired Magazine as 'one of

the 15 people the next US President should listen to'.

Rose Cairns

Research Fellow SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex

Rose has been a Research Fellow at the Science and Technology Policy

Research Unit (SPRU) at the University of Sussex since 2012. She is a

member of the Sussex Energy Group, and affiliated with the STEPS

Centre (Social, Technological and Environmental Pathways to

Sustainability). Rose’s current research as part of the Climate

Geoengineering Governance Research Project (CGG), examines the

social, geopolitical and ethical implications of the growing interest in climate geoengineering

as a response to climate change. Broadly situated within the broad field of sustainability

science, Rose’s research interests include inter-disciplinarity, knowledge politics, and the

intersection between science and policy making in the context of debates around

sustainability. Previous research has examined the role of boundary organisations in climate

governance, and understanding the science policy interface in the context of biodiversity

conservation. Prior to academia, Rose worked for a number of years in the environmental

NGO sector.


Peter Healey

Research Fellow, Institute for Science, Innovation and Society

Peter Healey is a Research Fellow in the Institute for Science, Innovation

and Society, University of Oxford. He is a sociologist by training, who

came to academia after work as research funder in the UK Economic and

Social Research Council, and then in the Science Policy Support Group

which he co-founded and which developed and delivered strategic

programmes of research on science, technology and innovation policy funded from the UK

and EU. In InSIS since 2004 he has coordinated a European project on Science, Technology

and Inequality (ResIST), convened a World Forum and proceedings volume on radical

attempts to extend human lifespan and capacities, helped develop a research agenda on the

implications of rising powers and multipolar global governance and managed the

development of the Climate Geoengineering Governance project. He is the CGG

coordinator.

Tim Kruger

Programme Manager - Oxford Geoengineering Programme, University of Oxford

Tim Kruger is responsible for day-to-day management and coordination

of the programme. He has a broad interest in the area of geoengineering

and the governance mechanisms required to ensure that any research in

this field is undertaken in a responsible way. He has investigated in detail

one potential geoengineering technique, that of adding alkalinity to the

ocean as a way of enhancing its capacity to act as a carbon sink and to

counteract the effects of ocean acidification.

Catherine Redgwell

Chichele Professor of International Law, University of Oxford

Catherine Redgwell is Chichele Professor of Public International Law at

the University of Oxford. Her current work includes the international

regulation of unconventional energy underground (e.g. geothermal,

fracking, CCS), shared responsibility for energy activities,

geoengineering (she is a co-director of the Oxford Geoengineering

Programme and was a member of the Royal Society Working Group on

Climate Geoengineering) and climate justice (she is a member of the International Bar

Association’s Climate Change Justice & Human Rights Task Force).


Julian Savulescu

Director- Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford

Professor Julian Savulescu holds the Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at the

University of Oxford. He holds degrees in medicine, neuroscience and

bioethics. He is the Director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical

Ethics within the Faculty of Philosophy. He is Director of the Oxford

Centre for Neuroethics, which is one of three strategic centres in

biomedical ethics in the UK funded by the Wellcome Trust. He is also

Director of the Institute for Science and Ethics within the Oxford Martin School at the

University of Oxford.

He is Editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics and founding editor of Journal of Practical

Ethics, an open access journal in Practical Ethics. He is the Sir Louis Matheson

Distinguished Professor at Monash University and the Honorary Professorial at the Florey

Neuroscience Institutes.

Harald Stelzer

Project Scientist, Sustainable Interactions with the Atmosphere Institute for Advanced

Sustainability Studies e.V.

Dr Harald Stelzer is Project Scientist at the Institut for Advanced

Sustainability Studies in Potsdam. His current research focus is on the

ethics of geoengineering, as well as on questions of climate ethics and

intergenerational justice more general. He is one of the editors of the

EuTRACE report (European Transdisciplinary Assessment of Climate

Engineering) and works on a joint project with the Potsdam Institute for

Climate Impact Research and the University of Hamburg: CEMICS (Contextualizing Climate

Engineering and Mitigation: Illusion, Complement or Substitute?).


7. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Sr.No Name Organization

1 Akhilesh Gupta Department of Science & Technology

2 Jai Asundi CStep

3 Anurag Mishra USAID India

4 Arunish Chawla Planning Commission

5 B Bhambhani EGateway India

6 B K Chandrasekhar Karnataka Legislative Council

7 Debadideb Datt The Nand and Jeet Khemka Foundation

8 John Dunham US Embassy

9 Mrinmoy Chattaraj Greenpeace India

10 Nidhi Srivastava The Energy and Resources Institute

11 Stuti Sharma KPMG

12 Sanjiv Bhatia Center for Environmental & Economic Policy

13 Saravjit Dudeja Dr Dudeja Consultancy

14 Vanita Suneja Oxfam India

15 Shubhashis Dey Ernst & Young

16 Jay C Shiv The Climate Group

17 Ramesh Kumar Jalan UNDP India

18 Vittal Kumar A. Dhage European Business and Technology Centre

19 Anindya Bhattacharya Ernst & Young

20 Jincy Joy WWF - India

21 Michael Thompson Washington Geoengineering Consortium

22 Kartikeya Singh Center for Environmental and Resource Policy,

The Fletcher School

23 Manu Sharma Oranges Hues

24 Manish Shrivastava TERI

25 Nisha Jayaram CII

26 Ravi Chaudhary CeNext

27 Ar Gopal Swarup IP University

28 Niranjan Khatri ITC Welcome Group

29 Véronique Briquet-Laugier Embassy of France

30 Abrar Hussain Hashmi High Commission of Pakistan

31 Ravi Kaimal Indo-American Chamber of Commerce

32 Monish Verma European Business and Technology Centre

33 S S Rawa India Energy Forum

34 Jagat S Jawa Solar Energy Society of India

30 List of Participants

35 Sanjay Vashist Climate Action Network

36 Monika Sharma British High Commission

37 Adam Roberts The Economist

38 Raman Kant NEER Foundation

39 Saroj Kanta Mishra Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi

40 Bala Govindswamy Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

41 P R Shukla Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad

42 Shawahiq Siddiqui Indian Environment Law Offices

43 T Jayaraman Tata Institute of Social Science

44 Nitin Desai

45 J M Mauskar Observer Research Foundation

46 Anand B Rao Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay

47 Steve Rayner Institute for Science, Innovation and Society

48 Harald Seltzer Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies e.V.

49 Julian Savulescu University of Sussex

50 Rose Cairns University of Sussex

51 Peter Healey Institute for Science, Innovation and Society

52 Tim Kruger University of Oxford

53 Arunabha Ghosh CEEW

54 Vaibhav Chaturvedi CEEW

55 Chandamita Das CEEW

56 Mihir Shah CEEW

57 Komal Shukla CEEW

58 Poulami Choudhury CEEW

59 Shalu Agrawal CEEW

60 Abhishek Jain CEEW

61 Vaibhav Gupta CEEW

62 Mohit Sharma CEEW

63 Ashvath Singh CEEW

64 RajeevPalakshappa CEEW

65 Sonali Mittra CEEW

66 Nicholas Fedson CEEW

67 Eloise Layan Embassy of France

68 Charu Kapil Embassy of France

69 Dr Kusum Lata Centre for Urban Studies

Indian Institute of Public Administration

Books/Reports

Arunabha Ghosh, Rajeev Palakshappa, Rishabh Jain, Shalu Aggarwal, and Poulami Choudhury

(2014) 'Solar Power Jobs: Exploring the Employment Potential in India's Grid-Connected Solar

Market', CEEW-NRDC Report, August

Arunabha Ghosh, Rajeev Palakshappa, Poulami Choudhury, Rishabh Jain, and Shalu Aggarwal

(2014) 'Reenergizing India's Solar Energy Market through Financing', CEEW-NRDC Report,

August

Sonali Mittra, Rudresh Sugam, Arunabha Ghosh (2014) Collective Action for Water Security

and Sustainability: Preliminary Investigations, CEEW-2030 WRG Report, August

Poulami Choudhury, Rajeev Palakshappa, and Arunabha Ghosh (2014) RE+: Renewables

Beyond Electricity- Solar Air Conditioning and Desalination, CEEW-WWF Report, August

Karthik Ganesan, Poulami Choudhury, Rajeev Palakshappa, Rishabh Jain, and Sanyukta Raje

(2014) Assessing Green Industrial Policy: The India Experience, CEEW-IISD Report, April

Vaibhav Gupta, Karthik Ganesan, Sanyukta Raje, Faraz Ahmed, and Arunabha Ghosh (2013)

Strategic Industries and Emerging Technologies for a Future Ready India, Report submitted to

India’s National Security Advisory Board, Prime Minister’s Office, December

Rishabh Jain, Poulami Choudhury, Rajeev Palakshappa, and Arunabha Ghosh (2013) RE+:

Renewables Beyond Electricity, CEEW-WWF Report, December

Rudresh Sugam and Arunabha Ghosh (2013) Urban Water and Sanitation in India: Multi-

stakeholder Dialogues for Systemic Solutions, CEEW-Veolia Report, November, pp. i-147

Rajeev Palakshappa, Arunabha Ghosh, Poulami Choudhury, and Rishabh Jain (2013)

Developing Effective Networks for Energy Access- An Analysis, CEEW-USAID Report,

October

Nirmalya, Choudhury, Rudresh Sugam and Arunabha Ghosh (2013) 2030 Water Resources

Group National Water Platform: Preliminary Investigation of the Possible Roles, Functions and

Potential Governance, New Delhi Council on Energy Environment and Water-Water

Resources Group Report, September, pp. i-25

Arunabha Ghosh et al. (2012) Concentrated Solar Power: Heating Up India's Solar Thermal

Market under the National Solar Mission, Report (Addendum to Laying the Foundation for a

Bright Future: Assessing Progress under Phase I of India's National Solar Mission), September,

New Delhi, Council on Energy, Environment and Water; and Natural Resources Defense

Council

Arunabha Ghosh, with Himani Gangania (2012) Governing Clean Energy Subsidies: What,

Why and How Legal?, August, Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable

Development

CEEW PUBLICATIONS

Rudresh K. Sugam, and Arunabha Ghosh (2012) Institutional Reform for Improved Service

Delivery in Bihar: Economic Growth, Agricultural Productivity, and a Plan for Reorganising

the Minor Water Resources Department, Research Report submitted to the Government of

Bihar, July, New Delhi: Council on Energy, Environment and Water, and International Growth

Centre, Patna

Council on Energy, Environment and Water; and Natural Resources Defense Council (2012)

Laying the Foundation for a Bright Future: Assessing Progress Under Phase 1 of India's

National Solar Mission, Interim Report, April, pp. i-37

Arunabha Ghosh, Arundhati Ghose, Suman Bery, C. Uday Bhaskar, Tarun Das, Nitin Desai,

Anwarul Hoda, Kiran Karnik, Srinivasapuram Krishnaswamy, Radha Kumar, Shyam Saran

(2011) Understanding Complexity, Anticipating Change: From Interests to Strategy on Global

Governance, Report of the Working Group on India and Global Governance, December, pp. i-

70

Martin A. Burton, Rahul Sen, Simon Gordon-Walker, and Arunabha Ghosh (2011) National

Water Resources Framework Study: Roadmaps for Reforms, October, New Delhi: Council on

Energy, Environment and Water, and 2030 Water Resources Group, pp i-68

Martin A. Burton, Rahul Sen, Simon Gordon-Walker, Anand Jalakam, and Arunabha Ghosh

(2011) National Water Resources Framework Study: Research Report Submitted to the

Planning Commission for the 12th Five Year Plan, September, New Delhi: Council on Energy,

Environment and Water, and 2030 Water Resources Group, pp. i-584

Arunabha Ghosh (2010) Harnessing the Power Shift: Governance Options for International

Climate Financing, Oxfam Research Report, October, pp. 1-90

Papers/Book Chapters

Vaibhav Chaturvedi and Mohit Sharma (2014) 'Modelling Long Term HFC Emissions from

India's Residential Air-Conditioning Sector', CEEW Working Paper 2014/7, July

Karthik Ganesan and Rajeev Vishnu (2014) ‘Energy Access in India-Today, and Tomorrow’,

CEEW Working Paper 2014/10, June

Vaibhav Chaturvedi and Son H Kim (2014) 'Long Term Energy and Emission Implications of

Global Shift to Electricity-Based Public Rail Transit System', CEEW Working Paper 2014/9,

May

Vaibhav Chaturvedi, Priyadarshi R Shukla, and Karthik Ganesan (2014) 'Implications of Risk

Perceptions for Long Term Future of Nuclear Energy in India: A Sensitivity Analysis around

Nuclear Energy Cost within an Integrated Assessment Modelling Framework', CEEW Working

Paper 2014/6, April

Arunabha Ghosh (2014) ‘Environmental Institutions, International Research Programmes, and

Lessons for Geoengineering Research', Geoengineering Our Climate Working Paper, February

Nirmalya Choudhury and Arunabha Ghosh (2013) 'Responsible Hydropower Development in

India: Challenges for future', CEEW Working Paper 2013/5, December

Rishabh Jain, Karthik Ganesan, Rajeev Palakshappa and Arunabha Ghosh (2013) ‘Energy

Storage for Off-Grid Renewables in India: Understanding Options and Challenges for

Entrepreneurs’, CEEW Report, July

Arunabha Ghosh, and David Steven (2013) ‘India’s Energy, Food, and Water Security:

International Cooperation for Domestic Capacity’, in Shaping the Emerging World: India and

the Multilateral Order, edited by Waheguru Pal Singh Sidhu, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, and Bruce

Jones, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Press

Rajeev Palakshappa et al. (2013) ‘Cooling India with Less Warming: The Business Case for

Phasing-Down HFC’s in Room and Vehicle Air Conditioners,’ Council on Energy,

Environment and Water; Natural Resources Defense Council; The Energy and Resources

Institute; and The Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, June

Arunabha Ghosh (2013) ‘Energy-Food-Water-Climate Nexus: Implications for India’s

National Security,’ Paper submitted to India’s National Security Advisory Board, Prime

Minister’s Office, March

Vyoma Jha and Rishabh Jain (2012) ‘Results-Based Financing for Off-grid Energy Access in

India,’ Case-study on the Economics of Results-Based Financing in Study by Vivideconomics

for Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP), World Bank, Washington DC,

November

Arunabha Ghosh (2012) 'Industrial demand and energy supply management: A delicate

balance,’ Empowering growth - Perspectives on India's energy future, A report from the

Economist Intelligence Unit: 26-32, October

Arunabha Ghosh, Benito Müller, William Pizer, and Gernot Wagner (2012) ‘Mobilizing the

Private Sector: Quantity-Performance Instruments for Public Climate Funds,’ Oxford Energy

and Environment Brief, The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, August, pp. 1-15

Sachin Shah (2012) ‘Institutional Reform for Water Use Efficiency in Agriculture:

International Best Practices and Policy Lessons for India,’ CEEW Working Paper 2012/3,

April

Arunabha Ghosh (2011) ‘Seeking Coherence In Complexity: The Governance Of Energy By

Trade And Investment Institutions,’ Global Policy 2 (Special Issue): 106-119

Arunabha Ghosh (2011) ‘Strengthening WTO Surveillance: Making Transparency Work for

Developing Countries,’ in Making Global Trade Governance Work for Development, edited by

Carolyn Deere-Birkbeck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Jason Blackstock, and Arunabha Ghosh (2011) ‘Does geoengineering need a global response -

and of what kind?,’ Background Paper, Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative,

Royal Society UK, Chicheley, March

Policy Briefs & Legislative/Government Briefings

Arunabha Ghosh (2014) ‘Making the UN Secretary General’s Climate Summit Count’, Issue

Brief, September

Council on Energy, Environment and Water (2014) 'Shaping a Prosperous and Sustainable

India: Action Plan for Energy, Environment and Water', Policy Report, September

Council on Energy, Environment and Water and Natural Resources Defense Council (2014)

'Creating Green Jobs: Employment Created by Kiran Energy's 20 Megawatt Solar Plant in

Rajasthan, India' Issue Paper, August

Arunabha Ghosh, Rajeev Palakshappa, Rishabh Jain, Shalu Agarwal (2014) 'Making Use of the

Roof: Employment Generation from Hero MotoCorp's 80 kW Rooftop Solar Project in

Haryana India' CEEW-NRDC Issue Paper, August

Rajeev Palakshappa, Poulami Choudhury, and Arunabha Ghosh (2014) 'Creating Green Jobs:

Employment Generation by Gamesa-Renew Power's 85 Megawatt Wind Project in Jath,

Maharashtra' CEEW-NRDC Issue Paper, August

Arunabha Ghosh, Rajeev Palakshappa, Poulami Choudhury, and Rishabh Jain (2014) 'A

Second Wind for India's Energy Market: Financing Mechanisms to Support India's National

Wind Energy Mission' CEEW-NRDC Issue Paper, August

Arunabha Ghosh (2014) "High Value, Technology-Enabled Manufacturing" Briefing note for

the India-U.S. Strategic Dialogue. New Delhi. 18 July

Arunabha Ghosh (2014) "India-U.S. Partnership on Energy Storage (R&D, Enterprise and

Deployment)" Briefing note for the India-U.S.Strategic Dialogue. New Delhi. 16 July

Arunabha Ghosh (2014) "Clean Energy Access Network (CLEAN) and Supporting

Decentralised Clean Energy" Briefing note for the India-U.S. Strategic Dialogue. New Delhi.

13 July

Vaibhav Gupta and Karthik Ganesan (2014) ‘India’s Critical Mineral Resources: A Trade and

Economic Analysis’, CEEW Policy Brief, July

Arunabha Ghosh and Susan G. Esserman (2014) ‘India-U.S. Cooperation on Renewable

Energy and Trade,’ Briefing paper for the India-U.S. Track II Dialogue on Climate Change and

Energy. Washington D.C. 12 February

Arunabha Ghosh and Karthik Ganesan (2014) ‘National Wind Mission,’ Briefing to MNRE

Secretary, New Delhi, 4 February

Arunabha Ghosh (2013) ‘Strategic Industries and Emerging Technologies for a Future Ready

India,’ Briefing to India’s National Security Adviser, Prime Minister’s Office, New Delhi, 18

October; to National Security Advisory Board, Mumbai, 3 December; and to India’s Planning

Commission, New Delhi, 10 December

Arunabha Ghosh (2013) ‘Business Case for HFC Phase Down in India,’ Briefing to Prime

Minister’s Office, New Delhi, 22 November

Arunabha Ghosh, Rudresh Sugam, Nirmalya Choudhury (2013) ‘Integrated Energy,

Environment and Water Plan for Jharkhand: Preliminary Investigations and Propositions,’

Briefing to the Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, 18 September

Nirmalya Choudhury (2013) ‘Knowledge Hub under National Water Mission – Governance

Issues’, Briefing to the Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, on the proceedings

of the Working Group on Governance of the Knowledge Hub under the National Water

Mission (a flagship mission of the Government of India under the National Action Plan on

Climate Change), New Delhi, 26 August

Nirmalya Choudhury (2013) ‘Governance Issues towards Creating a Knowledge Hub under the

National Water Mission,’ Briefing for a multi-stakeholder roundtable discussion on creating a

Knowledge Hub under the National Water Mission (a flagship mission of the Government of

India under the National Action Plan on Climate Change), New Delhi, 14 August

Arunabha Ghosh (2013) ‘National Water Platform: Some Thoughts for Brainstorming

Meeting,’ Briefing to the Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, on creating a

Knowledge Hub under the National Water Mission (a flagship mission of the Government of

India under the National Action Plan on Climate Change), New Delhi, 5 August

Rudresh Sugam and Urvashi Sharma (2013) “Capacity building in the urban water sector,”

Issue brief for the Fifth CEEW-Veolia Water Roundtable on Urban Water Management, 5 July

Arunabha Ghosh, Stephen O. Andersen, Bhaskar Deol, and David Doniger (2013) ‘The

Business Case for Avoiding & Replacing High-Global Warming Potential HFC Refrigerants

While Phasing Out HCFC Refrigerants,’ Briefing at the Montreal Protocol Open-Ended

Working Group. Bangkok, 26 June

Rudresh Sugam and Urvashi Sharma (2013) “Water data and measurement,” Issue brief for the

Fourth CEEW-Veolia Water Roundtable on Urban Water Management, 27 May

Rudresh Sugam and Urvashi Sharma (2013) “Regulatory framework for urban water

management in India,” Issue brief for the Third CEEW-Veolia Water Roundtable on Urban

Water Management, 9 April

Rudresh Sugam and Urvashi Sharma (2013) “Private sector participation in water management

and water for all,” Issue brief for the Second CEEW-Veolia Water Round table on Urban

Water Management, 11 February

Arunabha Ghosh (2013) ‘Renewable Energies and Trade: Addressing tensions and challenges,’

Briefing to a high-level policy dialogue at the World Trade Organization meeting of

Ambassadors, Geneva, 21 January

Rudresh Sugam (2012) “Water Utility Management in the Urban Water Sector,” Issue brief for

the First CEEW-Veolia Water Roundtable on Urban Water Management, New Delhi, 20

December

Karthik Ganesan (2012) “Climate Change and Business Leadership: Pathways to GHG

Emissions Reduction and Sustainability in the Indian Cement Industry,” Paper presented at the

Third National ICRN Conference on Climate Change, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 4

November

Vyoma Jha (2012) “Trends in Investor Claims over Feed-in Tariffs for Renewable Energy,”

Investment Treaty News, July

Arunabha Ghosh (2012) “Water governance priorities in India, South and East Asia, the case

for integrated energy, environment and water plans, and Rio+20 goals,” Briefing to the

Brazilian Federal Senate, Environment, Consumer Rights and Oversight Committee &

Agriculture and Land Reform Committee, Rio de Janeiro, 20 June

Arunabha Ghosh (2011) “Briefing on global governance to Ambassador Shivshankar Menon,

National Security Adviser, Government of India,” Prime Minister’s Office, 20 December

Arunabha Ghosh (2011) “Governing clean energy subsidies: Why legal and policy clarity is

needed,” Bridges Trade BioRes, November

Vyoma Jha (2011) “Cutting Both Ways?: Climate, Trade and the Consistency of India's

Domestic Policies,” CEEW Policy Brief, August

Arunabha Ghosh (2010) “Negotiating around Tradeoffs: Alternative Institutional Designs for

Climate Finance,” European Climate Platform Report No. 10, Centre for European Policy

Studies, Brussels, 9 December

Op-eds/Conference Papers/Other publications

Suresh P Prabhu (2014) Rethink on Land Use' The Economic Times, 22 July. Available at

http://ceew.in/pdf/SP-Ground-Beneath-our-Feet-ET-Article-24Jul14.pdf

Suresh P Prabhu (2014) 'Ganga Rakshak Dal Banane Ki Zaroorat' Dainik Jagran, 3 July.

Available at http://ceew.in/pdf/CEEW-SP-Article-in-Dainik-Jagran14Jul14.pdf

Rishabh Jain, Karthik Ganesan, and Vaibhav Gupta (2014) 'India's Coal Conundrum: Spurring

Growth vs. Energy Security vs. Environmental Sustainability', CEEW Factsheet, June

Vaibhav Gupta, Karthik Ganesan, and Rishabh Jain (2014) 'Natural Gas as a Pillar of Growth:

Domestic Production and Import Vulnerabilities', CEEW Factsheet, June

Arunabha Ghosh (2014) ‘Three Mantras for India’s Resource Security’ Seminar Magazine,

June. Available at http://ceew.in/pdf/AG-Three-Mantras-for-India-s-Resource-Security-

Seminar-658-Jun14.pdf

Suresh P Prabhu (2014) ‘Handling the Energy Crisis’ The Hindu, 18 April. Available at

http://ceew.in/pdf/CEEW-Handling-the-energy-crisis-SP-Article-in-The-Hindu-18Apr14.pdf

Suresh P. Prabhu (2014) 'Idea 5: Let There Be Light, Always' Open Magazine, 22 March.

Available at http://ceew.in/pdf/Idea%205%20_%20OPEN%20Magazine.pdf

Suresh P. Prabhu (2014) 'India's Green Growth needs Policy Push' Energy Next, 8 February.

Available at

http://ceew.in/pdf/Indias_Green_Growth_Needs_Policy_Push_Suresh_Prabhu.pdf

Suresh P. Prabhu (2013) 'Strengthening the regulatory network' The Hindu, 3 December.

Available at http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/strengthening-the-regulatory-

network/article5415035.ece

Suresh P. Prabhu (2013) 'Strengthening the regulatory network' The Gulf Today, 5 December.

Available at http://ceew.in/pdf/SPP-Strengthening-the-regulatory-network-The-Gulf-Today-

5Dec13.pdf

Jake Schmidt, Stephen O. Andersen, Arunabha Ghosh, et al (2013) ‘Cooling India with Less

Warming: The Business Case for Phasing Down HFCS,’ Fact Sheet, November.

Arunabha Ghosh (2013) ‘More Lethal Greenhouse Gas’ The Times of India, 25 October.

Available at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/More-lethal-

greenhouse-gas/articleshow/24675848.cms

Arunabha Ghosh (2013) ‘Himalayan Ecosystems and Himalayan Cooperation: A Himalayan

Effort Needed?’ Arctic Circle Forum. Reykjavik. 13 October.

Suresh P Prabhu (2013) ‘Gloom to Bloom to Doom’ The Economic Times, 13 August.

Available at http://ceew.in/pdf/SPP-Gloom-to-bloom-to-doom-The-Economic-Times-

3Aug13.pdf

Suresh P Prabhu (2013) ‘Reviving the Power of Electricity’ The Financial Express, 22 April.

Available at http://epaper.financialexpress.com/108103/Indian-Express/22-April-

2013#page/6/2

Suresh P Prabhu (2013) ‘Think of Water Before it Rains Again’ The Financial Express, 19

April. Available at bit.ly/XWaALS

Suresh P. Prabhu (2013) 'Sharing the burden of going green' The Hindu, 17 May. Available

at http://ceew.in/pdf/SPP-Sharing_the_burden_of_going_green-The-Hindu-17May2013.pdf

Jamshyd N Godrej (2013) 'Bring in smart policies, clear the air on clean energy' The Economic

Times, 17 April. Available at http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/comments-

analysis/bring-in-smart-policies-clear-the-air-on-clean-

energy/articleshow/19587149.cms

Arunabha Ghosh and Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz (2013) ‘Want clean energy? Avoid trade

disputes’Business Standard, 15 April. Available at http://www.business-

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/strengthening-the-regulatory-network/article5415035.ece

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/strengthening-the-regulatory-network/article5415035.ece

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/More-lethal-greenhouse-gas/articleshow/24675848.cms

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/More-lethal-greenhouse-gas/articleshow/24675848.cms

http://ceew.in/pdf/SPP-Sharing_the_burden_of_going_green-The-Hindu-17May2013.pdf

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/comments-analysis/bring-in-smart-policies-clear-the-air-on-clean-energy/articleshow/19587149.cms



http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/want-clean-energy-avoid-trade-disputes-113041500023_1.html

standard.com/article/opinion/want-clean-energy-avoid-trade-disputes-113041500023_1.html.

Arunabha Ghosh (2013) ‘India’s resource nexus: priorities for action’ Mint, 10 April.

Available athttp://www.livemint.com/Opinion/zAOvm6gwBKa6Bzr9DfSyxN/Indias-resource-

nexus-priorities-for-action.html.

Arunabha Ghosh (2013) ‘Private Sustainability Finance: Need for cash, role of

institutions’ NYU – UAE MOFA Workshop on Climate Finance and Institutions. Abu Dhabi.

22 April.

Sanyukta Raje and Vaibhav Gupta (2013) ‘India-US Track II Dialogue on Climate Change and

Energy: Enhancing Bilateral Cooperation between India and the US’, Proceedings Report, 18-

20 April.

Arunabha Ghosh and Anjali Jaiswal (2012) 'What's eclipsing India's solar sector' Business

Standard,11 August. Available at http://ceew.in/pdf/AG%20&%20AJ-

Business_Standard_11Oct12.pdf

Arunabha Ghosh (2012) ' Make it profitable to save resources' India Today, 26 March.

Available athttp://ceew.in/pdf/AG-Make_it_profitable_to_save_resources-India_Today-

26Mar12.pdf

Arunabha Ghosh (2012) ' Leave polemics out of the water policy ' The Hindu, 19 March.

Available at http://ceew.in/pdf/AG-Leave_polemics_out_of_the_water_policy-The_Hindu-

19Mar12.pdf

Arunabha Ghosh (2012) ' Innovation needs an ecosystem' Business Standard, 26 February.

Available at http://ceew.in/pdf/AG-Innovation_Needs_an_Ecosystem-

Business_Standard_26Feb12.pdf

Jamshyd N Godrej (2011) 'ET Awards' Agenda for Renewal 2011: Energy, the new poverty,

says Jamshyd Godrej, Chairman & MD, Godrej & Boyce' The Economic Times, 24 November.

Available at http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-11-

24/news/30437448_1_clean-energy-energy-security-comprehensive-energy-plan

Jamshyd N Godrej (2011) 'Deregulation: Solving diesel conundrum' The Times of India, 28

January. Available at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Deregulation-

Solving-diesel-conundrum/articleshow/7375419.cms?referral=PM

Arunabha Ghosh (2009) 'Climate for a win-win dialogue' The Financial Express, 22 December.

Available at http://www.financialexpress.com/news/column-climate-for-a-winwin-

dialogue/557335/0

Arunabha Ghosh (2009) 'Street lessons in climate governance' The Financial Express, 18

December. Available at http://www.financialexpress.com/news/column-street-lessons-in-

climate-governance/555484/0

Arunabha Ghosh (2009) 'Red herrings in debates over climate finance' Opinio Juris, 15

http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/want-clean-energy-avoid-trade-disputes-113041500023_1.html

http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/zAOvm6gwBKa6Bzr9DfSyxN/Indias-resource-nexus-priorities-for-action.html

http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/zAOvm6gwBKa6Bzr9DfSyxN/Indias-resource-nexus-priorities-for-action.html

http://ceew.in/pdf/AG%20&%20AJ-Business_Standard_11Oct12.pdf

http://ceew.in/pdf/AG%20&%20AJ-Business_Standard_11Oct12.pdf

http://ceew.in/pdf/AG-Make_it_profitable_to_save_resources-India_Today-26Mar12.pdf

http://ceew.in/pdf/AG-Make_it_profitable_to_save_resources-India_Today-26Mar12.pdf

December. Available at http://opiniojuris.org/2009/12/15/red-herrings-in-debates-over-climate-

finance/

Arunabha Ghosh (2009) 'Even climate is about the money' The Financial Express, 7 December

Arunabha Ghosh (2009) 'Making Copenhagen count' the GEG blog, 7 December.

Climate Geoengineering Governance - Council On...

Documents

Transcript of Climate Geoengineering Governance - Council On...