Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 52

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

info@ceew.in
Climate Geoengineering Governance
Conference Report

New Delhi
23-24 June 2014
ceew.in
June 2014
CEEW Conference Report
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;
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 Kingdom 3 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

1
Ghosh, 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.
2
Royal Society. 2009. Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty. London, UK: Royal
Society.
3
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. 2010. The Regulation of Geoengineering. London: The
Stationery Office Limited
4
Gordon, 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.
5
United States Government Accountability Office. 2010. Climate Change: Preliminary Observations on
Geoengineering Science, Federal Efforts, and Governance Issues. United States Government Accountability Office,
Washington, DC.
6
Rickels 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

7
Ghosh, 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
8
Blackstock, 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.
CEEW- InSIS Climate Geoengineering Governance Conference Report | 3

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.
CEEW- InSIS Climate Geoengineering Governance Conference Report | 5

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
CEEW- InSIS Climate Geoengineering Governance Conference Report | 7

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.
8 Conference Sessions and Key Discussions

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.
CEEW- InSIS Climate Geoengineering Governance Conference Report | 9

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. 1OC or even 0OC 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,
10 Conference Sessions and Key Discussions

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.
CEEW- InSIS Climate Geoengineering Governance Conference Report | 11

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
12 Conference Sessions and Key Discussions

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
CEEW- InSIS Climate Geoengineering Governance Conference Report | 13

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’.
14 Conference Sessions and Key Discussions

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.
CEEW- InSIS Climate Geoengineering Governance Conference Report | 15

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.
CEEW- InSIS Climate Geoengineering Governance Conference Report | 17

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.
CEEW- InSIS Climate Geoengineering Governance Conference Report | 19

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).
CEEW- InSIS Climate Geoengineering Governance Conference Report | 21

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.
22 Profile of the Speakers

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,
CEEW- InSIS Climate Geoengineering Governance Conference Report | 23

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
24 Profile of the Speakers

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,
CEEW- InSIS Climate Geoengineering Governance Conference Report | 25

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.
26 Profile of the Speakers

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.
CEEW- InSIS Climate Geoengineering Governance Conference Report | 27

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).
28 Profile of the Speakers

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?).
CEEW- InSIS Climate Geoengineering Governance Conference Report | 29

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
Center for Environmental and Resource Policy,
22 Kartikeya Singh
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
Centre for Urban Studies
69 Dr Kusum Lata
Indian Institute of Public Administration
CEEW PUBLICATIONS

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
 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-
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
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.