Climate
Geoengineering
Governance
23 - 24 June 2014
ceew.in/publications
Thapar House
124, Janpath
New Delhi 110001
India
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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
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:
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
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.
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.
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
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:
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:
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:
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.
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
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
This session revolved around understanding the international governance ecosystem within
which the geoengineering governance issues are being debated.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
A panel discussion moderated by Dr Ghosh explored five themes for future research
collaboration in climate geoengineering governance. These include:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Vaibhav Chaturvedi
Research Fellow, Council on Energy, Environment and Water
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
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 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’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
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
Suresh Prabhu
Chairperson, Council on Energy, Environment and Water
Anand B. Rao
Associate Professor, 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
Steve Rayner
Director, Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (InSIS)
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
Tim Kruger
Programme Manager - Oxford Geoengineering Programme, University of Oxford
Catherine Redgwell
Chichele Professor of International Law, University of Oxford
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.
7. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
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
Arunabha Ghosh (2009) 'Making Copenhagen count' the GEG blog, 7 December.