Climate Ambition Needs Targeted Technology Collaboration

  • Arunabha GhoshEmail author
  • Vaibhav Chaturvedi
  • Shikha Bhasin


It is widely accepted that technology development and diffusion is critical to meet climate targets, yet specific stakeholder and institutional roles, as well as integration costs, remain largely undefined at a macro level. This chapter sheds light on the elements that hold key to actualising technologies through frameworks that allow for cooperative and collaborative arrangements of burden-sharing, rather than maintaining strategic competitive advantages. It highlights, first, the kinds of technologies that will be crucial for meeting climate goals and the uncertainties associated with them. Uncertainties pertain to development pathways, economic growth, technological development and costs, socio-political factors, and secondary and tertiary impacts. Next, the chapter examines existing multilateral frameworks for technology development and diffusion to identify the gaps therein. Finally, it outlines the principles for more effective technology partnerships to meet stringent climate stabilisation targets and submits templates for three alternative modalities for technological development, ranging from those that are ready to scale but need commercial pilots, to horizon technologies that have significant risks.


  1. Chaturvedi, V., Shukla, P. R., & Ganesan, K. (2017). A perspective on the cost of nuclear energy. In J. Nanda Kumar, G. Pant, & R. B. Grover (Eds.), Resurgence of nuclear power: Challenges and opportunities for Asia. Springer Nature Singapore Pvt Ltd.Google Scholar
  2. Chaturvedi, V. Nagar Koti, P., & Chordia, A. R. (2018, April). Sustainable Development, Uncertainties, and India’s Climate Policy: Pathways towards Nationally Determined Contribution and Mid-Century Strategy. Council on Energy, Environment and Water.Google Scholar
  3. Climate Technology Centre and Network. (2019a). Technical assistance. Retrieved March 2, 2019, from
  4. Climate Technology Centre and Network. (2019b). Request visualizations. Retrieved March 2, 2019, from
  5. Dellink, R., Chateau, J., Lanzi, E., & Magne, B. (2017). Long-term economic growth projections in the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Global Environmental Change, 42, 200–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ghosh, A. (2015, October 16). Effective climate tech partnerships. Business Standard.
  7. Ghosh, A. (2016). Clean energy trade conflicts: The political economy of a future energy system. In T. Van de Graaf, B. Sovacool, A. Ghosh, F. Kern, & M. T. Klare (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of the international political economy of energy. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  8. Ghosh, A. (2017a, October 24). The world’s lab for energy tech. Business Standard.
  9. Ghosh, A. (2017b, May 23). Energy cooperation: First principles. Business Standard.
  10. Ghosh, A. (2017c, April 25). Time for geoengineering governance? Business Standard
  11. Ghosh, A. (2018a). Environmental institutions, international research programmes, and lessons for geoengineering research. In J. J. Blackstock & S. Low (Eds.), Geoengineering our climate? Ethics, politics, and governance. Earthscan-Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Ghosh, A., & Chawla, K. (2018, March 16). The Global Solar Alliance must catalyse innovation. Hindustan Times.Google Scholar
  13. Ghosh, A., & Ray, S. (2015, November). Fixing climate governance through effective technology partnerships. CIGI Fixing Climate Governance Series—Paper No. 3. Waterloo, ON: Centre for International Governance Innovation.
  14. Ghosh, A., Vijayakumar, A., & Ray, S. (2015, October). Climate technology partnerships: Form, function and impact. CIGI Fixing Climate Governance Series—Paper No. 2. Waterloo, ON: Centre for International Governance Innovation.
  15. Government of India (GoI). (2015, October 2). India’s nationally determined contribution: Working towards climate justice.
  16. Gupta, V., Ganesan, K., & Ghosh, A. (2016, February). Make in India: How could we be strategic? CEEW Report.Google Scholar
  17. Hultman, N. E., Koomey, J. G., & Kammen, D. M. (2007). What history can teach us about the future costs of U.S. nuclear power. Environmental Science & Technology, 41(7), 2087–2094.Google Scholar
  18. IPCC. (2018). In V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H. O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, & T. Waterfield (Eds.), Global Warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.Google Scholar
  19. IPCC SAR WG3. (1996) In J. P. Bruce, H. Lee, & E. F. Haites (Eds.), Climate change 1995: Economic and social dimensions of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-56051-9 (pb: 0-521-56854-4).Google Scholar
  20. KC, S., & Lutz, W. (2017). The human core of the shared socioeconomic pathways: Population scenarios by age, sex and level of education for all countries to 2100. Global Environmental Change, 42, 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kriegler, E., O’Neill, B. C., Hallegatte, S., Kram, T., Lempert, R. J., Moss, R. H., et al. (2017). The need for and use of socio-economic scenarios for climate change analysis: A new approach based on shared socio-economic pathways. Global Environmental Change, 42, 807–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuldeep, N., Chawla, K., Ghosh, A., Jaiswal, A., Kaur, N., Kwatra, S., et al. (2017, June). Greening India’s workforce: Gearing up for expansion of solar and wind power in India. CEEW-NRDC Report.Google Scholar
  23. Lewis, J. (2014). Managing intellectual property rights in cross-border clean energy collaboration: The case of the U.S.–China Clean Energy Research Center. Energy Policy, 69, 546–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mission Innovation. (2018a, May 23). Letter of Intent on Collaboration between the International Renewable Energy Agency and Mission Innovation, Sweden.Google Scholar
  25. Mission Innovation. (2018b, June). Country highlights. 3rd Mission Innovation Ministerial.Google Scholar
  26. Mission Innovation. (2019). Innovation challenge. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from
  27. Modi, N. (2015, September 25). Statement on adoption of the Post-2015 Development Agenda. United Nations Summit, United Nations, New York.Google Scholar
  28. Pasztor, J., Harrison, N., Chen, Y., Ghosh, A., Jumeau, R., Nobres, C., et al. (2019, February). Geoengineering: the need for governance. Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative (C2G2), New York.
  29. Riahi, K., Vuuren, D. P., Kriegler, E., Edmonds, J., O’Neill, B. C., et al. (2017). The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Global Environmental Change 42, 153–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. UNFCCC. (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn.Google Scholar
  31. UNFCCC. (2006). Synthesis report on technology needs identified by Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention, Bonn.Google Scholar
  32. UNFCCC. (2010). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010, Bonn.Google Scholar
  33. US-China Clean Energy Research Centre. (2019). Intellectual property. Retrieved March 7, 2019, from

Copyright information

© Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arunabha Ghosh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Vaibhav Chaturvedi
    • 1
  • Shikha Bhasin
    • 1
  1. 1.Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW)New DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations