Introduction

Climate security is a sense of security from climatic, meteorological, and environmental threats. The energy-sustainability-security nexus however expands the potential threats, through state restrictions on energy production, consumption, and resource-motivated conflict. It highlights the multifaceted nature of this threat: economic, environmental, and security concerns may threaten a solution to climate change and the green transition.  These trade-offs reflect competing priorities and national interests. 

The green transition faces pressing threat from the intersection of energy, sustainability, and security variables (Khaki Green Report, 2023). These threats include state responses: sanctions, subsidies, trade barriers, military action, and non-state action, including migration and an increasingly volatile climate. Efforts to frame these threats facing the green transition have been underway at The Ditchley Foundation for decades. Beginning with the 1991 “Energy and the Environment” conference chaired by Rt. Hon. Lord Ezra, the energy-sustainability-security nexus started to gain prominence in the halls of Ditchley. Since 1991, thirteen lectures and conferences have discussed these threats, opportunities, and trade-offs in depth. Through these forums, Ditchley has taken significant strides toward conceptualising the threats facing the green transition, exploring trade-offs, and forecasting future responses. This analysis will explore The Ditchley Foundation’s previous engagements on the energy-sustainability-security threat and the green transition.

Two major global trends accompanied the emergence of the green transition and the energy-sustainability-security threat nexus. First, globalisation created unprecedented opportunities for interdependencies and enabled historic levels of international cooperation (A Festival of Ideas - Future Human: Future Communities Conference, 2022). These interdependencies laid the groundwork for several of the threats facing the green transition to emerge from. The Ditchley Foundation’s 2002 “Globalization: What to do about Losers” conference, chaired by Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, forecast that globalisation would produce significant economic and developmental consequences for resource-rich countries. Together, those implications had adverse impacts on economic development and stunted the growth trajectories of those countries. Globalisation, however, was viewed as useful to combat climate change: it prevented the replication of supply chains, pooled our international resources, and bound nations closer together, opening pathways to discuss shared goals. Globalisation set the stage for the “global challenges meriting global solutions” narrative where climate change became a shared goal. 

One of the dramatic outputs of globalisation was the emergence of the “shared challenges to global solutions” narrative. This narrative constitutes the second geopolitical development. Ditchley’s 2022 Climate and Energy Summit stressed “global problems for global solutions” as the antidote to “energy [in]security,” “overlapping democratic challenges,” and “the paradox around energy.” Specifically, the formation of the UN Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Conference of Parties (COP), and several pledges including the Kyoto Protocol, Montreal Protocol, and the Paris Climate Accord signal the process towards this vision. 

Recently, threats to these developments have manifested. The expansion of global value chains has been threatened by a US-China trade war, the decoupling from Russian fossil fuels, and the COVID-19 pandemic. These threaten the rise of the energy-sustainability-security nexus and became the focal point of Ditchley discussions including the “Partnering with the Indo-Pacific: how can the West best partner with the fast-growing economies of the Indo-Pacific to maximize global economic growth, make progress on the climate crisis and increase shared resilience to shocks” conference. These supply chains face substantial risks when state(s) weaponises or restrict access to key energy variables including rare earth metals, vital shipping and commercial passageways, and commodities (notably crude oil and petroleum). First witnessed after the Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil embargo after the Yom Kippur War in 1973, the weaponisation of energy elements is now a vital political and security weapon within states’ security arsenals.  Without diversification, as our interdependency increases, so does our vulnerability to this type of action. 

John Roberts, a non-resident senior fellow at Atlantic Council's Global Energy Center,  wrote a piece for Ditchley titled “The Twin Energy Crises - Climate Change and Russia” which asserted that the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was motivated by and caused dramatic implications for global energy markets. In other words, “The Twin Energy Crises - Climate Change and Russia” portrayed the invasion of Ukraine (2022) and the COVID-19 pandemic’s disastrous impact on supply chains as examples of the energy-sustainability-security nexus and its threat to the green transition. The Ditchley Foundation’s 2021 conference, “Climate judo: how can the impact of the pandemic and ensuing economic crisis be turned into effective action on climate change?”, chaired by John Kerry, discussed that these threats and vulnerabilities are significant, yet they can foster greater international cooperation over climate change. 

This report will  (1) begin by tracing the contextual and historical roots of the energy-security nexus (with a focus on the green transition); (2) introduce the use of economic tools within states’ national security strategies in response to energy-related shocks; (3) evaluate the effectiveness and empirical application of the energy-sustainability-security nexus through a brief case study of the geopolitical rivalry unfolding in the Arctic theatre; and (4) conclude with a brief summation reviewing the past developments and providing recommendations for future deliberation.   

Historical Rise of the Energy-Security Nexus

The bulwark of pre-1973 Ditchley conferences viewed security as purely a kinetic concept. Security was discussed as a military objective and an element of the state’s grand strategies. There were few analyses of security within humanitarian, developmental, or climactic arenas at this juncture. At this point, Ditchley's discussions largely focused on the Great Power competition between the US and the Soviet Union (The Ditchley Foundation Annual Lecture VIII, 1969). There was not a significant focus on sustainability or the green transition. The latter two topics received little analytical attention in Ditchley discussions until the final decades of the 20th Century when climate change gained traction in the policy sphere, where discussions of security were dramatically expanded and revolutionised. 

Energy security first gained prominence as an instrument of statecraft to accomplish security interests in the wake of the Yom Kippur War (1973). Restrictions on crude oil and petroleum exports by OPEC states including several Gulf and Levant countries illustrated how resource-rich countries exercised influence over those that were dependent on them. Fast forward three decades and the Persian Gulf War (1990-1991) had pertinent energy considerations.  As discussed in Ditchley’s “The Gulf War, Lebanon, Palestine: A Review of Middle Eastern Crises and Prospects” conference hosted by Sir Anthony Parsons, during the Gulf War (1990-1991) considerations of energy variables and markets were influential. Furthermore, the US-China Trade War (2018-Present) is augmented by energy and mineral-based concerns. The Ditchley Summit on “Critical Minerals and the Green Transition” (2022) asserted that a “competition and race” had emerged between the US and China over critical minerals and likely heightened geopolitical tensions. Decoupling and its interlinkage with the Belt and Road Initiative put this threat nexus and the future of the green transition at the centerpiece of Ditchley discussions (Ditchley Summit on Critical Minerals and the Green Transition, 2022). 

Moreover, Ditchley’s past engagement with this threat nexus and its associated impact on the green transition is extensive. Across these conferences, there is only one noticeable cleavage:  the scale of analysis. Besides the 2007 “China, energy and the Environment” conference moderated by Admiral (Retd) Dennis Blair and Mr. Nick Butler, Ditchley events focused on this threat nexus have been conducted on the global level. Ditchley has followed the “global solutions to global problems” narrative relating to the green transition through the 2023 Ditchley Summit on Critical Minerals and the Green Transition, the 1991 conference “Energy and the Environment.” These conferences stress global solutions to the threats proposed by the energy-sustainability-security nexus by discarding “one size fits all” solutions, avoiding “political polarisation as a hindrance,” and refusing to “slow down” (Ditchley Summit on Critical Minerals and the Green Transition, 2023). The primary commonality across these conferences is that they view climate security, and the energy-sustainability-security nexus more specifically, as a global problem requiring a solution on the systemic level. These conferences proposed a “global problem meriting global solutions” narrative, yet the energy-sustainability-security nexus challenges that perspective. Through states reducing the availability of the goods and services that are imperative for the green transition, questions have emerged over whether state-based or global solutions are effective for accomplishing our climate ambitions and advancing the green transition. 

Another key topic across these conferences is the convergence of state responses, the green transition, and the energy-sustainability-security nexus. For example, the “Economic Statecraft in an Age of Geopolitical Rivalry” conference (2024) proposed that the current energy securitisation mechanisms fit within a larger debate of whether state responses to global problems are effective. However, this conference’s attendees debated whether economic sanctions and climate finance are effective at offsetting geopolitical rivalries vis-à-vis the green transition.  Furthermore, it proposed a series of diplomatic solutions to geopolitical rivalries between China and the United States, arguing that cooperation over key topics like the green transition is unavoidable. Similarly, despite widespread pessimism, Ditchley’s 2017 conference, “Climate and energy risk,” ended on an optimistic note asserting that increased international cooperation and a shared sense of responsibility will trump the weaponisation of energy sources. Both this conference and the “Economic Statecraft in an Age of Geopolitical Rivalry" conference proposed that the proliferation of ideas and reinvigorated cooperation are tools for overcoming the many hindrances facing the green transition. 

The discussion of the energy-sustainability-security nexus and the green transition is also gaining traction in military and security discussions at Ditchley. For example, Ditchley’s conference, “The Military’s Role and Function in the 21st Century” illustrates the necessity of pairing the energy-sustainability-security nexus within conventional national security and military strategies. A 2006 conference, “Energy and the environment: the essential next steps,” similarly looked at elements of the energy-sustainability-security nexus as becoming motifs in states’ military and national security strategies. From these two conferences, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the energy-sustainability-security nexus is a hallmark feature of Ditchley discussions on the future of warfighting and stability in an increasingly multipolar world. Additionally, state-level responses to the energy-sustainability-security nexus have emerged. One of the most publicised strategies on the state level is the United States’ Inflation Reduction Act (2022). That said, there is a debate over whether the solutions for this threat network lie at the state or global level. 

All in all, the green transition faces a significant threat from the energy-sustainability-security nexus. This threat has become a centerpiece of Ditchley discussions. Ditchley’s conferences shine a light on the origin of these threats and their future implications for the green transition. 

Economic tools as security and statecraft instruments

The following section of this analysis will delve further into how The Ditchley Foundation’s past events depict the threat posed by the energy-sustainability-security nexus to the green transition and frame it contextually. More specifically, it will trace the development and application of economic tools (sanctions and subsidies) as the manifestation of the energy-sustainability-security nexus and the threat it poses to the green transition.

            The most prominent application of this is through weaponised economic tools, specifically economic sanctions and subsidies. These non-trade barriers (NTBs) were first mentioned in Ditchley’s 2015 “Climate and Energy Risk” conference, chaired by Tom Burke. This conference mentioned subsidies seven times and framed energy subsidies as a leading threat to global efforts aimed at offsetting climate change. This conference stressed the dual meaning of economic subsidies. On one hand, the conference posited that subsidies for fossil fuel corporations constituted one of the largest risks toward the success of global efforts addressing climate change. The conference summary reported that subsidies in this application were deemed to be “highly dangerous”. On the other hand, this conference cited the advantages of subsidies for electric vehicles (EVs) and renewable energy installations. This conference also highlighted the necessity for phasing subsidies out as instruments of statecraft, stating that renewable energy sources “did not need subsidies.” All in all, Ditchley’s April 2015 conference on “Climate and Energy Risk” provided the basis for Ditchley discussions on the applications of the energy-sustainability-security nexus through subsidies. While the threat posed by subsidies manifests in protectionist economic measures and continued support for petroleum and crude oil corporations, subsidies also possess a marked advantage in combating the implications of climate change. That said, the conference concluded by questioning the value-add and impact of subsidies. 

            The 2023 Ditchley Summit on “Critical Minerals and the Green Transition” only tangentially addressed the impact of economic sanctions on the global critical mineral trade. This summit proposed that sanctions typically slow down states’ economic growth and are a “viable tool” in their national security strategies. In other words, through its systemic level analysis of the US-China Trade War and its impact on proxies, including on critical minerals, economic sanctions are treated as a grave threat. While economic sanctions and other instruments of economic statecraft are only tangentially addressed in this summit, their current and future relevance is established as one of the leading threats confronting the green transition. Following the precedent established by the “Climate and Energy Risk” conference, this conference explored the opportunities offered by economic tools toward the green transition. The conference summary states that: “Additionally, there exist several tools already that may help to establish best practices and create a regulatory space”. This optimistic tone proves short-lived as the summary concluded by lamenting, “But these are not well coordinated among allies at the moment”. Overall, Ditchley’s 2023 summit on “Critical Minerals and the Green Transition” only briefly addressed economic sanctions and subsidies, but indirectly added their threat value. While each presents an opportunity for offsetting the implications of climate change, their weaponisation poses a significant threat to both deepen the US-China trade war and confound the green transition.

            Ditchley’s “Economic Statecraft in an Age of Geopolitical Rivalry” conference in April 2024 expanded the two aforementioned discussions of economic tools and their threat to the green transition. Addressing both the threat posed by government subsidies and economic sanctions to the stability of the global economy and the green transition, this conference provided a holistic analysis of how these economic tools pose a clear and present threat to the effectiveness of the green transition. One of the main themes of this conference is the impact of economic sanctions from the Russia-Ukraine War on Europe’s green transition. Treating sanctions as “not an end in themselves,” it studies how economic sanctions targeting Russian state-owned corporations affected the short and long-term usage of renewable energy sources. Economic sanctions are relevant to this discussion because they have led European states (primary importers of Russian natural gas and petroleum) to increase their short-term reliance on fossil fuels to fill the void left by Russian imports. In other words, economic sanctions placed on Russia after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine have resulted in the expansion of the short-term use of fossil fuels, but have also laid the groundwork for future renewable energy transitions. While most of the discussion on economic sanctions centers on “improving the Western sanctions regime against Russia,” it also stressed that sanctions have become both an instrument of statecraft and a symbolic gesture. The amalgam of these two applications illustrates how sanctions could be both a current and future threat to global policy. More specifically, sanctions, according to this conference discussion, are geared toward “protecting their countries against economic security risks.” 

            Similarly, Ditchley’s “Khaki Green: National Security and Opportunities for Growth in the Green Transition” summit in April 2024 addressed the intersection of national security and economic prosperity within the green transition. By investigating the role of the UK vis-à-vis the rise of protectionist economic policies, this report from this event stressed the severity of the threat posed by economic tools to the green transition. However, the summary only briefly addressed subsidies as an element of protectionist and ‘de-coupling’ economic strategies. This summit proposed policy solutions to the threats including building infrastructure, engaging with global institutions, and engaging with China. Essentially, this summit largely focused on providing and explaining policy solutions to the threats posed by economic tools to the green transition. This lens is invaluable in understanding how the use of economic tools poses a multidimensional threat necessitating state-level and global solutions.

Lastly, The Ditchley Foundation’s “A Profound Economic Crisis: Finding a Way Through to a Better Future” conference in January 2023 analysed the emergence of economic sanctions and government subsidies as threats to the green transition and other manifestations of global cooperation. While previously mentioned conferences listed the consequences of globalisation, bilateral rivalries, and geopolitical stressors, this conference delved into detail through its “Agency of a Green Transition” Working Group. Specifically, this section analyses the emergence of the green transition within mainstream economic thought, its practical applications in the UK, and proxies (including critical mineral trades). This conference adopted a largely pessimistic view of the green transition’s prospects as it faces complex threats from sanctions, subsidies, and prevailing global events, including protracted economic malaise in Japan, unprecedented economic growth in India, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Collectively, these developments created the context for protectionist economic policies (including sanctions and government subsidies), posing a severe threat to green transition’s effectiveness. 

            The conferences analysed here stress the unprecedented nature of these threats, their application within a context of protectionism and de-coupling, and their opportunities for growth and retrenchment. The “Energy and the Environment” conference, hosted 33 years ago, stressed how subsidies for coal and agriculture are a major threat to the European Economic Community (EEC). Now, several decades later, this prediction has crystallized. Thus, the application of economic tools as hindrances to the green transition has been extensively discussed at Ditchley conferences and events for the past thirty years, ranging in focus from climate risk to critical minerals to protectionism. And Ditchley’s 2024 “The changing nature of the corporation: how can corporations in democratic societies best adapt to contemporary domestic, international and technological pressures?” conference touched on these same topics. Through the lens of Environmental, Social Governance (ESG), and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), this conference debated how corporations can implement the “global solutions to global problems” yet maintain profitability. Resilience and profitability, in other words, remain the foremost challenge to both investors and CEOs as climate change accelerates and the necessity to advance the green transition becomes more urgent. Overall, these conferences illustrate how corporate, state, and global actors can work together to achieve our climate ambitions. These conferences also show how solutions to this threat network lie on each level.  

Case Study 

The Arctic Theatre: The Intersection of Great Power Competition and the Weaponisation of Energy and Climate Change

The securitisation of the Arctic region is one of the frontlines of the energy-sustainability-security threat nexus. The United States, several NATO member states, Russia, and China have been militarising and expanding their territorial and maritime claims to cover the region’s vast petroleum, crude oil, and natural gas reserves. Several of these countries have also increased their military presence in anticipation of an ice-free Arctic Ocean. The Ditchley Foundation has discussed this threatre through two recent conferences: “The Arctic Region in the Twenty-first Century” and “The Arctic at the Crossroads: cooperation or competition?”. As articulated by those conferences, the Arctic region is at risk of armed conflict and the heightened implications of climate change. Both conferences proposed a list of several “reasons to be alarmed” and “reasons to be optimistic” and provided an invaluable lens to study the Arctic region. 

To take a step back, both conferences propose that the rapid disappearance of the Arctic Ocean’s permanent ice shelf represents a unique opportunity for states to either cooperate or fight. Climate ambitions are caught in the crosshairs. The “Arctic at the Crossroads: Cooperation or Competition” conference described the energy-sustainability-security threat in the Arctic region as caused by warming temperatures and melting sea ice. The conference summary states that “While the Arctic has been warm before… it is rapid change that is the unifying theme.” These conferences stressed the necessity for international cooperation if we are to achieve our climate ambition, the dangers of securitizing climactic resources, and the environmental degradation caused by securitisation and militarisation of the region. As mentioned in the “The Arctic at the Crossroads: Cooperation or Competition?” conference summary, the prospect of military activity, while unlikely, can produce significant environmental, economic, and commercial damage. 

Similarly, Ditchley’s “The Arctic Region in the Twenty-first Century” conference defines the energy-sustainability-security threat facing the green transition in the Arctic from oil, petroleum, and natural gas exploitation. This conference proposed that the problem lies in the moot jurisdiction over the Arctic’s lands, and territorial waters and commented on how those competing claims have fueled geopolitical rivalries. In other words, disputed ownership and jurisdiction over previously ice-covered lands and waters created opportunities for further fossil fuel exploitation and security competition. These developments reached their zenith when Russia unilaterally claimed the concentric North Pole in 2007 by placing its flag at the bottom of the Ocean. This conference continued by addressing one of the prevailing motifs of this paper, the narrative of “global problems meriting global solutions” versus the securitisation of energy by framing the Arctic theatre as defined by securitisation and unilateral action. 

On the other hand, as described in “The Arctic Region in the Twenty-first Century” conference, melting sea ice in the Arctic Ocean promotes cooperation. The conference summary states, “When words like ‘consensus’, ‘values’, ‘inclusion’ and ‘self-regulation’ began to appear more frequently in Arctic discussion, it was an indication that some innovation was needed in international structures… international scientific cooperation is unusually close”. This theme permeates the two conferences Ditchley hosted on the Arctic, i.e. that international cooperation has been successful at achieving our climate ambitions and preventing the securitisation of the Arctic into militarisation.

Furthermore, the inclusion of Russian officials and mention of Russia’s strategy at the “The Arctic at the Crossroads: Cooperation or Competition?” conference indicates that this theatre represents a possible area for cooperation on climate change. On the topic of cooperation, the “Arctic Region in the Twenty-First Century” conference concluded by proposing a series of policy solutions to aid the implementation of our climate ambitions. Those proposals included dialogue and practical cooperation, public diplomacy, and adherence to pertinent international law including the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS).

By the same token, Ditchley’s “The Arctic at the Crossroads: Cooperation or Competition?” conference listed the resilience of the Inuit peoples, states’ unilateral restrictions on oil and gas exploration (specifically President Barack Obama’s restrictions on those interventions in Alaska), tourism (and its impact on activism), and the fledging Arctic Council as the main drivers for peace. Essentially, as described by this conference, while there are reasons for pessimism and fears of Great Power competition turning into an armed conflict, the possibility for win/win solutions and advancing our climate ambitions on the state and global levels emerge. This conference posits that the emergence of the Arctic Council and the application of international law constitute a major source of optimism. With our climate ambitions hinging on international cooperation and the “global problems meriting global solutions” narrative, efforts to augment cooperation in the Arctic are dramatic steps forward. The "The Arctic Region in the Twenty-First Century" conference added that expanding the Arctic Council's purview and membership to avoid the consequences of direct securitisation (military conflict) and indirect conflict (piracy, smuggling, trafficking of illicit commodities). These approaches can be used as a frame to view the broader cooperation in the green transition. 

All in all, The Ditchley Foundation’s Arctic conferences stress the geopolitical, commercial, and environmental value of the Arctic theater. Its fragile balance of political power amid the vanishing sea ice in the Arctic Ocean epitomises the threat of the energy-sustainability-security nexus to our climate ambitions. Military activity can cause significant damage to fragile ecosystems, displace the local populations, and damage vital cooperation patterns necessary to advance the green transition. As described by these conferences, cooperation has been vital to maintaining peace in the Arctic and achieving our climate ambitions. 

Conclusion

All in all, this historical analysis of The Ditchley Foundation’s previous conferences on the energy-sustainability-security nexus and the green transition traced several valuable developments. First, it introduced and summarised fourteen Ditchley conferences going back 30 years on topics ranging from energy security to critical mineral supply chains and the geopolitics of the Arctic region. What this has demonstrated is the unique scope and depth of Ditchley's conversations and its conferences on the most pressing topics. This sits within the context of historical shifts in the international order: the ongoing trade war between the US and China, the COVID-19 pandemic, and Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Second, from those conferences, we can note the emergence of the energy-sustainability-security nexus as the primary threat to the green transition has materialised without precedent but was enabled by prevailing geopolitical contexts. Third, it allows us to track the development of economic statecraft instruments including sanctions and subsidies, and their applications as threats to the green transition. It cited conferences addressing contemporary applications of these tools in the Russia-Ukraine War and the US-China trade war. Lastly, through its case study analysis of the Arctic theatre, it demonstrated how the energy-sustainability-security nexus is shaping political, economic, and security developments in a dynamic region. 

While the Ditchley conferences mentioned above provided in-depth analyses of the threats posed by the energy-security-sustainability nexus, the implications of trade-offs, and the future of the green transition, there are three areas ripe for further discussion: the effectiveness of economic sanctions vis-à-vis energy security, the feasibility of international cooperation in the global energy transition, and the threat of energy-based conflict between state and non-state actors. To further advance these debates, subsequent conferences could explore whether there are opportunities for de-escalation within the energy–national security nexus. Finally, Ditchley conferences could delve into how non-kinetic measures (including sanctions and subsidies) can be integrated into traditional military doctrines. In summary, The Ditchley Foundation’s conferences and lectures on the development of the energy-sustainability-security nexus, its historical and contemporary applications, and its relevance to maintaining peace in the Arctic provide an invaluable forum for discussing the threats facing the green transition. 

References

Ditchley conference - “China, energy and the environment.” (2008) Available at: https://www.ditchley.com/past-events/past-programme/2000-2009/2008/china

Bundy, M. (1969). “The Ditchley Foundation Annual Lecture VIII: The Americans and Europe: rhetoric and reality.” Available at: The Ditchley Foundation Annual Lecture VIII | Ditchley Foundation

Ditchley conference - “Climate and energy risk.” (2017) Available at: https://www.ditchley.com/past-events/past-programme/2010-2019/2015/climate-and-energy-risk

Ditchley conference - “The Arctic at the crossroads: cooperation or competition?” (2017) Available at: https://www.ditchley.com/events/past-events/2010-2019/2017/arctic-crossroads-cooperation-or-competition

Ditchley conference - “A Profound Economic Crisis: finding a way through to a better future.” (2023) Available at: https://www.ditchley.com/sites/default/files/Conference%20Note%20Profound%20economic%20security%2011.5.23_0.pdf

Ditchley conference - “Ditchley Summit on Critical Minerals and the Green Transition.” (2023) Available at: https://www.ditchley.com/news/critical-minerals-green-transition-summit

Ditchley conference - “Economic statecraft in an age of geopolitical rivalry.” (2024) Available at: https://www.ditchley.com/events/economic-statecraft-age-geopolitical-rivalry

Ditchley Climate Summit “Khaki Green: national security and opportunities for growth in the green transition.” (2024) Available at: https://www.ditchley.com/news/climate-summit-khaki-green-national-security-and-opportunities-growth-green-transition

Ditchley conference - “Partnering with the Indo-Pacific: how can the West best partner with the fast-growing economies of the Indo-Pacific to maximize global economic growth, make progress on the climate crisis and increase shared resilience to shocks?” (2023) Available at: https://www.ditchley.com/events/partnering-indo-pacific-how-can-west-best-partner-fast-growing-economies-indo-pacific

 Ditchley conference - “Energy and the Environment.” (1991) Available at: https://www.ditchley.com/programme/past-events/1990-1999/1991/energy-and-environment

Ditchley conference - “Climate judo: how can the impact of the pandemic and ensuing economic crisis be turned into effective action on climate change?” (2021) Available at: Climate judo: how can the impact of the pandemic and ensuing economic crisis be turned into effective action on climate change? | Ditchley Foundation