David Steven

The question is - in some ways - easy to settle. Yes, the world is hurtling towards dangerous climate change (code red for humanity etc.). But global action on climate has still delivered impacts that can be measured in “millions of lives and trillions of dollars.” 3

Base Camp has been built with a multilateralism that is *very* different to the model of the post-war era. Its value is generated not by formal institutions, but the networks that have grown between them. 5

Our model of networked/inclusive climate multilateralism has 4 elements. First, it’s anchored in knowledge and evidence No global issue has ever assembled anything like as much brain power to drive collective action. 6

Second, it uses goals and targets to encourage growing “fleet” of actors to sail in a common direction. The first compass bearing is vague (1992: no 'dangerous' climate change), but it steadily becomes more precise (2°C, then 1.5°C; Net Zero by 2050).... 7a

Third, create a platform for mutual commitments. The Montreal Protocol was the forerunner (saving the ozone layer and, by accident, cutting warming by c. 1°C). Then the painful compromises of Kyoto. And finally Paris and its ratchet mechanism (i/c weak accountability) 8

Before the Copenhagen car crash, negotiated text (a global deal) was supposed to drive real world change. The Paris era is much less linear. Networked action makes a political deal possible. A political deal makes more action desirable,inevitable. Rinserepeat 9b

This leaves us with a paradox Climate risks growing more frightening by the day But solutions grow cheaper/easier to implement than predicted even a few years ago. And that's because - painfully, slowly, collectively - economies/societies are sailing in a new direction 10

What about the future? Ascending from Base Camp to the summit (1.5°C) means wringing ever more impact from increasingly complex networks of climate cooperation/action. Easy to say. Tough to do. 11

As international climate politics moves into a new cycle after COP26, the paper includes with our ideas about what a successful post-Glasgow recipe will look like. 12

Put people at the heart of the transition to Net Zero. Success rests on a multi-country and multi-generation political consensus. Polarization offers a shortcut to disaster - as does taking public support for granted. 13a

That means changing the narrative to one of solutions, success, and inevitability. Actively engaging across national, generational, and political divides. And making sure the global low-carbon shift and race to resilience have many more winners than losers. 13b

Make Net Zero universal, credible, and inevitable. The SG has argued Net Zero is going to become “the new normal for everyone, everywhere.” But this is a balloon that will deflate rapidly if confidence in its organizing power is (further) undermined. 14a

So we need a renewed drive for Net Zero commitments to cover all emissions well before 2025 An accelerating the shift in the legal, regulatory, and policy landscape And growing numbers of economies to get carbon pricing and carbon markets right 14b

The hard and unglamorous slog to accelerate delivery in the 2020s And to do so quickly enough that we don’t burn through the last remaining carbon space before the end of the decade. 15a

3 types of acceleration: Finish the job where change happening but too slowly (e.g. cost competitive renewables) Shape markets to support transformative change (e.g. electricity everywhere) Tech breakthroughs where we're stuck (heavy industry, shipping, aviation etc.) 15b

Organize global systems for a low carbon age Finally: value our increasingly diverse and complex global institutional architecture. Accept we don't have time to rebuild it now. And learn how to operate what we have to maximum effect. 16a