Nonstate and subnational climate governance activities are proliferating. Alongside them are databases and registries that attempt to calculate their contributions to global decarbonization. We label these registries “orchestration platforms” because they both aggregate disparate initiatives and attempt to steer them toward overarching objectives such as improved transparency, accountability, and effectiveness. While well-intentioned, many orchestration platforms adopt a narrow conception of “value” as either quantifiable greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions or relevant outputs. We offer a more comprehensive approach to valuing nonstate and subnational climate governance that is rooted in recognizing the potential for initiatives to become far-reaching (i.e., achieve scale) and durable (i.e., become entrenched). We illustrate the comparative advantage of our approach with reference to a particular case of nonstate governance: The Carbon Trust’s attempt to create product carbon footprints. By tracing the direct and indirect impacts of product carbon footprinting, we show that initial failures to generate quantifiable GHG reductions or produce relevant outputs do not reflect the intervention’s broader impacts through scaling to other jurisdictions and entrenching business practices that contribute to decarbonization. Taking this broader view of “value” can help policy-makers better understand and gauge the contribution of nonstate and subnational climate governance to global decarbonization.

The conditions that led to low expectations for the Rio+20 conference tell us more about the prospects for addressing collective global problems than a focus only on its substantive outcomes. Three conjectures on why expectations were so low are put forward: a lack of vision and modest ambition at the conference's core; unresolved and unconfronted normative contestation that limited progress on potentially transformative ideas such as the green economy; and practices of multilateralism that have not caught up to structural changes in the global system, exacerbated by the inability or unwillingness of key actors to move from entrenched identities. Some surprising institutional outcomes of Rio are also assessed in light of the three conjectures. This form of analysis turns attention to the politics that the outcomes reflect and opportunities and pitfalls going forward.

Global environmental governance rests on a set of norms best characterized by the label “liberal environmentalism.” The 1992 Earth Summit catalyzed the process of institutionalizing these norms, which predicate environmental pro tection on the promotion and maintenance of a liberal economic order. To support this claim, this article identifies the specific norms institutionalized since Rio that undergird international environmental treaties, policies and programs. It also explains why a shift toward liberal environmentalism occurred from earlier, very different, bases of environmental governance. The implications of this shift are then outlined, with examples drawn from responses to climate change, forest protection and use, and biosafety. The article is not an endorsement of liberal environmentalism. Rather, it shows that institutions that have developed in response to global environmental problems support particular kinds of values and goals, with important implications for the constraints and opportunities to combat the world's most serious environmental problems.