In light of lack of a global agreement on a new legal treaty in Copenhagen and the lack of trust in multilateral processes after Copenhagen, this paper discusses possible options for a fair and effective multilateralism. The paper perceives two scenarios for the future of multilateral negotiations on climate change:

‘big bang’ scenario - a comprehensive package with a defining overall solution up-front that is framed as a global carbon budget, long term and for all countries
‘fragmentation’ scenario - all efforts to reach a global agreement are abandoned and issues are dealt with in a fragmented manner, with mitigation largely negotiated in the Major Economies Forum, climate finance in the G20, and adaptation in the UNFCCC

It is asserted that while the first scenario will achieve what science demands, it will fail to achieve political acceptance. The second scenario is highly realistic politically but will make incremental progress, falling short of what science demands. The authors consider positive trends in other multilateral environmental processes and the implications of different negotiation styles – cooperative versus competitive – suggesting that there should be a balance between global interests in cooperating to address climate change, and national self-interests for the economy, in order to achieve an agreement.