So far, I have argued that the network of civil society actors became significantly larger, more diverse, and more divided in the buildup to the Copenhagen Summit. This chapter traces the implications of those developments for climate change politics more broadly. In previous chapters I explained how the growing diversity of groups supported a wider range of tactics than had been previously employed: this resulted in an unprecedented expansion in contention around the UNFCCC in 2009, as I will document here. Changes in civil society participation transformed the UNFCCC from an off-the-radar venue for expert advocacy to a high-profile target of activism. Earth Negotiations Bulletin described this development in 2011:

In this chapter, I argue that these changes in civil society tactics have caused the UNFCCC to become more restrictive in its policing and to seek reform in its procedures for dealing with civil society groups more generally.

I noted in previous chapters how the involvement of a wider range of groups introduced a new way of framing climate change as an issue of climate justice. This approach contrasted with the traditional frame of scientific urgency previously employed by most civil society groups. In this chapter, I examine the success of this frame. I find that the media, states, and other civil society groups have adopted the language of climate justice. I also argue that the frame diffusion has inspired new cleavages in the interstate politics of climate change, as well as a potential, if fragile, convergence in civil society.