Meanwhile, local politicians hold a town hall meeting, soliciting pledges from various parties that no one is bound to fulfil. But the sum of the pledges just about keeps alive hopes that your neighbourhood will remain safe.

Our economies are designed to be GDP-maximisation machines, our businesses aim to maximise shareholder value, and our politicians seek to maximise voter approval. In this system, economic prosperity and political success have become decoupled from social stability and environmental health.

Fortunately, we already know what needs to be done to achieve the necessary collective mobilisation. Leaders should follow the late Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom’s core principles for managing the commons effectively.

First, a shared identity and purpose are vital. Limiting global warming is an inherently global goal: greenhouse gases emitted anywhere affect people everywhere. We therefore need to develop a sense of common identification with this goal.

But the COP26 negotiations were structured to pit national interests against one another, rather than promoting a sense of humanity.

Because a ton of carbon dioxide causes the same damage no matter where it is emitted, it makes sense in theory for everyone to face the same carbon price.

This would prevent the problem of “carbon leakage”, which occurs when a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in one country leads to increased emissions in another country that has a lower carbon price.

But such an approach may be socially unsustainable. The poor and middle classes would probably struggle to afford the higher prices of carbon-intensive goods and services, while the resulting decline in employment in carbon-intensive sectors may leave workers without jobs and communities without an economic base. COP26 was not designed to deliver the social prerequisites for efficient climate action.

But the groups that are being disempowered – typically, young people from developing countries and marginalised cultures – frequently have the insight, local knowledge and, most of all, the sense of urgency that comes from the prospect of facing the most immediate consequences of climate change.

Several other principles are key to addressing global warming effectively. The outcomes of agreed-upon actions should be measured and reported year after year, with graduated rewards for helpful actions and sanctions for unhelpful ones.

In addition, climate action requires fast and fair conflict-resolution mechanisms involving impartial mediators. The authority to self-govern should be recognised at the supranational level, in all relevant international forums.

Lastly, we need polycentric governance. International, national, regional and local governing bodies must coordinate to conclude and enforce agreements.

COP26 made little, if any, attempt to satisfy these requirements. Governments reached no agreement on how to measure or report on greenhouse gas emissions.

There are no rewards or sanctions for national performance on climate change, because the COP26 recommendations are not legally binding. Nor are there effective conflict-resolution mechanisms in place.

And although countries’ sovereign authority is recognised, the absence of a polycentric governance system means that climate policy from the international to the local level remains neglected, inconsistent and incoherent.

Of course, fulfilling these requirements is a tall order and will not happen overnight. But the next generation has a right to expect that we try to create the social, economic and political prerequisites for successful climate action.