Abstract:Abstract Over the past few decades, cities have repeatedly demonstrated high levels of ambition with regard to climate action. Global environmental governance has been marked by a proliferation of policy actions taken by local governments around the world to demonstrate their potential to advance climate change mitigation and adaptation. Leading ‘by example’ and demonstrating the extent of action that it is possible to deliver, cities have aspired to raise the ambition of national and international climate governance and put action into practice via a growing number of ‘climate change experiments’ delivered on the ground. Yet accounts of the potential of cities in global environmental governance have often stopped short of a systematic valuation of the nature and impact of the networked dimension of this action. This article addresses this by assessing the nature, and challenges faced by, urban climate governance in the post‐Paris era, focusing on the ‘experimentation’ undertaken in cities and the city networks shaping this type of governance. First, we unpack the concept of ‘urban climate change experimentation’, the ways in which it is networked, and the forces driving it. In the second and third parts of the article, we discuss two main pitfalls of networked urban experimentation in its current form, focusing on issues of scaling experiments and the nature of experimentation. We call for increased attention to ‘scaling up’ experiments beyond urban levels of governance, and to transformative experimentation with governance and politics by and in cities. Finally, we consider how these pitfalls allow us to weigh the potential of urban climate ambition, and consider the pathways available for supporting urban climate change experimentation.While the analytical conflation of sub‐state and non‐state actors is understandable in the context of the traditional focus of global governance research on nation states, we would like to gently point out that to scholars working on urban governance, equating a city with a non‐state actor such as a multinational corporation is incomprehensible and analytically useless. To push forward the research agenda, future work on climate governance should make clear distinctions between local governments and other actors from the outset.

Situating C40 in the Evolution of Networked Urban Climate Governance

Understanding how city networks are leveraging climate action: experimentation through C40

Global urban climate governance in three and a half parts: Experimentation, coordination, integration (and contestation)

Between local innovation and global impact: cities, networks, and the governance of climate change

Governing from the middle: the C40 Cities Leadership Group

Networking Cities after Paris: Weighing the Ambition of Urban Climate Change Experimentation

Understanding the science-policy interface in urban climate governance from a co-production perspective: Insights from the cases of Hamburg and São Paulo

Ten years after Copenhagen: Reimagining climate change governance in urban areas

Integrated Collaborative Governance Approaches towards Urban Transformation: Experiences from the CLEVER Cities Project

Subsistence over symbolism: the role of transnational municipal networks on cities’ climate policy innovation and adoption

Cities, Climate Change and Urban Heat Island Mitigation: Localising Global Environmental Science

The Role of Cities in Shaping Transnational Law in Climate Governance

Place-Based Adaptation through Network Governance

The networked micro-decision context: a new lens on transformative urban governance

A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities

Urban Climate Governance Experimentation in Seoul: Science, Politics, or a Little of Both?

Governing climate neutrality transitions at the urban level: A European perspective

Political economy of just urban transition

Partnerships in Experimental Urban Climate Governance: Insights from Seoul

Cities and the Anthropocene: Urban governance for the new era of regenerative cities

Citylab X: Towards a lens on the urban living lab as driver of systemic innovation