A recent UN report argued CO emissions are increasing so rapidly, that the international goal of limiting ultimate global warming to 2° Celsius is on the verge of becoming unattainable. In December 2015, the Paris Agreement was signed. It has been celebrated as the most ambitious environmental agreement to date. However critics point out that much of it is not legally binding, and lacks specific methods to achieve that goal. Why are states reluctant to commit to a specific, legally binding environmental treaty? Do these concerns reflect the views of mercantilists, liberal, or both? In what ways? How does this demonstrate the tragedy of the commons, and the problem of the environment as a common good?

o Reluctant- The United States and other key countries have been reluctant to adopt legally binding limits on their emissions of greenhouse gases, which are pollutants that are far more pervasive and interwoven with the engines of national economies than ozone-depleting substances. In addition, given the economic growth of major developing countries such as China and India, it is no longer practical or politically acceptable to maintain a strict dichotomy between developed and developing countries.

According to the text, "new international political possibilities arise from technological developments" (p. 361). Recent news involving information technology include the twitter account of a 7-year-old Syrian girl conveying the horrors in Aleppo, internet blackouts in Ethiopia in response to anti-government protests, and numerous cyber-attacks by Russia targeting the presidential election in the United States, failed North Korean missile tests possibly due to American cyber- attacks.

What are the implications of advancing information technology, pros and cons for states, individuals, and other non-state actors? What implications does this have for the North-South gap in terms of economic development and political stability?