As we move into the twenty-first century, it has become increasingly clear how many challenges the world faces. Prominent among these concerns are environmental issues, in particular the depletion of the ozone layer and climate change. While the international community has been exceptionally successful in its fight to reduce the production and consumption of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the organic compounds that contribute to the ozone problem, its efforts to address climate change have produced considerably less progress. A number of factors that helped the ozone regime, or campaign, to unfold are not applicable to the climate change regime. The issue of limiting CFCs was much less politically and economically challenging than that of reducing greenhouse gases (GHG), which cause the greenhouse effect and the resulting warming of the planet. Climate change has been called the latest “tragedy of the commons,” an important metaphor in economics that helps explain why this topic is still at the center of heated debate and has yet to be resolved in a similar way as the problem of ozone. Before analyzing why climate change is perhaps the best example of a “tragedy of the commons” situation, it is necessary to start with an explanation of this concept. In a circumstance of “tragedy of the commons” there is a shared resource. This resource is limited, posing a problem for each of those who are part of the collective property as each individual is concerned with promoting their own interests. This interest is mainly to get the most out of the resource. If each member of the group were to act in this beneficial way, the resource would be depleted to the point of no longer being sustainable. Alt...... half the paper...... profit. Increasing government accountability begins at the grassroots level, when the public becomes convinced of the severity of the problem and the importance of finding solutions. Change does not happen quickly or smoothly, but fear of a bumpy road can no longer prevent any action from taking place. If no one chooses short-term sacrifice for long-term benefit, the resource will eventually no longer be able to support us. Because the resource, or “commons,” at stake affects the entire planet, the entire population must work as a team to make decisions. The stakes must be high for non-cooperative states that go against the will and, consequently, the interests of the international community. Global collaboration depends on convincing world leaders to take the threat seriously and equitably distribute the burdens of change..