I find it very weird that the author chose to use the prisoner's dilemma and public goods as a framing for the article when the tragedy of the commons and commo

I find it very weird that the author chose to use the prisoner's dilemma and public goods as a framing for the article when the tragedy of the commons and common goods seem to be much more apt. Every ton of CO2 a country emits is consumption of a finite resource (the amount of warming we can endure before catastrophic effect) and you can't inhibit another country from releasing it. Therefore the problem is about a non-excludable but exhaustible resource. I'd love to hear from someone more economically minded about why I'm wrong.