The notion of country matters very much in the conversation of global warming - while every country will be somehow affected, the effect will be very different for different countries. A rise of sea level will eliminate or devastate some contries while barely affecting others; the change in rainfall and temperature patterns will devastate agriculture in some countries while improving it in others; etc.

And a lot of how and why climate change mitigation is (not) working is explainable by the difference between the countries who'd bear the worst consequences of climate change and the countries who'd bear the worst costs to reduce these consequences.

> The whole notion of country shouldn't exist in the conversation of "global warming"

It depends if you're talking about how things should be, or how they are.

Or, whether the point of the conversation is strictly to communicate scientific details, or to persuade the entire non-homogeneous population of an entire planet to alter their behavior. If I was running the show, I would craft a completely different conversation for the latter situation, since it is infinitely more complex, but this doesn't seem to be a terribly popular opinion. Rather, the chosen approach seems to be to just blast a few variations of a tiny (and sometimes incorrect) subset of the content from the former conversation repeatedly through various media channels, insult those (typically based on simplistic strawman caricatures) who aren't eagerly jumping on board, and complain about how "stupid" people are. We'll see how this approach turns out, but so far it doesn't seem to be very effective in my estimation.

If this situation was reasonably accurately recreated in a video game, I suspect the problem would have been identified and solved long ago, but here in the real world where we have very real consequences, we're unable to approach problems with the same intellectual rigor we would in a video game. Humans are a complex species.