The article explores how international environmental agreements work when considering both mitigation and adaptation efforts. The researchers found that stable coalitions for cooperation are either small or have small gains. They compared two scenarios, Nash-Cournot and Stackelberg, and discovered that larger coalitions are more stable in the Stackelberg scenario when mitigation levels are strategic substitutes. However, this changes if mitigation levels are strategic complements, which is rare in reality. Overall, the paradox of cooperation remains robust in most cases, except when mitigation and adaptation are strategic complements.