3 ms·
I think that's just about right personally. Any more and it would be too infrequent to be useful. Any less and it would get lost in the noise of the media cycle
by Brakenshire 11y ago
I think that's just about right personally. Any more and it would be too infrequent to be useful. Any less and it would get lost in the noise of the media cycle. It's important when these things happen that there's a sense that the whole world is watching, and international reputations can be impacted depending on how countries behave.
- vram22 11y agoI agree somewhat with this point of yours: >It's important when these things happen that there's a sense that the whole world is watching, and but my reason for saying that every 5 years is too low a frequency, i.e. it should be more frequent, like once in 2 or 3 years, was because 1) a lot can be done in 2 or 3 years, and 2) more importantly, I'd think that reviewing progress (or regress) should not be left for as large a gap as 5 years - so as to be able to either hasten progress or slow/stop regress more often, if needed, considering the huge importance of the issue. Cf. recent live example - Chennai (and Tamil Nadu state) floods in India. Huge damage and loss. I should mention that I am not a climate expert; saying the above as a layman.
- Brakenshire 11y agoYeah, it is a bit difficult to say either way. You could well be right.