I 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 f

I 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.