romanP romanP:
Why are we still talking about Kyoto? At this point, it's so out of date that it's unrealistic to expect any country, even its ratified signatories, to live up to it. If we want to set realistic global environmental standards, perhaps a new accord should be drawn up that reflects modern reality, and not the reality of thirteen years ago.
I have a reply to that, but first I'd like to know, what would be in the new accord which would reflect "modern reality, and not the reality of thirteen years ago".
So far when you hear these guys talk it sounds like the same old, same old. So what specific changes should be in this new accord to be drawn up in Copenhagen in December? The one that's supposed to replace Kyoto.
If you tell me that, I think I can tell you why learning from the mistakes made in Kyoto matters.