Climate change = TOP TIER diplomatic priority???

[Jen]

Why in the world is "climate change" a "top tier diplomatic priority"?

If the climate is changing and the USA is planning to do something about it, you can bet we will not force any other nation - not China, not Russia not anyone to join in on the austere things we might be doing to change the climate change. If we are not going to enforce changes to the way we handle this "climate change" worldwide, then how does it become "top tier" in the diplomatic arena? Is it possible that Kerry wants to pass laws that affect the entire globe?

On the other hand, there are some real issues / real priorities that need to be watched in the Ukraine, in Venezuela, in North Korea, in Afghanistan, in Iran, in Iraq and in several other hot spots. So why does "climate change" take priority over those? Why isn't it "top tier" for Kerry to be making certain that nobody gets/ transports/ drops atomic weapons on someone? That IS a place for some much-needed diplomacy.

“Protecting our environment and meeting the challenge of global climate change is a critical mission for me as our country's top diplomat,” Kerry wrote in his Policy Guidance, which was released Friday and marked his first since becoming secretary in February 2013.

“It's also a critical mission for all of you: our brave men and women on the front lines of direct diplomacy,” he said.

 

[crowfoot]

Why in the world is "climate change" a "top tier diplomatic priority"?

If the climate is changing and the USA is planning to do something about it, you can bet we will not force any other nation - not China, not Russia not anyone to join in on the austere things we might be doing to change the climate change. If we are not going to enforce changes to the way we handle this "climate change" worldwide, then how does it become "top tier" in the diplomatic arena? Is it possible that Kerry wants to pass laws that affect the entire globe?

On the other hand, there are some real issues / real priorities that need to be watched in the Ukraine, in Venezuela, in North Korea, in Afghanistan, in Iran, in Iraq and in several other hot spots. So why does "climate change" take priority over those? Why isn't it "top tier" for Kerry to be making certain that nobody gets/ transports/ drops atomic weapons on someone? That IS a place for some much-needed diplomacy.

message for ya, americas sun is setting. diplomacy no longer means FORCING other nations to do things america wants.

 

[NightSwimmer]

message for ya, americas sun is setting. diplomacy no longer means FORCING other nations to do things america wants.

I don't believe that most right thinking Americans actually want that.

 

[crowfoot]

I don't believe that most right thinking Americans actually want that.

consider who i was addressing

 

[zzigzzag]

consider who i was addressing

Pretty sure it was a "right" thinking American. I guess you got Swimmer on that one.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Pretty sure it was a "right" thinking American. I guess you got Swimmer on that one.

Alternative definitions always seem to get me in hot water.

 

[as seen on tv]

a few days ago, the Los Angeles times urged americans to show their opposition to Russia's invasion of Ukraine by supporting "green energy"

the (convoluted) logic was that windmills, solar panels, and corn ethanol in america will drop energy prices so dramatically that Russia won't be able to threaten Europe by turning off its natural gas and oil.

I kid you not.

 

[zzigzzag]

a few days ago, the Los Angeles times urged americans to show their opposition to Russia's invasion of Ukraine by supporting "green energy"

the (convoluted) logic was that windmills, solar panels, and corn ethanol in america will drop energy prices so dramatically that Russia won't be able to threaten Europe by turning off its natural gas and oil.

I kid you not.

Got a link? Just want to see the part where they limit the suggestion to Americans.

 

[Mytzlplk]

Why in the world is "climate change" a "top tier diplomatic priority"?

If the climate is changing and the USA is planning to do something about it, you can bet we will not force any other nation - not China, not Russia not anyone to join in on the austere things we might be doing to change the climate change. If we are not going to enforce changes to the way we handle this "climate change" worldwide, then how does it become "top tier" in the diplomatic arena? Is it possible that Kerry wants to pass laws that affect the entire globe?

On the other hand, there are some real issues / real priorities that need to be watched in the Ukraine, in Venezuela, in North Korea, in Afghanistan, in Iran, in Iraq and in several other hot spots. So why does "climate change" take priority over those? Why isn't it "top tier" for Kerry to be making certain that nobody gets/ transports/ drops atomic weapons on someone? That IS a place for some much-needed diplomacy.

good stinking grief -- like it being a top priority means other can't share that status.

answers as why it is and should be such will be beyond your feeble ability to understand, so who'd waste their time?