Student B. Fancybritches Annotated Bibliography Donald Trump and the Paris Accord Coverage The Associated Press. (2017, June 12). How leaving the Paris climate accord will affect business. CBS News. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com This is a news analysis provides answers to questions regarding the impact of the withdrawal on businesses, showing how reactions to the decision vary, and many are still committed to reducing greenhouse emissions. The article comes from a reliable source, as CBS News is well established and the Associated Press is supposed to have acceptable bias in their reporting. This is reflected in the article. Although the article could have become opinionated, they maintain a neutral position and answer questions through balanced facts. For example, The impact of President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement will differ for companies depending on is a good opening statement with acceptable bias. If words such as consequences or negative were used, they would be in danger of stronger bias. Both sides are covered and absolutes are avoided. The Associated Press. (2017, June 9). North Korea slams Trump for pulling out of Paris climate agreement. Fox News. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com This is a news article giving an account of how North Korea criticized Trump for pulling out the accord. Its source, Fox News, is credible, but known to be a bit right leaning. The Associated Press, however, is supposed to have acceptable bias in their reporting. Overall, this report maintains acceptable bias. It presents both sides of the issue, but the choice of the word slams paints a more negative image of North Korea. This could create slightly more sympathy for Trump, but is likely not strong enough to have a significant effect on the reader. If the reader is against trump, they will likely praise North Korea for slamming him. The Associated Press. (2017, June 2). Trump shares positive feedback on Paris climate accord withdrawal. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com This news report shows how Trump tweets positive things about his decision but might be pushing certain Americans away. It comes from the Los Angeles Times, which is an established newspaper. The Associated Press authors the article, known for their fair and balanced reporting. However, some bias managed to creep into this article. For example, they said, Trump's lengthy and disputed economic and foreign policy explanations rather than simply saying Trump s economic and foreign The terms they chose could have a bit of a negative connotation. Another example of bias is as follows, Yet Trump s base is not a growing slice of the electorate. And his action likely further alienated younger, suburban and more-educated voters among whom his support was weakest a matter of increasingly open concern for many Republicans. Rather than stating poll facts or other sources on this matter that would have reduced bias, this was the opinion of the author.
Cameron, L. (2017, June 5). Trump may be the best thing that ever happened to the planet. CNBC. Retrieved from http://www.cnbc.com This commentary speaks of how Trump s decision to withdraw from the accord could help push the private sector more to take climate change into their own hands. Cameron, the provider of these remarks, is the President and CEO of the Autodesk Foundation, an organization focused on producing designs to improve environmental and social situations. She makes her remarks for CNBC is a well-established network. Right at the beginning, Cameron acknowledges that she is devastated by Trump s decision to withdraw from the accord, but at the same time excited about the potential change it could cause. This appeal to both sides will likely make her audience more open. She draws on quite a bit of pathos, painting before her audience the negative effects of climate change and instilling a sense of duty and independence. Her argument would have been stronger if she provided specific examples of how businesses have increased their efforts to fight global warming since the announcement. Hughes, L. (2017, June 13). Michael Gove says Donald Trump wrong to withdraw from Paris climate accord. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk In this article from The Telegraph is an accredited newspaper in the United Kingdom, Hughes reports about Gove criticizing Trump shortly after Prime Minister Theresa May was criticized for not signing France, Germany, and Italy s statement of rebuke. Hughes, a political correspondent for The Telegraph, was wise in using quotations around stronger words when describing people s reactions. For example, she noted that Theresa May expressed her disappointment in Trump s decision. This showed that the opinions were not her own, necessarily, but merely a report of the events. The article was balanced and maintained acceptable bias. Levitin, M., & Rautkivi, M. (2017, June). How Donald Trump could become an accidental climate hero. Time. Retrieved from time.com This commentary related how clean energy efforts are actually picking up speed, so America may be successful both environmentally and economically without the agreement after all. Its source, Time, is a well accredited magazine. Rautkivi is an engineer and the author of Goodbye to Deerland: Leading Your Utility Through the American Energy Transition. Levitin is a journalist who focuses on energy issues. Rautkivi makes an interesting case. He illustrates the increasing speed of the clean energy movement to point out that Trump s withdrawal won t necessarily have a negative impact on this. However, he does not clearly define how this would make Trump a hero. Some of the facts drag on and do not quite add to the argument. Liptak, K. (2017, May 9). Trump administration delays Paris climate agreement decision. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com This news report talk about how Trump delayed the decision on the Paris Accord longer than expected. Different members of his administration advocated both sides. Its source, CNN, is well accredited, but considered left leaning. Liptak is CNN s White House Producer. This article did well at maintaining acceptable bias. It fairly portrayed different opinions of Trump s staff
without attaching adjectives or descriptions that could result in a negative or positive connotation. For example, it stated: Some advisers -- including chief strategist Steve Bannon and Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt -- have urged Trump to uphold his campaign pledge to scrap the agreement. But other top aides, including senior adviser and daughter Ivanka Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, have warned of diplomatic fallout from a full withdrawal. Other members of the administration, including Energy Secretary Rick Perry, have advocated a renegotiation of the US commitments to the agreement, but legal questions have been raised about the feasibility of lowering US carbon reduction goals. Reports and quotes were simply stated and well balanced. Phippen, J. W. (2017, May). Trump s Paris climate accord indecision. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com This report in The Atlantic talked about Trump delaying his decision on the Paris climate accord. The Atlantic is a well-established and accredited magazine. Phippen is a senior associate editor for the Atlantic, where he covers the news. Bias creeps in when the author makes statements such as it would greatly jeopardize the pact and when he chooses several quotes which make Trump seem very ignorant. Reilly, J. (2017, June 8). Trump used our research to justify pulling out of the Paris agreement. He got it wrong. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com Reilly, the co-director of MIT s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change does not believe their research, which Trump s administration cited, justifies pulling out of the Paris accord. This is a perspective article in the Washington Post, which is a well accredited paper. His argument starts off strong, but after he acknowledges that the Paris accord won t actually have much of an impact his argument significantly weakens. The best reason he gives for staying in is based on the analogy of slowly turning a tank around under water. Shear, M. D. (2017, June 1). Trump will withdraw U.S. from Paris climate agreement. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com This article talks about how Trump will withdraw from the Paris Accord, despite many arguments against this action. This is stated to be a blow to the environment. This article found in the climate section of the New York Times. Shear is a reporter based in Washington who tends to be left-leaning. Shear quotes a lot of opinions against Trump, but gives very few factual arguments. The closest he comes to this is mentioning that the U.S. is the world s second largest polluter. The article leads to more questions and desire for specificity rather than a clear understanding of the magnitude and ramifications of the decision. The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2017). Statement by President Trump on the Paris climate accord [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov This Press Conference shows that Trump has chosen to pull out of the agreement because he believes it is less about the climate than allowing other countries to gain a major economic
advantage over the U.S. This is a primary source, coming directly from President Trump on his decision to exit the accord. He begins by establishing some ethos and pathos, referring the economic progress which he has created, as well as other achievements. However, he lacks specificity in how certain claims were accomplished. He throws out various facts and statistics, weaving in plenty of pathos in his declarations of love for the people, America, and the environment, but lacks some specificity and acknowledgment of both sides. He also makes promises without explaining how he intends to keep them. Wolf, M. (2017, June 6). Donald Trump s bad judgment on the Paris accord. Financial Times. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com This opinionated piece states that Trump s judgment to withdraw from the accord was bad because climate change is a serious issue and the U.S. is a major contributor to CO2 emission. Its source, the Financial Times is a newspaper with both an international and UK edition. Wolf, the author, is the chief economics commentator in their London base. He was awarded the Commander of the British Empire in 2000 for his contribution to financial journalism. Wolf is rather harsh and mocking in the way he presents his argument. He often goes to extremes, saying things like Republicans don t believe in global warming. He acknowledges counterarguments, but scorns them rather than providing rational rebuttals. Overall, he felt like more of a pundit. Worland, J. (2017, June 13). How Trump could slow climate change projects around the world. Time. Retrieved from time.com This news article states that withdrawal from the Paris Accord could slow down green projects and limit emission goals of developing countries. It comes from the climate change section of TIME, a well-established magazine. Worland is a New York based writer for TIME, covering energy and the environment. Worland only provides coverage on the possible negative effects of Trump s decision, quoting those who are against him. Even when not quoting others, he lets some bias slip in. For example, when he says, U.S. withdrawal has not led other countries to pull back on their GCF commitments at least not yet, he could be perceived as being skeptical. Worland, J. (2017, June 8). It didn t take long for China to fill America s shoes on climate change. Time. Retrieved from time.com This news report talks about how China is taking the lead on climate change movements. This also comes from the climate change section of TIME and is written by Worland. This time, the article did well at having acceptable bias. For example, it referred simply to Trump s decision to withdraw rather than using adjectives that could have biased it. It is not giving an opinion about Trump s withdrawal or praising China. Worland, J. (2015, December). Why the Paris climate summit is all about the money. Time. Retrieved from time.com
In yet another climate change TIME article by Worland, we are informed about the negotiations that were being made regarding financing and goals back when the Paris Accord was being established. This article could have reduced possible perceptions of bias by using more quotes and facts rather than statements without a source. For example, he says, Negotiators from countries most vulnerable to the effects of climate change want to see a commitment to fund adaptation projects that will safeguard them from rising sea levels and the possibility of extreme weather events. Those efforts can be harder to fund because they don't provide a clear avenue for getting financial returns like investments in renewable energy. The latter statement could make it seem like the author has some bias against smaller countries seeking money.
Current Event Coverage Report The Facts In December 2015, nearly 200 nations from around the world reached an agreement in Paris regarding the fight against climate change (Wolf, 2017). This agreement, known as the Paris Accord or Paris Agreement, entered into force on November 4, 2016 (Schipani, 2017). According to Schipani, a writer for FactCheck, the goal of the agreement is to limit the global average temperature to well below 2 C above pre-industrial levels, but ideally to not let the temperature exceed 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels (2017). Under the agreement, each country set goals to reduce its carbon footprint. Developing countries submitted two propositions. The first was an unconditional commitment. The second was a commitment conditional on financing from developed countries (Worland, 2017a). President Barack Obama committed the U.S. to cut emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by the year 2025 (Wolf, 2017). The U.S. also pledged to contribute $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund. So far, they have contributed $1 billion (Schipani, 2017). Other countries made goals and pledges of a similar manner. On June 1, 2017, President Donald Trump announced that the United States would be withdrawing from the agreement at a press conference in the Rose Garden. He said, This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund (The White House, 2017). With this withdrawal, the United States joins Syria and Nicaragua as nations which are not a part of the agreement (Hughes, 2017). Much criticism resulted from President Trump s decision. Hughes, of the Telegraph, reported that France, Germany, and Italy issued a statement expressing regret at Trump s decision, and English Prime Minister Theresa May expressed her disappointment (2017). North Korea also criticized Mr. Trump for his decision (The Associated Press, 2017b). One week after the withdrawal was announced, China replaced the U.S. in hosting this year s clean energy meeting, which originally began in the early days of the Obama presidency under the leadership of then-energy Secretary Steven Chu, who hosted the first meeting in Washington, D.C. (Worland, 2017b). Questionable Aspects There are a number of aspects of the event which are likely true, but would need further facts or the passage of time to verify. For one thing, reports give slightly varying reports regarding how long it will take for the U.S. to formally exit the Paris Accord, even though President Trump is ceasing work on the accord immediately. Worland, of Time, reports that the United States withdrawal won t take effect until 2020 (2017a), and the Associated Press reports that it may take over three years to formally withdraw (2017a). Because the United States may or may not have a new president by then, it cannot be certain whether the withdrawal will be permanent. Further, Wolf, a writer for Financial Times, states, 12 US states, which generate more than a third of gross domestic product, and 187 US cities have pledged to cut their emissions by 26-28 per cent below 2005 levels, by 2025, as the country promised under Barack Obama (2017). This is very likely true, but time and further information would be needed to know how binding these pledges were, what efforts will be taken, and whether more cities and states will join in this movement.
As a final example, in his press conference at the Rose Garden, Mr. Trump cited a study which said the Paris Accord would cause the cement, coal, and steel industries to be the most negatively impacted, with oil and gas also being negatively affected (The White House, 2017). Of this, the Associated Press said, Critics dismissed many numbers in the study, which was commissioned by longtime opponents of environmental regulation. But the list of affected industries was probably accurate (2017a). Major Opinions and Interpretations There are three primary opinions or interpretations of President Trump s withdrawal from the Paris Accord. The first is that of Mr. Trump. In his press conference, the president announced that even though he loves the environment and wants to protect it, he has decided to withdraw from the agreement for primarily economic reasons. He declared, The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers -- who I love -- and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production (The White House, 2017). In contrast to this view, there are those who disapprove Mr. Trump s decision to withdraw. These individuals tend to fall into one of two general opinions. The first is that withdrawing from the accord was a mistake that will have negative consequences for both the environment and political relations. For example, Shear (a reporter for the New York Times) stated that by withdrawing from the Paris Accord Trump is weakening efforts to combat global warming and embracing isolationist voices in his White House who argued that the agreement was a pernicious threat to the economy and American sovereignty. He further declared, The Paris agreement was intended to bind the world community into battling rising temperatures in concert, and the departure of the Earth s second-largest polluter is a major blow (2017). On the other hand, there are those who disagree with Trump s decision, but believe it could have a positive effect in the end. Among these voices is Cameron, the president and CEO of the Autodesk Foundation. She argues that Trump s action could be beneficial because (1) Trump's withdrawal from Paris agreement will motivate the private sector to take over where government is falling short and (2) Trump's decision to bet against science and diplomacy is inspiring action, innovation and collaboration (2017). Misreporting and Misinterpretation Misreporting of President Trump s decision to withdraw from the Paris Accord is found partially in omission. There are many sources which report Trump s withdrawal and the impact it might have, but few references have been made to his statement about negotiating. He said, Therefore, in order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris Accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers. So we re getting out. But we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that s fair (The White House, 2017). Many sources paint Mr. Trump s decision in a light that seems final and absolute. However, it is possible for the U.S. to reenter the Paris Accord, whether through negotiation under Trump or through his successor. Although many of the sources guilty of omission are credible, bias might lead writers to leave out such details. This bias could either be against Trump, for the environment, or based on another related topic.
Misinterpretation can also be found on Trump s side. Reilly, the co-director of MIT s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, accused Trump of incorrectly presenting his research. In regards to this he states, The White House said the Paris agreement would reduce the increase in average temperatures by just 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100. That figure comes from our 2015 study; however, as we made clear in the text, it reflects only the incremental effect of Paris when built upon all the previous commitments made through the UNFCCC, not the cumulative effect 1 degree when compared with a business-as-usual policy. In addition, our analysis assumed no further strengthening of national commitments in years after 2030. These are critically important distinctions (2017). The desire to find justification for withdrawing from the accord could have led members of Trump s administration to select the less significant figures. In closing, there are certainly many aspects to the nature and impact of both the Paris Accord and President Trump s decision to withdraw from it. Both time and research are important contributions to formulating an educated opinion on the matter.