Cosmo Magazine should stick to bad beauty tips and leave climate change to others.
“Tiffany & Co. Wants Donald Trump to Address Climate Change,” Cosmo Magazine writer Rachel Torgerson gushed on May 9. But her story lacked critical analysis and context. It might not help that Cosmo has the reputation as loony, liberal, sex-advice publication.
“If any fashion brand would be able to change his mind, it would be Tiffany. The guy did name his second daughter after the store, after all,” was the most hard-hitting assessment.
Torgerson was reacting to Tiffany’s May 9 New York Times ad encouraging President Donald Trump to “keep the U.S. in the Paris Climate Agreement.”
Tiffany’s ads make multiple assumptions. First, that the threat of climate change is “too great,” and second that the Paris Climate Agreement could solve the problem. Tiffany & Co. cited no evidence to back up those claims.
Torgerson’s Cosmo story failed to call out Tiffany’s lack of evidence. Instead, Torgerson praised the company for being a “champion of sustainability.” Torgerson also excluded any explanation for why Trump and others have opposed the Paris Climate Agreement.
Tiffany cited no evidence to back up their assertion that the “disaster of climate change is too real.” In fact, not even the oft-touted “97 percent consensus” number justifies the claim.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt declared that the agreement was a “bad deal” in Feb. 2017.
The agreement “should have been treated as a treaty,” according to Pruitt, and “should have gone through Senate confirmation.”
Heritage Senior Research Fellow Steven Groves argued in 2016, “the agreement has all the hallmarks of a treaty that should be submitted to the Senate for its advance and consent,” according to the constitution.
“Unless and until the White House submits the Paris Agreement to the Senate for its advance and consent, the Senate should block all funding for its implementation,” Groves concluded.