Global Climate Coalition GCC

--=
bak html  sought adviceapi, exxon and BP knew on ghg and took wrong road: gcc pivot for api: glenn kelly --> neo-con Paula D=bad code:docs
<a href="https://www.desmog.com/2019/04/25/global-climate-coalition-documents-secretive-fossil-fuel-lobby-un-programs/">https://www.desmog.com/2019/04/25/global-climate-coalition-documents-secretive-fossil-fuel-lobby-un-programs/</a>=yikes GCC  EBH ~<div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://theintercept.com/2022/04/12/ipcc-report-global-climate-coalition/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">https://theintercept.com/2022/04/12/ipcc-report-global-climate-coalition/</a></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">OF THE PRIMARY reports that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change publishes every four to six years, the mitigation report, focused on what can be done and what’s holding climate action back, only gets more important with every cycle. While the latest <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-3/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; letter-spacing: 0.01em; box-sizing: border-box;">mitigation </a><a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-3/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; letter-spacing: 0.01em; box-sizing: border-box;">report</a> states clearly that politics and corporate power are the only real impediments to action — not a lack of scientific evidence, technological or policy options, or even money — IPCC authors <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/05/ipcc-report-scientists-climate-crisis-fossil-fuels" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; letter-spacing: 0.01em; box-sizing: border-box;">declined to engage</a> with this problem both in the press conference for the report and in the report’s <a href="https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; letter-spacing: 0.01em; box-sizing: border-box;">summary for policymakers</a>. Now, a week after the report’s release, here comes a paper revealing that the IPCC itself has been the target of U.S. vested interests since its inception.</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div data-reactid="180" style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;">In 1988, climate scientist James Hansen gave <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">a stark warning</a> to the U.S. Senate, testifying, “It is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here.” Later that year, the IPCC was formed to bring the world’s climate scientists together to help inform governments, the media, and the public about climate change. Just one year before all this action on the “greenhouse effect,” global leaders had effectively joined forces to address the hole in the ozone layer, adopting the <a href="https://www.unep.org/ozonaction/who-we-are/about-montreal-protocol" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">Montreal Protocol</a> and agreeing to a mandatory phaseout of the chemicals associated with ozone depletion. Greenhouse gas-emitting industries were very concerned that they would be targeted next. Almost immediately, what environmental sociologists call the “climate countermovement” began to form in response.one key entity in that movement was the Global Climate Coalition, which emerged in 1989 as a project of the National Association of Manufacturers, with founding members from the coal, electric utility, oil and gas, automotive, and rail sectors. Many scholars have noted the influential role the GCC played in obstructing climate policy in the 1990s, but the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2022.2058815" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; letter-spacing: 0.01em; box-sizing: border-box;">first peer-reviewed paper</a> on the group, published this week, reveals that the original and lasting intention of the GCC was to push for voluntary efforts only and torpedo international momentum toward setting mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions.</div><div data-reactid="191" style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box;">Casting doubt on the science was part of that strategy from the beginning — the paper points to a 1994 communications strategy, for example, that suggested industry spokespeople downplay IPCC findings with following talking point: “The IPCC reports no evidence that directly links manmade GHG emissions to changes in global average temperatures.” Also common, though, were the delay tactics we still see today, particularly the economic argument against acting on the climate crisis and the jingoistic argument that America shouldn’t allow the rest of the world to tell it what to do.“People have been very stuck on this idea that the industry strategy went from climate denial to delay,” said the paper’s author, Brown University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle. “That’s historically inaccurate. It was always about delay, and the PR guys viewed casting doubt on climate science as one of their key talking points, but not the only one and not the central one.”Leaning on economic and cultural arguments came naturally for the public relations teams working on climate. Those arguments were <a href="https://rigged.ghost.io/start/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">first developed</a> to help companies like <a href="https://rigged.ghost.io/ivy-lee-the-godfather/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">Standard Oil</a> and <a href="https://rigged.ghost.io/edward-bernays-the-freudian-slip/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">American Tobacco</a> stave off regulation at the turn of the 20th century and have been deployed consistently, and effectively, ever since.</div><div data-reactid="195" style="font-size: small; box-sizing: border-box;">Brulle points to the GCC’s involvement in the passage of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC — the framework underpinning the annual Conference of the Parties meetings of global leaders to discuss international climate commitments — as a prime example of how industries have suggested voluntary action as a way to preempt government regulation. “They supported that because it was toothless. It was all about the need to further study the problem and for corporations and governments to take voluntary action.”Melissa Aronczyk, a media studies scholar at Rutgers University, also documented the influence that the GCC and its primary PR person, E. Bruce Harrison, had on the UNFCCC process in “<a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-strategic-nature-9780190055356?cc=us&lang=en&" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">A Strategic Nature: Public Relations and the Politics of American Environmentalism</a>,” a new book written with Maria Espinoza. “Harrison was invited as communications counsel to the CEOs who were participating at that Earth Summit in Rio [de Janeiro] in 1992,” Aronczyk explained. That was the summit at which global leaders drafted and adopted the UNFCCC. Notably, the U.N.-appointed organizer of that conference was Maurice Strong, a former oilman who believed that no effective climate treaty could be passed without buy-in from corporate interests....Because business communities had been invited to the conference and because they knew that their buy-in was so important, they planned extensively in the lead-up to the conference to be able to present what they call their own sustainable development charter. It was a nonbinding, nonlegal document that proposed a voluntary, self-regulating approach,” Aronczyk said. “And as you can imagine, this charter did not contain anything that would have really transformed how companies did business. … But it paid a lot of lip service to the idea of going green, and because they got out in front of the actual conference, they were really able to put that document forward and stave off other kinds of more binding legislation.”The GCC worked to steer the Conference of the Parties and the IPCC in this direction as well. Many of the source documents Brulle cites in his paper, including Harrison’s 1994-1995 communications plan for the GCC, show this strategy explicitly. “The economic consequences of future actions by the COP are likely to attract more attention than statements about scientific uncertainties,” Harrison’s plan reads. “Especially if the economic stakes can be made apparent to ‘people on Main Street.’” It goes on to lay out specific messages that GCC members should emphasize to the press, politicians, and the public, including: “Voluntary programs for reducing [greenhouse gas] emissions are allowing industry to balance economics and environmental performance without impairing competitiveness.”What’s also painfully obvious in these documents is just how close the international process came to forcing action on climate in the 1990s — the decade in which it would have had the most impact. The 1994-95 GCC communications plan shows that the group and the industries it represented were losing the fight and that momentum was building for a binding international treaty that would mandate emissions reductions. “Dozens of U.N. agencies, international organizations and special interest groups are driving events — regardless of economic costs and remaining scientific uncertainties — toward a conclusion inimical to the interests of the GCC and the U.S. economy,” the plan reads.</div><div data-reactid="201" style="font-size: small; box-sizing: border-box;">A few pages later it notes, “The window for influencing U.S. decisions on future U.N. actions is relatively narrow. During the next 18-24 months there will be a number of critical decision points as the Parties to the FCCC advance toward the COP’s 1997 deadline for elaborating new policies and measures.”The 1997 Conference of the Parties was, of course, when the <a href="https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">Kyoto Protocol</a> was introduced; the international agreement mandated emissions reductions for certain countries, something the Clinton administration had already indicated it supported. It was a make-or-break moment for industries concerned about the impact that mandatory emissions reductions would have on their bottom line, and the GCC redoubled its efforts.First it targeted key U.S. politicians. Working with Sens. Chuck Hagel and Robert Byrd, Brulle writes, the group rounded up support for an amendment to set strict criteria for any international climate accord. “This effort contributed to the passage of the Byrd-Hagel Amendment in July 1997,” Brulle writes. “This amendment required that any climate accord would have to include [emissions] reductions by developing countries and could not result in serious harm to the U.S. economy. These provisions damaged the credibility of the U.S. because it showed a lack of consensus among the different branches of government about an international climate accord.”That argument stands in stark contrast to the fossil fuel industry’s narrative today, which holds that out-of-touch climate elitists are trying to force emissions reductions on countries that deserve to use fossil fuels to develop. Passage of the Byrd-Hagel amendment was the GCC’s first big victory after its success in shaping the UNFCCC. In the wake of that victory, GCC members poured $13 million into a PR campaign centered on the argument that the international accord would raise gasoline prices and harm the economy. The tag line of the anti-Kyoto campaign was “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kxk_c3BcE8" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">It’s not global and it won’t work.</a>”“They get a map of the globe and they start cutting out the countries that don’t have to comply,” Brulle said. “And then they hold up this map with all of these holes in it, and they said, ‘This is unfair. It won’t work and it’s not fair.’ And that’s what they ran on. And guess what? It works! It was very effective. And you still hear that today when folks argue against climate policy by saying, ‘What about China? What about India?’”The group also commissioned third-party economists and policy analysts to bolster its argument that mandatory emissions cuts would spell death for the American economy. “It was very much, play up the economic impact, play up the threat to the ‘American way of life,’” Brulle said. “When you can attack the science, do that, but always, always play up the economics.”That’s particularly interesting in the context of recent research in which some of the same economists the GCC hired have admitted that their models were deeply flawed. The paper “<a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2021.1947636" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">Weaponizing Economics</a>,” published last year by Stanford University researcher Ben Franta, shows that the economists working for the GCC and other anti-climate policy groups in the 1990s were using models that inflated the cost of climate policy while ignoring entirely the economic benefit of avoiding climate impacts.Franta found that the same small group of economists was being routinely commissioned not only by the GCC but also the American Petroleum Institute (a founding GCC member) and various conservative think tanks; every time a policy was proposed that would limit carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions, this same model would get trotted out, and industry spokespeople and politicians would warn that acting on climate change would put companies out of business and cost the average American family thousands of dollars.“Eventually their analyses became conventional wisdom,” Franta said. “The scientific merchants of doubt ultimately failed; their power waned. But this, the economics part, their power did not really wane in the same way. And you know, the implications are larger. I mean, it’s a fraudulent economic product. And now we have economists who worked on those models saying, by their own admission, that this analysis that showed it would be too expensive to act on climate is not true. And this has been going on for decades. So now the question is, what do we do about this?”Brulle’s recent findings make it that much more concerning that the IPCC allowed mentions of obstructionism and vested interests to be scrubbed from its summary for policymakers. “That document was like Star Wars without Darth Vader,” he said. “This research gives us a history of what actually happened. It puts Darth Vader back in the story.”</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>Astroturf Troopers: How the polluters' lobby uses phony front groups to attack the Kyoto treaty.</div><div>
</div><div>By Keith Hammond...Thu Dec. 4, 1997 </div><div>
</div><div>In the battle to shape public opinion on global warming, the big polluters are fighting dirty. In tandem with their air war of bogus advertising, the major carbon-emitting industries are mobilizing phony grassroots troops on the ground to lobby against the global Climate Change Treaty being negotiated this week in Kyoto, Japan. And some of those troops would be right at home in Tim McVeigh's militia unit.</div><div>
</div><div>The Global Climate Coalition (GCC), run by Washington P.R. firm Ruder Finn, represents the big oil, gas, coal, and auto corporations. And while its stated mission is to coordinate "the active involvement of U.S. business in the scientific and policy debates," a MoJo investigation found that GCC is also coordinating a secret coalition of extreme right-wingers and astroturf groups—fake grassroots lobbyists funded by conservative foundations and corporations—including so-called "Wise Use" radicals, John Birchers, Lyndon LaRouchites, and anti-UN New World Order conspiracists....GCC chairman William O'Keefe, an executive with the American Petroleum Institute, kickstarted this secret coalition in 1996 when he hired former lobbyist Susan Moya to set up a national network of "grassroots" groups, a network that now includes dozens of industry-funded astroturf groups in several states.</div><div>
</div><div>Moya denied the existence of her astroturf network, but the MoJo Wire has obtained a memo that says otherwise, written by Moya herself. Moya and GCC refused to answer questions about their grassroots setup, but some of the corporate-funded astroturf groups named in her memo, including Texas Citizens for a Sound Economy and People for the West, confirmed that they were part of Moya's network of "state grassroots leaders," and that they received this memo. Moya's network also includes right-wing extremist groups, some of them downright wacky:</div><div>
</div><div>At a GCC "grassroots" strategy meeting this spring—held at the swank Washington offices of the American Automobile Manufacturers Association—executives and lobbyists from the oil, auto, and utilities industries listened intently as Sovereignty International chairman Henry Lamb boasted that his Wise Use anti-environmental network could deliver thousands of astroturf phone calls urging Congress to spike the Kyoto treaty, says a business lobbyist who attended the meeting. (Lamb also labeled Sen. John Chafee (R-R.I.) a "socialist" for his efforts to curb pollution in New England.) Duly impressed, GCC chairman O'Keefe, who was directing the meeting, pledged to give Lamb whatever resources he needed for astroturf lobbying.</div><div>
</div><div>So what? So Sovereignty International is a leading promoter of United Nations paranoia, claiming that environmentalism is part of a plot to establish a "one world government." The group was founded in 1988 by Lamb; Tom McDonnell of the American Sheep Industry Association, who has collaborated with Lyndon LaRouche followers; and Dr. Michael Coffman, a self-styled expert on global environmentalism who did a national speaking tour this summer sponsored by the John Birch Society. His topic: The U.N.-corporate-environmentalist conspiracy to seize private land in America, hand it over to wild animals, and herd all the humans into crowded communities.</div><div>
</div><div>In June, GCC President Gail McDonald was an unscheduled speaker at the seventh annual Fly-In for Freedom, the anti-environment lobbying blitz on Washington run by the Alliance for America, which networks more than 600 Wise Use groups nationwide. Though her name didn't appear on Fly-In materials, McDonald appeared on a panel on global environmental issues, and gave a presentation to the assembled anti-enviros. Her message was familiar: Global warming is just a theory, and even if it's real, it can't be blamed on the CO2 polluter industries. McDonald, a former Clinton appointee turned corporate lobbyist, also spoke briefly at a Fly-In luncheon sponsored by People for the West—a mining industry front that blames environmentalists for Western economic woes.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>In November, GCC organized a "national conference" in Washington, D.C. opposing the Clinton administration's position on global warming. Invited speakers, representing groups like the United Mine Workers and the South Carolina Black Chamber of Commerce, complained that the Kyoto treaty "could raise taxes, drive up consumer prices and change American lifestyles." But while the guest list seemed pretty mainstream, GCC's conference was sponsored by radical anti-enviros and astroturfers, including Clean Water Act foes the American Farm Bureau Federation, mining front group People For the West, and the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), an anti-environmental umbrella group run by New World Order crank Henry Lamb. Founded and funded by land developers, ECO claims to network more than 300 Wise Use groups, most of them funded by the extractive industries. For an in-depth look at ECO and its ties to other right-wing and corporate astroturf groups fighting the Kyoto treaty, click here.</div><div>
</div><div>Dogging the EPA's regional workshops on global warming this year was Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE), perhaps the premier corporate-funded astroturf crew. To protest the Kyoto treaty, CSE fielded handfuls of demonstrators in Dallas in October, Atlanta and Chicago in September, and Boston in June—some of them sporting military camouflage, blue helmets, and signs saying "50 Cent U.N. Gas Tax." The Dallas stunt (see photo above) was co-sponsored by the National Center for Policy Analysis, a corporate-funded free-market think tank. CSE's Patrick Burns appears on Moya's contact list—when we asked Burns if his group had coordinated its "grassroots" demonstrations with the GCC, he hung up the phone.</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div><a href="http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Global_Climate_Coalition">http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Global_Climate_Coalition</a></div><div>
</div><div>Global Climate Coalition (GCC) is a coalition of the largest oil, gas, coal, car and chemical companies and trade associations, set up in 1989 'to coordinate business participation in the scientific and policy debate on the global climate change issue'. Members include corporate giants such as Exxon, Du Pont and Union Carbide. Both Shell and BP Amoco have recently left the GCC in an attempt to project a more environment-friendly image.</div><div>
</div><div>GCC employs E Bruce Harrison, one of the main anti-environment PR firms, to direct its campaign to discredit the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and undermine the global climate change treaty. This panel of 300 independent experts has published several reports which concluded that the earth is warming up due to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, and urgent action is needed to avoid the destructive impact of climate change - flooding, extreme weather etc.</div><div>
</div><div>The GCC has successfully lobbied the US government to avoid or water down inter-national controls at climate negotiations at Rio, Berlin and Kyoto. Its strategies include questioning the scientific basis of climate change, shifting the blame of climate change to developing countries, and using the threat of US job losses. It promotes the research of industry-funded scientists, and sets up its own 'grassroots' campaign groups which promote 'wise use' of the earth's resources. Another tactic is the sponsorship of front organisations such as the National Wetlands Coalition which projects an image of environmental protection while promoting oil drilling in wetlands.</div><div> </div><div>....</div><div> </div><div>
</div><div>Global Climate Coalition Ignored its own scientists</div><div>
</div><div>In a recent article in the New York Times entitled “Industry Ignored its Scientists on Climate” [1]. Andrew Revkin points to new evidence concerning the Global Climate Coalition. It states that the GCC for more than a decade ‘led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases lead to global warming”. The coalition in that time pointed to uncertainty in the scientific world, fostering an argument against the idea that greenhouse gases were responsible. However, new documents have come to light which shows that even as the coalition worked to manipulate opinion, that its own scientists were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases was sound. In an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995, the coalitions scientists wrote “The scientific basis for Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied”. </div><div>
</div><div>Stating that in 1997, the year that the Kyoto Protocol was being negotiated, that the budget of the GCC was, according to tax records, $1.68 Million, much of which came from the petroleum industry, Revkin continues “Environmentalists have long maintained that industry knew early on that the scientific evidence supported a human influence on rising temperatures, but that the evidence was ignored for the sake of companies fight against curbs on greenhouse gas emissions ... By questioning the science on global warming, these environmentalists say, groups like the Global Climate Coalition were able to sow enough doubt to blunt public concern about the consequential issue and delay government action” [2]. They didn’t have to win the argument it is suggested, only cause as much confusion surrounding the issue as possible, in order to divide public opinion. According to Revkin, documents in the shape of minutes, of a committee meeting, concerning a 17 page primer by advisors, reveal that the coalition knowingly excluded sections of the primmer which went against its agenda. One section states “The contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes, but they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse emission-induced climate change” [3]. </div><div>
</div><div>According to minutes, the committee gave its approval to the primer, but only after advisors agreed to omit the section above. The primer itself was never distributed publically. In essence the coalition had in the findings of its experts, evidence which supported the position of environmentalists at the time .Yet it knowingly decided to suppress this information. Although the coalition came to an end in 2002, lobby groups such as the American Petroleum Institute continue to take a stance against any law or policy to drastically cut emissions.</div><div>
</div><div>External Links</div>=vs cooler heads had no corp members, just trade groups and astro and CTT?from moderation:
Astroturf is not new; an early crude form was used against Carson's book when the chemical industry hired <a href="brain://E212D5AA-EEF5-535C-9D0D-27920B094E45/9D5F7525-3E93-24AC-575F-168D79ACAE94" style="text-decoration:none;">Bruce Harrison</a> who gave chemical company employees boilerplate letters to send as concerned citizens, but now PR companies specialize in astroturf, and have had to come up with much more sophisticated techniques when the crude ones were no longer effective. In fact Harrison’s firm (a subsidiary of the giant Ruder Finn PR firm) was hired by a classic example of Global Warming astroturf effort, the <a href="brain://E212D5AA-EEF5-535C-9D0D-27920B094E45/8ADD3421-59F1-62E5-DEC8-9D0EE6210A66" style="text-decoration:none;">Global Climate Coalition</a> (GCC).  
The GCC was created in 1989, shortly after the founding of the IPCC, and operated out of the  National Association of Manufacturers offices until 1997. "Its early members included Amoco, the American Forest & Paper Association,<a href="brain://E212D5AA-EEF5-535C-9D0D-27920B094E45/BCD832BE-C780-346B-7D31-54E4D3EA90A4" style="text-decoration:none;"> American Petroleum Institute,</a> Chevron, Chrysler, Cyprus AMAX Minerals, Exxon, Ford, General Motors, Shell Oil, Texaco, and the United States Chamber of Commerce.  In 1995 an internal report actually acknowledged the reality of global warming (Hoggan p12), but of course this did not alter its public efforts to discredit it.  “GCC's efforts were coordinated with separate campaigns by many of its members, such as the National Coal Association, which spent more than $700,000 on the global climate issue in 1992 and 1993, and the<a href="brain://E212D5AA-EEF5-535C-9D0D-27920B094E45/BCD832BE-C780-346B-7D31-54E4D3EA90A4" style="text-decoration:none;"> American Petroleum Institute</a>, which paid the Burson-Marsteller PR firm $1.8 million in 1993 for a successful computer-driven "grassroots" letter and phone-in campaign to stop a proposed tax on fossil fuels." (Sourcewatch) “GCC activities have included publication of glossy reports, aggressive lobbying at international climate negotiation meetings, and raising concern about unemployment that it claims would result from emissions regulations. It distributed a video to hundreds of journalists claiming that increased levels of carbon dioxide will increase crop production and help feed the hungry people of the world. It has successfully thwarted action after the Rio and Kyoto conferences (see BTU).  Common Cause has documented more than $63 million in contributions to politicians from members of the Global Climate Coalition from 1989-1999” (Sourcewatch). Eventually negative PR led to mass defections from the GCC by industry, which in turn led to a restructuring which included no companies, just trade associations and "other like-minded organizations," which provided a buffer against consumer backlash (Sourcewatch).  The GCC disbanded in 2002 after claiming victory: that the Bush administration had a techno-fix that would be supported voluntarily by industry.=is sci for sale singer:<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">GCC tries to caPITALIZE</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/global-climate-coalition-collection/1994-nightline-press-office/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">http://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/global-climate-coalition-collection/1994-nightline-press-office/</a></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="">This 1994 <a href="http://www.climateinvestigations.org/global-climate-coalition-documents" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Global Climate Coalition</a> (GCC) letter to journalists encouraged coverage of ABC’s Nightline piece, “<a href="http://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/1994-nightline-special-science-for-sale/" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Is Science for Sale?</a>” The special covered the work and funding of climate science deniers <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5453342-1993-4-Climate-Watch.html" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">often cited</a> by the GCC. The industry-funded GCC opposed greenhouse gas regulations through<a href="https://www.webcitation.org/6edhgApV3" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> direct engagement</a> and collaboration with<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160118231100/http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?pagewanted=all&r=2" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> affiliated climate deniers</a> from 1989 to 2002. Its membership spanned across the automotive, utility, manufacturing, petroleum, and mining industries.
In this 1994 letter, GCC’s media representative Donald Rheem pitched a story to journalists about Al Gore attempting to influence that segment of Nightline. Rheem explained that Gore called Ted Koppel, the show’s host, and suggested that he “might want to look into connections between scientists who scoff at the so-called greenhouse effect… and the coal industry.”
Rheem stated that the immediate need to take action on climate change was untrue, “…environmental special interest groups have tried to convince the public and policy makers that the scientific community is certain of a future threat of a disastrous increase in global temperatures and on the need to take drastic actions now … Neither assertion is true, and it is important that as reporters and scientists enter this public debate, they are not vilified for their participation.”
This document is part of the private collection of Nicky Sundt, a Washington-based climate change science, policy and communications expert.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/04/25/global-climate-coalition-documents-secretive-fossil-fuel-lobby-un-programs">https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/04/25/global-climate-coalition-documents-secretive-fossil-fuel-lobby-un-programs</a>capt gcc519
docs:<a href="https://climateinvestigations.org/global-climate-coalition-documents/">https://climateinvestigations.org/global-climate-coalition-documents/</a>
Global Climate Coalition: Documents Reveal How Secretive Fossil Fuel Lobby Group Manipulated UN Climate ProgramsBy Mat Hope and Karen Savage • Wednesday, April 24, 2019 
Global Climate Coalition logo and 1997 strategy document cover A fossil fuel–backed industry group was able to influence the process behind the United Nations climate assessments for decades, using lobbyists and industry-funded scientists to manipulate international negotiations, a cache of recently discovered documents reveals.The documents include hundreds of briefings, meeting minutes, notes, and correspondence from the Global Climate Coalition (GCC). They were released Thursday by the Climate Investigations Center in collaboration with DeSmog and Climate Liability News. The documents date from 1989 and continue through 2002, when the lobbying group disbanded as its fossil fuel industry backers succumbed to public pressure to disavow its tactics.The documents show how the GCC influenced international negotiations, manipulated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) process, and undertook a disinformation campaign designed to cast doubt on mainstream climate science.George W. Bush speaking about climate change in 2008.]President George W. Bush speaks on climate change during remarks from the Rose Garden April 16, 2008. Credit: White House photo by Noah Rabinowitz, public domain]
What was the Global Climate Coalition?The GCC was initially part of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), before becoming its own entity in 1995. NAM has a long history of defending portions of its membership, including tobacco companies that were facing an onslaught of liability litigation, with aggressive tactics that include discrediting science, attacking scientists, and misleading the public.
Founding members of the GCC were mainly fossil fuel producers and utilities, including oil majors Shell, Texaco (now a part of Chevron), and Amoco (now part of BP); oil refiner and retailers ARCO (now a subsidiary of Marathon Petroleum) and Phillips Petroleum; coal miners BHP-Utah International and Peabody; and utilities American Electric Power and Pacific Gas and Electric.Other companies, including Exxon, joined later — and the international oil giant would go on to be a key player in the group.Revealed in the documents is a decades-long campaign that continued until 2002, intended to protect its members’ interests by denying and casting doubt on climate science. Internally, the group acknowledged the dangers of climate change and the scientific consensus that it is overwhelmingly driven by the burning of fossil fuels as early as 1995.The campaign reached the highest levels of U.S. government, with the State Department giving the GCC credit for leading President George W. Bush to reject the landmark Kyoto Protocol in 2001. An internal State Department briefing, prepared for a meeting with the GCC later that year and included in the documents published Thursday, shows officials were instructed to tell coalition representatives that Bush’s decision was “in part, based on input from you.”The Kyoto Protocol, agreed upon in 1997, was the first large-scale international agreement to commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. was one of only three UN members that did not ratify the treaty (Canada later withdrew).
Influencing the UN’s Panel of Climate ScientistsThe GCC took a particular interest in the operations of the UN’s official scientific advisory body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which produces the international climate assessments that form the basis for global climate policy and negotiations.GCC representatives regularly met with IPCC scientists to lobby the panel to accept industry language in its reports, the documents show. Tax returns show hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on an “IPCC Tracker Fund” to monitor and lobby the IPCC’s meetings.In one instance detailed in the documents, the GCC boasted its suggested language was “accepted almost in its entirety” after intensive lobbying by its representatives and after “assistance from several countries.”The GCC also publicly questioned the validity of the IPCC’s peer-review process and launched public attacks on its scientists, while simultaneously using the IPCC’s status as a respected scientific body to promote the credentials of its own climate science denial research.The GCC went beyond targeting climate science. In 1995, Exxon gave a presentation to the GCC on how to counter the evidence linking climate change to human health impacts.In 1997, the GCC wanted to expand its reach with a network of state and local committees that would educate the public about their views on climate change and serve as liaisons to other business and public interest groups with similar views. This plan was implemented, the documents show, with the help of Koch Industries, the U.S.’s largest private energy company, which is an infamous funder of climate science denial across the globe.
The Collapse of the GCCBy the mid-1990s, however, the GCC’s aggressive tactics and continuing effort to cast doubt on accepted climate science had started to become a problem for some of its members. Nine corporations left the GCC from 1996 to 2000: two automakers, one chemical manufacturer, one utility, and five oil companies.BP was the first major oil company to leave in 1997, stating that “the time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part. We in BP have reached that point.”Additional Takeaways: Infiltrating UN Climate Negotiations, Embracing Climate Deniers Publicly But Not PrivatelyThe documents published Thursday on the Climate Investigation Center’s Climate Files archive, also show:The GCC stacked UN meetings with its members. Some attended meetings transparently, registering as GCC members, while others registered with other NGOs. Often GCC members outnumbered delegates from developing nations at the annual Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings.The GCC coordinated to monitor IPCC meetings. After IPCC meetings, GCC notes reveal attendees met to discuss strategies for exploiting scientific uncertainties in IPCC climate models and amplifying scientific differences of opinion. On at least one occasion, a contractor for the Electric Power Research Institute planned to keep tabs on IPCC proceedings.  The GCC internally refuted climate deniers, yet continued to publicly cite their work: Exxon scientist Lenny Bernstein, who co-chaired the GCC’s committee on science and technology assessment, called the work of climate deniers Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels “not convincing” in a draft document in 1995. The final copy of that document included no mention of Bernstein’s comments and the GCC continued to cite the two — as well as other known deniers — through at least 1998.The GCC aggressively attempted to control media coverage of climate change: Press releases were sent to reporters praising media coverage featuring climate deniers and correcting those that did not. One document encouraged reporters to contact the GCC for “balance in the global climate change debate.”
exxon knew overview:<a href="http://www.globalpossibilities.org/documenting-fossil-fuel-companies-climate-deception/">http://www.globalpossibilities.org/documenting-fossil-fuel-companies-climate-deception/</a>...<h3 style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 5px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; letter-spacing: -1px; line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"> Damning Paper Trail</h3><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">The 340 pages include not only Soon’s contracts, but also a 1998 API disinformation road map memo as well as a 2014 Western States Petroleum Association memo on creating phony grassroots consumer groups to challenge California’s climate policies.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">One eye-opening, formerly secret document reveals that scientific experts commissioned by the Global Climate Coalition (GCC)—a coalition of 50 U.S. corporations and trade groups including British Petroleum (now BP), Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, Mobil, and Shell—warned that heat-trapping gases were indeed causing global warming. Regardless, the GCC continued to conduct a multimillion-dollar lobbying and public relations campaign to undermine national and international efforts to address global warming.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">One of the GCC’s “backgrounders” for legislators and journalists, for example, claimed “the role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood” and emphasized that “scientists differ” on the issue. But the 17-page, internal 1995 GCC primer written by the companies’ own scientists states: “The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO<span style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; height: 0px; line-height: 1; position: relative; top: 0.3em;">2 on climate <em style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">is well established and cannot be denied [emphasis added].” The primer’s lead author, Leonard S. Bernstein, a staff scientist at Mobil Oil, would later participate as a lead author of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports in 2001 and 2007.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">One draft version of the primer even addressed and dismissed the major arguments made by climate change contrarians, such as the “solar variability” argument touted by Soon. “The contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes,” the draft stated, “but they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change.” This section was deleted from the primer’s final version.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Three years later, the API set up what it called the Global Climate Science Communications Team to try to derail the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 international agreement signed by 192 countries—but not the United States—to meet binding carbon emissions reduction targets. A leaked 1998 campaign memo from this team, cowritten by representatives of the API and API members Chevron and Exxon, laid out a road map for climate deception largely based on the tobacco industry’s strategy to stave off government regulation by deceiving the public about smoking hazards.[smoking gun]<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Echoing that strategy—encapsulated in the notorious internal tobacco industry memo claiming “Doubt is our product”—the API memo states: “Victory will be achieved when: average citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science.” The API team planned to emphasize “uncertainties” in climate science at least partly by identifying, recruiting, and funding previously unaffiliated scientists. After all, the memo notes, such scientists would have more credibility with reporters and the public than those already known to be working with the fossil fuel industry.<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">...<div><a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco" style="">http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco</a>
<div>...</div><div>The group was initially called the CO2 and Climate Task Force, but changed its name to the Climate and Energy Task Force in 1980, Nelson said.A background paper on CO2 informed API members in 1979 that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was rising steadily, and it predicted when the first clear effects of climate change might be felt, according to a memo by an Exxon task force representative.  In addition, API task force members appeared open to the idea that the oil industry might have to shoulder some responsibility for reducing CO2 emissions by changing refining processes and developing fuels that emitted less carbon dioxide.Bruce S. Bailey of Texaco offered "for consideration" the idea that "an overall goal of the Task Force should be to help develop ground rules for energy release of fuels and the cleanup of fuels as they relate to CO2 creation," according to the <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/AQ-9%20Task%20Force%20Meeting%20%281980%29.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent;">minutes of a meeting on Feb. 29, 1980</a>.The <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/AQ-9%20Task%20Force%20Meeting%20%281980%29.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent;">minutes also show</a> that the task force discussed a "potential area" for research and development that called for it to "'Investigate the Market Penetration Requirements of Introducing a New Energy Source into World Wide Use.' This would include the technical implications of energy source changeover, research timing and requirements."Yet by the 1990s, it was clear that API had opted for a markedly different approach to the threat of climate change. It joined Exxon, other fossil fuel companies and major manufacturers in the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a lobbying group whose objective was to derail international efforts to curb heat-trapping emissions. In 1998, a year after the Kyoto Protocol was adopted by countries to cut fossil fuel emissions, API crafted a campaign to convince the American public and lawmakers that climate science was too tenuous for the United States to ratify the treaty....</div><div></div></div> =PIVOT PT:BP WithdrawsIn the immediate aftermath of the speech, BP announced that it would be withdrawing from the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Global_Climate_Coalition" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Global Climate Coalition</a>.It issued a short statement which included the following quote from Browne: “The time to consider the policy dimension of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot be taken seriously by the society of which we are part. We in BP have reached that point.”Shell would follow shortly after, and the transatlantic coalition would slowly unravel. The environmentalists, by targeting shareholders and leveraging Blair's influence over his friend Browne, had delivered a knockout blow.The sceptics in the oil industry had lost their extremely well-funded, effective and brutal weapon in the war against climate regulations. Energy companies could not rely on openly funded, and in some ways honest, special interest-lobbying front groups.The executives at Exxon faced the prospect of having to come to terms with climate science and rebuild their multi-billion dollar company in its entirety, from the tip of the rotary oil drill, along the pipelines and refineries, to the nozzle of the petrol pump pushed into the back of the SUV.Or they could instead go it alone in the public relations and lobbying war. Exxon and the remaining oil companies would have to find new allies.=DOCUMENTING FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES’ CLIMATE DECEPTIONJul 15, 2015 by Casey Coates DansonClimate denier dossiersLeaked internal memos reveal a coordinated, decades-long disinformation campaign.by Elliott NeginWhen internal documents revealed earlier this year that ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel interests were secretly funding scientifically discredited studies authored by climate contrarian Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, the news didn’t come as a complete surprise.Back in 2007, a Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report identified Soon—an aerospace engineer with little formal training in climatology—as one of a dozen scientists affiliated with more than 40 ExxonMobil-funded think tanks that then constituted the backbone of the climate change–denier PR machine. Soon, who erroneously claims the sun is largely responsible for global warming, produced work for at least five of these ExxonMobil-backed groups, including the now infamous Heartland Institute.But the latest cache of documents, obtained by Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, lays bare a wealth of detail that was not available eight years ago. For example, they show that Soon received his funding exclusively from fossil fuel interests, including ExxonMobil, utility giant Southern Company, and Charles Koch. He described his scientific work and congressional testimony as “deliverables” to his funders. And some of his contracts specifically dictate that the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, where Soon works, not disclose the names of his funders. These internal documents, on top of what UCS had already uncovered, indisputably establish Soon’s efforts as part of a calculated climate deception campaign.Dossiers of DeceptionWillie Soon, however, is just a small part of a much bigger story, according to a new UCS report, The Climate Deception Dossiers. After spending nearly a year reviewing and analyzing a wide range of internal corporate and trade group documents, a team of UCS researchers has, for the first time, compiled a broader tale of climate deception. The Climate Deception Dossiers draws upon evidence culled from 85 documents that were pried loose by leaks, lawsuits, and FOIA requests.Spanning nearly three decades, these documents reveal that the world’s largest fossil fuel companies—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, coal giant Peabody Energy, and Shell—were fully aware of the reality of climate change but continued to spend tens of millions of dollars to sow doubt and promote contrarian arguments they knew to be wrong. Taken together, the documents show that these six companies, in conjunction with the American Petroleum Institute (API)—the oil and gas industry’s premier trade association—and a host of front groups, have colluded to intentionally deceive the public; their corporate officials have known for at least two decades that their products are harmful; and their disinformation campaign continues today—despite the fact that most of the companies now publicly acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic, or human-caused, climate change.A team convened in 1998 by the American Petroleum Institute—the country’s largest oil trade association whose member companies include BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell Oil—outlined a road map for climate deception including a plan to cultivate purportedly independent scientists as climate misinformers. The campaign would achieve “victory,” according to the memo, when “average citizens” believed that the realities of climate science were uncertain.The collected documents reveal a variety of deceitful tactics, including creating front groups, secretly funding purportedly independent scientists such as Soon, and even forging letters from nonprofit groups to try to influence members of Congress. But you don’t have to rely on UCS’s interpretation. All 340 pages of the documents in seven “deception dossiers” are available online, so you can read them and reach your own conclusions.A Damning Paper TrailThe 340 pages include not only Soon’s contracts, but also a 1998 API disinformation road map memo as well as a 2014 Western States Petroleum Association memo on creating phony grassroots consumer groups to challenge California’s climate policies.One eye-opening, formerly secret document reveals that scientific experts commissioned by the Global Climate Coalition (GCC)—a coalition of 50 U.S. corporations and trade groups including British Petroleum (now BP), Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, Mobil, and Shell—warned that heat-trapping gases were indeed causing global warming. Regardless, the GCC continued to conduct a multimillion-dollar lobbying and public relations campaign to undermine national and international efforts to address global warming.One of the GCC’s “backgrounders” for legislators and journalists, for example, claimed “the role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood” and emphasized that “scientists differ” on the issue. But the 17-page, internal 1995 GCC primer written by the companies’ own scientists states: “The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied [emphasis added].” The primer’s lead author, Leonard S. Bernstein, a staff scientist at Mobil Oil, would later participate as a lead author of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports in 2001 and 2007.One draft version of the primer even addressed and dismissed the major arguments made by climate change contrarians, such as the “solar variability” argument touted by Soon. “The contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes,” the draft stated, “but they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change.” This section was deleted from the primer’s final version.[why?]Three years later, the API set up what it called the Global Climate Science Communications Team to try to derail the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 international agreement signed by 192 countries—but not the United States—to meet binding carbon emissions reduction targets. A leaked 1998 campaign memo from this team, cowritten by representatives of the API and API members Chevron and Exxon, laid out a road map for climate deception largely based on the tobacco industry’s strategy to stave off government regulation by deceiving the public about smoking hazards.Echoing that strategy—encapsulated in the notorious internal tobacco industry memo claiming “Doubt is our product”—the API memo states: “Victory will be achieved when: average citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science.” The API team planned to emphasize “uncertainties” in climate science at least partly by identifying, recruiting, and funding previously unaffiliated scientists. After all, the memo notes, such scientists would have more credibility with reporters and the public than those already known to be working with the fossil fuel industry.What makes the secret API memo so revealing is how closely its instructions seem to have been carried out in the Soon case. One of the API memo’s contributors, Robert Gehri, even negotiated one of Soon’s contracts on behalf of his industry backers. All told, Soon received more than $1.2 million from fossil fuel interests over the last decade and failed to disclose that conflict of interest in most of the scientific papers that money underwrote. More than $400,000 came from a subsidiary of the Southern Company, a large utility holding company with a fleet of coal-fired power plants. ExxonMobil gave Soon $335,000. The Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation kicked in another $230,000. The API, meanwhile, contributed more than $100,000.What did they get for their money? The papers conclude that solar activity is the main cause of global warming and that carbon emissions have had little or no impact. Despite the speciousness of Soon’s findings, members of Congress—notably Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe—routinely cite his work to argue that climate science is a hoax.Although the Industrial Revolution began more than 250 years ago, more than half of all industrial carbon emissions have been released since 1988—after major fossil fuel companies knew about the harm their products were causing.Holding the Perpetrators AccountableThe tobacco industry successfully stalled meaningful regulations for decades. The fossil fuel industry has been using virtually the same strategy, at least when it comes to federal legislation. Meanwhile, as the fossil fuel companies’ deception campaign has continued, we’ve taken a heavy toll in rising temperatures and a host of climate impacts.As the new UCS report notes, recent research has documented that 90 state- and privately owned corporations alone have produced and marketed the fossil fuels and cement responsible for nearly two-thirds of the world’s industrial heat-trapping carbon emissions over the past two and a half centuries. Of these, 50 are investor-owned coal, oil, and natural gas companies, including BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Peabody, and Shell. Furthermore, nearly 30 percent of all industrial emissions can be traced to just 20 investor- and state-owned companies.What’s more, the rate of carbon emissions has increased dramatically in our rapidly industrializing world. As a result, more than half of all industrial carbon emissions have been released into the atmosphere since 1988—after major fossil fuel companies indisputably knew about the harm their products are doing to the climate.What Is to Be Done?There are a number of potential ways to hold large industrial polluters accountable for their actions. Shareholder engagement, divestment campaigns, and state court litigation could all play an important role in forcing them to take responsibility for their emissions, ending their disinformation campaigns, and even requiring them to pay reparations to cover the cost of climate damages, preparedness, and mitigation. The most effective tactics remain a subject for debate. But, as the picture of the fossil fuel companies’ efforts to deceive the public becomes clearer, it is high time to hold these companies accountable for their actions and the damage they’ve done=1989-2002 milloy=

attack on santer: This criticism of you and your

work on the Second Assessment

is still propagating itself

across the Internet like some

sort of meme.

This is rather frustrating.

I can’t alter what people

wrote about me on some

op-ed page. It’s unfortunate

but beyond my control. Likewise,

I have no control over

the weird and wacky motives

that climate-change skeptics

ascribe to me.

In 1996, at the time of

publication of the IPCC Second Assessment, I was

a messenger bearing news that some very powerful

people did not want to hear. So they went after the

messenger. They were very good at it. I’m sure there

was no personal animus involved. I just happened

to get in the way and had to be discredited.

Any apologies from these people as the science became

clearer?

No. No apologies. The Global Climate Coalition

[GCC] was the major instigator of the unfounded

allegation that shenanigans had gone on during the

IPCC’s Second Assessment. The GCC accused me of

“scientific cleansing” at a time when “ethnic cleansing”

was being committed in Bosnia.

My paternal grandparents died in concentration

camps during the Second World War. They were subjects

of Hitler’s “ethnic cleansing”. So maybe you can

understand why the “scientific cleansing” charge

was so abhorrent. [proto-PM holocaust?]

The GCC was one of the many now-defunct industry

groups?

Yes. The GCC was a consortium of energy interests.

It was heartening to see—even back in 1996—that a

number of GCC members were very unhappy with...http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es063000t

---

grist:

Say this for Glenn Beck: He works fast. Less than 48 hours after we at <a href="http://350.org/" target="_blank">350.org</a> launched <a href="http://chamber.350.org/">our campaign to let businesses say that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce doesn't represent them</a>, Beck hit back. A true friend of Chamber (here's a <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/09/chamber-foxnews/">picture of him broadcasting from the group's roof</a> -- certainly worth the $10,000 he donated from his $32 million annual earnings), he put little old 350.org up on his notorious board Friday night next to a hammer and sickle. We were part of a communistic conspiracy that also included the <a href="http://www.apolloalliance.org/">Apollo Alliance</a> and the Service Employees International Union.

----

rs:

As he shaped climate policy, Cheney took his cues from the Global

Climate Coalition, an alliance of anti-Kyoto polluters that included

the top lobbying arms of the oil and coal industries. In June 2001,

the administration dispatched Paula Dobriansky, the undersecretary of

state for global affairs, to address the GCC at the headquarters of

the American Petroleum Institute. In her speech, Dobriansky was glad

to give the industry crowd credit for the president's decision to

withdraw from the international treaty designed to slow climate

change. Her talking points from that day read, "POTUS rejected Kyoto,

in part, based on input from you."</pre><pre>

Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act also reveal

that Dobriansky had received a copy of the GCC's "21st Century

Climate Action Agenda," a game plan crafted by polluting industries

that calls for "a new approach to climate policy" focusing

on "voluntary actions" rather than mandatory limits on greenhouse

gases. On February 14th, 2002, Bush gave a speech at the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that laid out his policy on

global warming for the first time. The speech was a Valentine's Day

gift to polluters, officially enshrining the GCC's agenda, almost

point for point, as the White House's climate policy. Under the plan,

planet-warming pollution would actually increase by thirty-four

percent by 2030. </pre><pre>Bush vaguely promised to cut the "intensity" of

carbon emissions by eighteen percent over the next ten years -

neglecting to mention that the nation was already on track for a

fourteen percent reduction. He touted $700 million in new funding for

technologies that might someday reduce emissions - money that

government auditors were later unable to find any trace of. And he

promised that the entire plan would be thoroughly reviewed and re-

evaluated - in 2012, four years after he left office.</pre><pre>

The National Academy of Sciences blasted the policy, saying it lacked

a "guiding vision, executable goals, clear timetables and criteria

for measuring progress." Even the technology promoted in the

president's plan was bogus. "It's as if these people were not

cognizant of the existing science," one member of the academy

remarked. "Stuff that would have been cutting-edge in 1980 is listed

as a priority for the future."

</pre>

---

hoggan  GCC report in 1995 said gw real p 12  cf revkin

==

<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Coalition">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Coalition</a>

The Global Climate Coalition (GCC) was one of the most outspoken and confrontational industry groups in the United States battling reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Prior to its disbanding in early 2002, it collaborated extensively with a network that included industry trade associations, "property rights" groups affiliated with the anti-environmental <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Wise_Use" class="mw-redirect" title="Wise Use">Wise Use</a> movement, and fringe groups such as <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sovereignty_International" title="Sovereignty International">Sovereignty International</a>, which believes that <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_warming" title="Global warming">global warming</a> is a plot to enslave the world under a <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=United_Nations" title="United Nations">United Nations</a>-led "world government."

<h2>Contents</h2>

</div>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Coalition#Personnel">1 Personnel</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Coalition#History">2 History</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Coalition#Excerpts_from_the_GCC_web_site">3 Excerpts from the GCC web site</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Coalition#Funding">4 Funding</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Coalition#Internal_Documents">5 Internal Documents</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Coalition#Case_Studies">6 Case Studies</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Coalition#Contact_Information">7 Contact Information</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Coalition#Other_SourceWatch_Related_Resources">8 Other SourceWatch Related Resources</a><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Coalition#External_links">9 External links</a></li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>

<h2>Personnel</h2>

<ul>

<li><a class="new" title="Glenn Kelly (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Glenn_Kelly&action=edit&redlink=1">Glenn Kelly</a>, Executive Director</li>

<li><a class="new" title="Gail McDonald (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gail_McDonald&action=edit&redlink=1">Gail McDonald</a>, President</li>

<li><a title="William O'Keefe" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=William_O%27Keefe">William O'Keefe</a>, Chairman, an executive for the <a title="American Petroleum Institute" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute">American Petroleum Institute</a> (exxon)</li>

<li>

</li>

<li><a title="Frank Maisano" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frank_Maisano">Frank Maisano</a>, Media Contact, is a member of the <a class="new" title="Potomac Communications Group, Inc. (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Potomac_Communications_Group,Inc.&action=edit&redlink=1">Potomac Communications Group</a>, whose other clients include Con Edison, the Edison Electric Institute, the <a title="Nuclear Energy Institute" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nuclear_Energy_Institute">Nuclear Energy Institute</a>, the <a title="U.S. Department of Energy" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S.Department_of_Energy">U.S. Department of Energy</a> and the U.S. <a class="mw-redirect" title="Environmental Protection Agency" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmental_Protection_Agency">Environmental Protection Agency</a>. In April, 2006, E magazine interviewed Maisano, reporting that he is now working with <a class="mw-redirect" title="Bracewell and Giuliani" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bracewell_and_Giuliani" style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">Bracewell and Giuliani</a>.</li>

</ul>

<h2>History</h2>

In 1989, the United Nations created the <a title="Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a> (IPCC). The members of the IPCC are governments. At approximately five-year intervals, the IPCC assembles a group of some 2,500 climate scientists from throughout the world to evaluate the evidence linking anthropogenic greenhouse gas and other emissions (such as particulates) to global climate change. The Global Climate Coalition was created in 1989, shortly after the IPCC's first meeting.

The GCC operated until 1997 out of the offices of the <a title="National Association of Manufacturers" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Association_of_Manufacturers">National Association of Manufacturers</a>. Its early members included Amoco, the American Forest & Paper Association, American Petroleum Institute, <a title="Chevron" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Chevron">Chevron</a>, <a class="new" title="Chrysler (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Chrysler&action=edit&redlink=1">Chrysler</a>, Cyprus AMAX Minerals, <a class="mw-redirect" title="Exxon" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Exxon">Exxon</a>, <a title="Ford" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ford">Ford</a>, <a class="mw-redirect" title="General Motors" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=General_Motors">General Motors</a>, <a title="Shell" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shell">Shell</a> Oil, Texaco, and the <a class="mw-redirect" title="United States Chamber of Commerce" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=United_States_Chamber_of_Commerce">United States Chamber of Commerce</a>.

For PR and lobbying, the GCC has employed "Junkman" <a title="Steven J. Milloy" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J.Milloy">Steven Milloy</a>'s former employer, the <a class="new" title="EOP Group (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=EOP_Group&action=edit&redlink=1">EOP Group</a>, as well as the <a title="E. Bruce Harrison Company" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=E.Bruce_Harrison_Company">E. Bruce Harrison Company</a>, a subsidiary of the giant <a title="Ruder Finn" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ruder_Finn">Ruder Finn</a> PR firm. Within the public relations industry, Harrison is an almost legendary figure who is ironically considered "the founder of <a class="new" title="Green PR (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Green_PR&action=edit&redlink=1">green PR</a>" because of his work for the pesticide industry in the 1960s, when he helped lead the attack on author Rachel Carson and her environmental classic, Silent Spring.

GCC activities have included publication of glossy reports, aggressive lobbying at international climate negotiation meetings, and raising concern about unemployment that it claims would result from emissions regulations. It distributed a video to hundreds of journalists claiming that increased levels of carbon dioxide will increase crop production and help feed the hungry people of the world. In the lead up to the Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the GCC and other industry interests successfully lobbied the US government to avoid mandatory emissions controls.

In 1997, the GCC responded to international global warming treaty negotiations in Kyoto, Japan by launching an advertising campaign in the US against any agreement aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions internationally. This was run through an organization called the <a title="Global Climate Information Project" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Information_Project">Global Climate Information Project</a> (GCIP), which was sponsored by the GCC and the American Association of Automobile Manufacturers, among others. The GCIP was represented by <a class="new" title="Richard Pollock (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Pollock&action=edit&redlink=1">Richard Pollock</a>, a former director of <a title="Ralph Nader" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ralph_Nader">Ralph Nader</a>'s group, <a class="new" title="Critical Mass (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Critical_Mass&action=edit&redlink=1">Critical Mass</a>, who switched sides to become a senior vice president for <a class="new" title="Shandwick Public Affairs (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shandwick_Public_Affairs&action=edit&redlink=1">Shandwick Public Affairs</a>, the second-largest PR firm in the United States. (Recent Shandwick clients include Browning-Ferris Industries, Central Maine Power, Georgia-Pacific Corp., <a title="Monsanto" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto">Monsanto</a> Chemical Co., New York State Electric and Gas Co., <a title="Ciba-Geigy" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ciba-Geigy">Ciba-Geigy</a>, Ford Motor Company, Hydro-Quebec, <a class="mw-redirect" title="Pfizer" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pfizer">Pfizer</a>, and <a title="Procter & Gamble" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Procter_%26_Gamble">Procter & Gamble</a>.)

GCIP's ads were produced by <a class="new" title="Goddard Claussen First Tuesday (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goddard_Claussen_First_Tuesday&action=edit&redlink=1">GoddardClaussen/First Tuesday</a>, a California-based PR firm whose clients include the <a title="Chlorine Chemistry Council" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Chlorine_Chemistry_Council">Chlorine Chemistry Council</a>, the Chemical Manufacturers Association, DuPont Merck Pharmaceuticals, and the Vinyl Siding Institute. GoddardClaussen is notorious for its "Harry and Louise" advertisement that helped derail President Clinton's 1993 health reform proposal. Its anti-Kyoto advertisements falsely claimed, "It's Not Global and It Won't Work." They also claimed that "Americans will pay the price. . . 50 cents more for every gallon of gasoline." Actually, there was no treaty at that point, and no government proposals, then or now, have suggested a "50 cent" gallon gas tax.

By 1997, the growing scientific and public consensus regarding global warming forced a number of GCC supporters to reconsider the negative PR implications of their involvement in a group that was increasingly recognized as a self-serving anti-environmental front group.

<a title="BP" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=BP">BP</a>/Amoco withdrew from GCC after BP's chairman admitted that "the time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part. We in BP have reached that point." Other prominent companies that have publicly abandoned GCC include American Electric Power, Dow, Dupont, Royal Dutch Shell, Ford, Daimler Chrysler, Southern Company, Texaco and General Motors.

In March 2000, GCC announced a "strategic restructuring" designed to "bring the focus of the climate debate back to the real issues." Under the restructuring, individual companies were no longer asked to join the GCC. Instead, membership would be limited to "only trade associations" and "other like-minded organizations." By seeking support from trade associations instead of individual companies, GCC hoped to create a layer of deniability so that affected industries could continue to support its campaign of global warming denial while avoiding boycotts and other public campaigns against individual companies.

The GCC disbanded in early 2002, explaining that it "has served its purpose by contributing to a new national approach to global warming. The Bush administration will soon announce a climate policy that is expected to rely on the development of new technologies to reduce greenhouse emissions, a concept strongly supported by the GCC." After years spent denying that greenhouse emissions were a serious environmental problem, the organization's parting shot at history combined a tacit admission that it had been wrong all along, along with an endorsement of the <a class="mw-redirect" title="George W. Bush" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_W._Bush">George W. Bush</a> administration's proposal for ineffective "voluntary" industry measures to address the problem.

<h2>Excerpts from the GCC web site</h2>

<dl>

<dd>The Global Climate Coalition has been deactivated. The industry voice on climate change has served its purpose by contributing to a new national approach to global warming.</dd></dl><dl>

<dd>The Bush administration will soon announce a climate policy that is expected to rely on the development of new technologies to reduce greenhouse emissions, a concept strongly supported by the GCC.</dd>

</dl>

<dl>

<dd>The coalition also opposed Senate ratification of the <a title="Kyoto Protocol" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Kyoto_Protocol">Kyoto Protocol</a> that would assign such stringent targets for lowering greenhouse gas emissions that economic growth in the U. S. would be severely hampered and energy prices for consumers would skyrocket. The GCC also opposed the treaty because it does not require the largest developing countries to make cuts in their emissions.</dd>

</dl>

<dl>

<dd>At this point, both Congress and the Administration agree that the U.S. should not accept the mandatory cuts in emissions required by the protocol.</dd>

</dl>

<dl>

</dl>

<dl>

<dd>The Global Climate Coalition is an organization of trade associations established in 1989 to coordinate business participation in the international policy debate on the issue of global climate change and global warming.</dd>

</dl>

<dl>

<dd>Currently, GCC members collectively represent more than 6 million businesses, companies and corporations in virtually every sector of U.S. business, agriculture and forestry, including electric utilities, railroads, transportation, manufacturing, small businesses, mining, oil, and coal.</dd>

</dl>

<dl>

<dd>As a leading voice for business and industry, both domestically and internationally, GCC volunteers and staff attend all international climate change negotiations. They also closely monitor the activities of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and contributes to the IPCC's scientific assessment documents.</dd>

</dl>

<dl>

<dd>Domestically, the GCC represents the views of its members to legislative bodies and policymakers. And it reviews and provides comments on proposed legislation and government programs.</dd>

</dl>

<dl>

<dd>Businesses and industries that make up the GCC's member trade associations are active participants in voluntary programs for reducing greenhouse gas emissions that are part of the federal government's U.S. Climate Action Plan.</dd>

</dl>

<h2>Funding</h2>

The GCC website was decorated with numerous photos of happy children playing in idyllic farm fields, but it did not provide any information about its budget or where its money comes from. GCC was not registered as a nonprofit organization and was not required to make public disclosures of its IRS tax filings, so it is difficult to obtain even basic information about its finances. However, the information that is publicly available shows that the GCC has spent tens of millions of dollars on the global warming issue.

According to the Los Angeles Times (December 7, 1997) the GCC spent $13 million on its 1997 anti-Kyoto ad campaign, an amount roughly equivalent to Greenpeace’s entire annual budget.

<a title="Common Cause" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Common_Cause">Common Cause</a> has documented more than $63 million in contributions to politicians from members of the Global Climate Coalition from 1989-1999.<a class="external autonumber" title="http://www.commoncause.org/publications/hot/chart1.htm" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.commoncause.org/publications/hot/chart1.htm">[1]</a>

GCC's efforts were coordinated with separate campaigns by many of its members, such as the <a class="new" title="National Coal Association (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Coal_Association&action=edit&redlink=1">National Coal Association</a>, which spent more than $700,000 on the global climate issue in 1992 and 1993, and the American Petroleum Institute, which paid the <a title="Burson-Marsteller" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Burson-Marsteller">Burson-Marsteller</a> PR firm $1.8 million in 1993 for a successful computer-driven "grassroots" letter and phone-in campaign to stop a proposed tax on fossil fuels.[btu?]

GCC's members and supporters included the following companies and trade associations:

<ul>

<li>Air Transport Association</li>

<li><a class="mw-redirect" title="Allegheny Power" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Allegheny_Power">Allegheny Power</a></li>

<li>Aluminum Association, Inc.</li>

<li><a class="new" title="American Automobile Manufacturers Association (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Automobile_Manufacturers_Association&action=edit&redlink=1">American Automobile Manufacturers Association</a></li>

<li>American Commercial Barge Line Co.</li>

<li><a title="American Farm Bureau Federation" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Farm_Bureau_Federation">American Farm Bureau Federation</a></li>

<li><a class="mw-redirect" title="American Forest & Paper Association" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Forest_%26_Paper_Association">American Forest & Paper Association</a></li>

<li>American Highway Users Alliance</li>

<li>American Iron and Steel Institute</li>

<li><a title="American Petroleum Institute" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute">American Petroleum Institute</a></li>

<li>American Portland Cement Alliance</li>

<li><a class="mw-redirect" title="Amoco" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Amoco">Amoco</a></li>

<li>Association of American Railroads</li>

<li>Association of International Automobile Manufacturers</li>

<li><a class="new" title="Atlantic Richfield Coal Company (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Atlantic_Richfield_Coal_Company&action=edit&redlink=1">Atlantic Richfield Coal Company</a></li>

<li>Baker Refineries</li>

<li>Bethlehem Steel</li>

<li><a class="new" title="BHP Minerals (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=BHP_Minerals&action=edit&redlink=1">BHP Minerals</a></li>

<li>Chamber of Shipping of America</li>

<li><a class="mw-redirect" title="Chemical Manufacturers Association" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Chemical_Manufacturers_Association">Chemical Manufacturers Association</a></li>

<li><a title="Chevron" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Chevron">Chevron</a></li>

<li><a class="new" title="Chrysler (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Chrysler&action=edit&redlink=1">Chrysler</a> Corporation</li>

<li>Cinergy</li>

<li>CONRAIL</li>

<li><a title="Consumers Energy" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Consumers_Energy">Consumers Energy</a></li>

<li>Council of Industrial Boiler Owners</li>

<li>CSX Transportation, Inc.</li>

<li>Cyprus-Amax</li>

<li><a title="Dow Chemical Company" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dow_Chemical_Company">Dow Chemical Company</a></li>

<li><a class="mw-redirect" title="Drummond Company" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Drummond_Company">Drummond Company</a></li>

<li><a title="Duke Energy" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy">Duke Power Company</a></li>

<li><a title="DuPont" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=DuPont">DuPont</a></li>

<li>Eastman Chemical</li>

<li><a title="Edison Electric Institute" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Edison_Electric_Institute">Edison Electric Institute</a></li>

<li>ELCON</li>

<li><a class="mw-redirect" title="ExxonMobil" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ExxonMobil">ExxonMobil</a></li>

<li>Fertilizer Institute</li>

<li><a title="Ford" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ford">Ford</a> Motor Company</li>

<li><a class="mw-redirect" title="General Motors" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=General_Motors">General Motors</a></li>

<li>Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.</li>

<li>Greencool</li>

<li>Hoechst Celanese Chemical Group</li>

<li><a class="new" title="Illinois Power Company (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Illinois_Power_Company&action=edit&redlink=1">Illinois Power Company</a></li>

<li>Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp.</li>

<li>McDonnell-Douglas</li>

<li><a title="Exxon Mobil" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Exxon_Mobil">Mobil Corporation</a></li>

<li><a title="National Association of Manufacturers" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Association_of_Manufacturers">National Association of Manufacturers</a></li>

<li>National Lime Association</li>

<li><a title="National Mining Association" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Mining_Association">National Mining Association</a></li>

<li>National Ocean Industries Association</li>

<li>National Petrochemical and Refiners Association</li>

<li>Natural Rural Electric Cooperative Association</li>

<li>Norfolk Southern</li>

<li>Northern Indiana Public Serv. Co.</li>

<li><a class="new" title="Ohio Edison (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ohio_Edison&action=edit&redlink=1">Ohio Edison</a></li>

<li>Parker Drilling Company</li>

<li>Process Gas Consumers</li>

<li><a title="Shell" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shell">Shell</a></li>

<li>Society of the Plastic Industry</li>

<li><a title="Southern Company" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Southern_Company">Southern Company</a></li>

<li>Steel Manufacturers Association</li>

<li>TECO Energy Inc.</li>

<li><a class="mw-redirect" title="Texaco" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Texaco">Texaco</a></li>

<li><a title="U.S. Chamber of Commerce" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._Chamber_of_Commerce">U.S. Chamber of Commerce</a></li>

<li>USX Corporation</li>

<li><a title="Union Carbide" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Union_Carbide">Union Carbide</a></li>

<li>Union Pacific</li>

<li><a class="new" title="Virginia Power (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Virginia_Power&action=edit&redlink=1">Virginia Power</a></li>

<li><a title="Western Fuels Association" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Western_Fuels_Association">Western Fuels Association</a></li>

</ul>

<h2>Internal Documents</h2>

<ul>

<li>Global Climate Coalition, <a class="external text" title="http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/8/82/GCC_Primer_Draft.pdf" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/8/82/GCC_Primer_Draft.pdf">"Primer on Climate Change Science· Final Draft"</a>, January 18, 1996.</li>

</ul>

<h2>Case Studies</h2>

<ul>

<li><a class="mw-redirect" title="Accu-Weather's science for hire" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Accu-Weather%27s_science_for_hire">Accu-Weather's science for hire</a></li>

</ul>

Global Climate Coalition

1275 K St, NW

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (202) 682-9161 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              (202) 682-9161      end_of_the_skype_highlighting

Email: gcc@globalclimate.org

<a class="external free" title="http://www.globalclimate.org" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.globalclimate.org">http://www.globalclimate.org</a>

<h2>Other SourceWatch Related Resources</h2>

<ul>

<li><a title="Climate change" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change">climate change</a></li>

</ul>

<h2>External links</h2>

<ul>

<li>Bob Burton and Sheldon Rampton, "<a class="external text" title="http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1997Q4/warming.html" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1997Q4/warming.html">Thinking Globally, Acting Vocally: The International Campaign to Overheat the Earth</a>," PR Watch, vol. 4, no. 4, 4th Quarter 1997</li>

<li>Lester Brown, "<a class="external text" title="http://www.worldwatch.org/chairman/issue/000725.html" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.worldwatch.org/chairman/issue/000725.html">The Rise and Fall of the Global Climate Coalition</a>, Worldwatch Institute. This essay examines the significance of member companies' defections from the GCC.</li>

<li>"<a class="external text" title="http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/magazine/issue4/cw4f5.html" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/magazine/issue4/cw4f5.html">Disguise the Limit: the Global Climate Coalition</a>," Corporate Watch UK</li>

<li>"<a class="external text" title="http://www.tompaine.com/features/2000/04/18/6.html" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.tompaine.com/features/2000/04/18/6.html">Cooking the Books: the Bogus Economics of the Global Climate Coalition</a>"</li>

<li>"<a class="external text" title="http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/cenear/971117/global.html" rel="nofollow" href="http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/cenear/971117/global.html">Global Climate Change: Nations, Business Interests Struggle Over Policies Before Kyoto Meeting</a>," Chemical & Engineering News, November 17, 1997</li>

<li>In a <a class="external text" title="http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=6217" rel="nofollow" href="http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=6217">speech to Greenpeace</a>, Ford Motor Company CEO <a title="William Clay Ford, Jr." href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=William_Clay_Ford,_Jr.">William Clay Ford, Jr.</a> explains why his company left the Global Climate Coalition: "The present risk is clear. The climate appears to be changing, the changes appear to be outside natural variation, and the likely consequences will be serious. From a business planning point of view, that issue is settled. Anyone who disagrees is, in my view, still in denial."</li>

<li><a class="external text" title="http://www.heatisonline.org/" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.heatisonline.org/">The Heat Is Online</a>, a website by journalist <a class="new" title="Ross Gelbspan (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ross_Gelbspan&action=edit&redlink=1">Ross Gelbspan</a>, explains the science of global warming and industry's <a class="external text" title="http://www.heatisonline.org/disinformation.cfm" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.heatisonline.org/disinformation.cfm">disinformation campaign</a>.</li>

<li>"<a class="external text" title="http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20010430.html" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20010430.html">The Rhetoric of Uncertainty</a>." This essay examines the two-pronged strategy used by opponents of regulating carbon emissions: an assault on the scientific foundations of climate change theory, and a rhetorical campaign to discredit its proponents and their proposed mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

http://yyy.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1501646,00.html">Revealed: how oil giant influenced Bush White House sought advice from Exxon on Kyoto stance", The Guardian, June 8, 2005</li>

<li>Much of the information for this article was taken from "...http://www.prwatch.org/improp/gcc.html" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.prwatch.org/improp/gcc.html">Global Climate Coalition," from the PR Watch Impropaganda Review. (Used with permission)<...Thank You for Emitting, interview with Frank Maisano, E magazine, March/April 2006.</li>

<li>Andrew C. Revkin, ...http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html...</li><li>
</li><li>
</li><li>
</li><li>
</li><li>As he shaped climate policy, Cheney took his cues from the Global