Global Climate Coaliation

Page 1 of 4

.00

Summary of Global Climate Coalition Activities: 1996-1997
March 1998
To date, the political agenda of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) has been to stall action on
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The GCC is a coalition of business trade associations and
private companies and its board members include: American Forest & Paper, Chevron, Exxon, Ford,
General Motors, Mobil, National Mining Association and Texaco. The general membership includes
Amoco, BP, Dow, Goodyear, Shell, and Union Carbide. During the last two years, the GCC has tried
to undermine the broad scientific consensus that climate change is a legitimate threat, has spent large
sums of money on public relations that has confused the public while directly lobbying governments
to ignore the threat of climate disruption.
Fall 1997: Advertising Campaign and Lobbying
In August 1997, the newly appointed Executive Director of the GCC, Gail McDonald, formed zeros
with her fingers when asked what the GCC would like to see happen in Kyoto. (New York Times
8/5/97) Shortly thereafter, the GCC launched a $13 million advertising campaign in the US against
any agreement aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions internationally. This was run through an
organization called the Global Climate Information Project, which was sponsored by both the GCC
and the American Association of Automobile Manufacturers, among others. The 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." Ironically, there was no treaty at that point, and
no government proposals, then or now, have suggested a "50 cent" gallon gas tax.
1996-1997: Science Distortion
Before August 1997, the GCC largely focused on creating confusion in the general public about the
state of science. Despite the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has
provided more information about climate change than has ever been known about any previous
global threat, the GCC has been unrelenting in its attacks on the IPCC process and the scientists
themselves. The IPCC is comprised of about 2,500 scientists from all over the world and provides the
most authoritative and rigorous assessments, based only on peer-reviewed literature of the science of
climate change. The GCC's premise was that until there was "certainty," we should do nothing. For
example, William O'Keefe, former Vice President of the American Petroleum Institute and Chairman
of the GCC, stated on June 28, 1996 that "we could wait 20 to 25 years to take action until scientific
uncertainty is lessened."
Scientific Certainty
Since "scientific certainty" is central to the GCC's strategy of stalling action to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, it is important to address it in this discussion. If the world waits until it has perfect
confidence, it will be too late to prevent the consequences of global climate change. So, it is not a
question of certainty but rather, an analysis of the probability of severe consequences from human
induced climate change. Similar probability analyses have guided the public health responses to other
threats that invariably involve uncertainty like the threats from tobacco, asbestos, lead and air
pollution. With climate change, an overwhelming majority of scientists have concluded that there is a
very high probability that climate change is already underway due to the burning of fossil fuels and
there are several important certainties:
1. The surface of the earth is warming. 1997 was the hottest year on record. Nine of the eleven hottest
years on record were in the last decade.
2. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are increasing. These concentrations are
currently at approximately 380 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Pre-industrial levels were
http://www.ozone.org/page16.html

11/27/98

 Global Climate Coaliation

Page 2 of 4

approximately 260 ppmv.
3. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere.
The GCC claims that "science must serve as the foundation for overall global climate policy
decisions and enhanced scientific research must be the first priority. A bedrock principle addressing
global climate change issues is that science - not emotional or political reactions — must serve as the
foundation for global climate policy decisions." In direct contradiction to these lofty goals, the GCC
and individual members have provided public platforms for the handful of scientists who are
skeptical of the consensus that there is a human influence on the global climate. These scientists
generally do not participate in the accepted process of publishing research in refereed journals in
order to test hypotheses and conclusions. The also generally do not have expertise in the topic.
However, the GCC has gone even further than just providing public relations services for these
skeptic scientists. They've also attacked credible and preeminent expert scientists. Perhaps the most
disturbing example of this is what happened to Dr. Benjamin Santer of Lawrence Berkeley National
Lab.
Case Study: Dr. Ben Santer
In June 1996, the American Petroleum Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, and the GCC launched
a vicious attack on the lead author of Chapter 8 of the IPCC's 1995 Second Assessment Report. Their
strategy was to discredit the person responsible for the chapter in the IPCC report that links the threat
of global climatic disruption to the burning of fossil fuels. By discrediting the author, these
organizations could argue that global warming was "natural" and thereby stall the policy process to
reduce emissions.
In an op-ed that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on June 19, 1996, Dr. Frederick Seitz, who was
not present at any of the meetings he referred to in this op-ed, stated that the authors of the relevant
chapter "deliberately deceived policymakers and the public by deleting passages that expressed
uncertainty about the human impact on climate change after reviewing scientists approved the text."
Dr. Seitz's charges that, "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review
process than the events that led to this IPCC report," were then picked up as a news story (rather than
opinion) in The New York Times. The GCC subsequently sent a letter to various members of
Congress and individuals in the Clinton Administration, making precisely the same unwarranted and
personal attacks. Dr. Santer maintains he was never even approached by either the GCC or Dr. Seitz
for an explanation.
Dr. Seitz, who did not contribute to the IPCC, failed to mention that changes in the report were not
only proper but required under the panel's peer review procedure. Dr. Santer said these charges
"demonstrate his [Dr. Seitz's] ignorance of the topic and the IPCC process," and added, "The irony of
this situation is that I fought hard to keep the extended discussion of uncertainties. Now I am being
accused by Dr. Seitz and others of suppressing them."
GCC's attacks provoked strong statements from the normally reticent IPCC scientists. Forty of them
signed a letter printed in the Wall Street Journal on June 12, 1996. Bert Bolin, IPCC Chairman; Luiz
Gylvan Meira-Filho, and John Houghton, Working Group One Co-Chairmen, also wrote a letter
stating that they were "completely satisfied" with the changes made to the Working Group Report.
Governments also rallied around Dr. Santer. In testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives, Rafe
Pomerance of the State Department declared that the industry claims were "absurd." The
Environment Minister of the United Kingdom, John Gummer, criticized the skeptics in The Financial
Times saying that they, "refused to believe the evidence before them." The Canadian Council of
Environment Ministers fully endorsed the key findings of the IPCC and the EU Council stated that it,
"recognizes that the IPCC Second Assessment Report represents the most comprehensive and
authoritative assessment in the science of climate change."

http://www.ozone.org/page16.html

11/27/98

 Global Climate Coaliation

Page 3 of 4

The attacks on Dr. Santer stunned the scientific community. Scientists are accustomed to working
through the scientific peer-review process to resolve differences and advance understanding. Seeing a
colleague's reputation smeared in the national media and before congressional committees was, not
surprisingly, abhorrent to them. Dr. Santer had to spend countless hours responding to the attacks on
his integrity which pulled him away from his research for many months.
In an open letter dated June 19, 1997, Dr. Santer writes:
"I am a scientist studying the nature and causes of climate change. I am not an advocate for policy
solutions other problem of human-caused climate change. . . It is my considered professional opinion
that the scientific evidence that has emerged subsequent to the publication of the IPCC report in June
1996 reinforces and fully warrants (his emphasis throughout) that the IPCC's 'discernible human
influence' conclusion. . . Although we will never have complete certainty about the exact size of the
past, present and future human effect on climate, we do know beyond any reasonable doubt that the
burning of fossil fuels has modified the chemical composition of the atmosphere. The question is not
whether, but rather to what extent such changes in atmospheric composition have already influence
the climate of the past century and will continue to influence the climate of the 21st century. The best
scientific information we have suggests that the human component of climate change is not trivially
small, and that human activities are already producing a climate change "signal" that can be
discriminated from the background "noise" of natural climate variability. Further modifications to the
chemical composition of the Earth's atmosphere could result in very real and critical impacts on
global-scale climate. It would seem prudent to confront this possibility now instead of waiting for
climate changes that are large enough to give a truly unambiguous answer to the question of the
"discernibility" of a human influence."
The GCC's attacks helped prompt two unprecedented statements from the scientific community in
1997. The first was the Scientists' Statement on Global Climatic Disruption. This statement was
signed by approximately 3,000 scientists, and called for early domestic action to reduce U.S.
emissions. This statement was signed by several Nobel laureates and 35 members of the National
Academy of Scientists. Then, in October of 1997, 102 Nobel laureates and 60 US National Medal of
Science winners released the World Scientists' Call for Action. This statement urged "all government
leaders to demonstrate a new commitment to protecting the global environment for future
generations. The important first step is to join in completing a strong and meaningful Climate Treaty
at Kyoto."
The GCC press release responding to the first statement:
"A recent statement. . . raises some serious questions about their [the scientists'] understanding of the
current science on climate. While some may want to believe worst case scenario predictions made by
imperfect computer models, it does little to advance the public debate in a meaningful way. Members
of the Global Climate Coalition believe the peer-reviewed science speaks for itself."
Global Climate Coalition
Gail McDonald, President
1275 K St. ,NW Suite 890
Washington, DC 20005
PH: 202/682-9161
FX: 202/638-1043
Global Climate Coalition Membership List:

http://www.ozone.org/page16.html

11/27/98

 Global Climate Coaliation

Page 4 of 4

Back to Corporate Influence

http://www.ozone.org/page16.htm1

11/27/98