Editing Global Climate Coalition (section)

=== Opposition to Kyoto Protocol ===
GCC was the main industry group in the United States opposed to the [[Kyoto Protocol]],<ref name=vidal/> which committed signatories to reduce [[greenhouse gas emissions]]. The coalition "was the leading industry group working in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol," according to [[Greenpeace]],<ref>{{cite web |title=Global Climate Coalition Meeting |date=June 21, 2001 |url=http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/research/global-climate-coalition-meeti/ |publisher=[[Greenpeace]] |access-date=February 15, 2016 |archive-date=February 23, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160223124851/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/research/global-climate-coalition-meeti/ |url-status=live }}</ref> and led opposition to the Kyoto Protocol, according to the ''[[Los Angeles Times]].''<ref name=latimes20000315>{{cite news |title=Briefly: Autos; Also |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-mar-15-fi-8936-story.html |date=March 15, 2000 |access-date=February 21, 2016 |newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] |quote=General Motors Corp. said it has quit the Global Climate Coalition, a lobbying group that has led the opposition to a 1997 global warming treaty reached in Kyoto, Japan. |archive-date=March 3, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303130316/http://articles.latimes.com/2000/mar/15/business/fi-8936 |url-status=live }}</ref>

Prior to 1997, GCC spent about $1 million annually lobbying against limits on {{CO2}} emissions;<ref>{{harvnb|Levy|1997}}: the GCC has spent nearly $1 million a year to convince policy makers that proposals to limit CO emissions: "are premature and are not justified by the state of scientific knowledge or the economic risks they create."</ref> before Kyoto, GCC annual revenue peaked around $1.5 million;<ref>{{harvnb|Lieberman|Rust|2015}}: the coalition, whose annual revenue peaked at about $1.5 million before Kyoto</ref> GCC spent $13 million on advertising in opposition to the Kyoto treaty.<ref>{{harvnb|Farley|1997}}: The cost of a recent, influential $13-million advertising campaign sponsored by the Global Climate Coalition equaled Greenpeace's entire annual budget.</ref><ref name=mitchell>{{harvnb|Mitchell|1997}}: Using the same media team of [[Goddard Claussen]] that produced the Harry and Louise ads, the Global Climate Coalition, an association of industry groups and some unions, has already run $13 million in television advertisements against the agreement.</ref> The coalition funded the Global Climate Information Project and hired the advertising firm that produced the 1993–1994 [[Harry and Louise]] advertising campaign which opposed Clinton's health care initiative.<ref name="Franz 1998"/><ref name=mitchell/> The advertisements said, "the UN Climate Treaty isn't Global...and it won't work"<ref>{{harvnb|Van den Hove|Le Menestrel|De Bettignies|2002}}</ref> and "Americans will pay the price...50 cents more for every gallon of gasoline."<ref>{{harvnb|Brown|2000}}: Among other things, the ads indicated that “Americans will pay the price ... 50¢ more for every gallon of gasoline,”even though there was no proposal for such a tax.</ref>

GCC opposed the signing of the Kyoto Protocol by Clinton.<ref>{{harvnb|Farley|1997}}: A group of energy companies, the Global Climate Coalition, has urged President Clinton not to OK signing a treaty here</ref> GCC was influential in the withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol by the administration of President [[George W. Bush]].<ref>{{harvnb|Rahm|2009}}: The Global Climate Coalition was influential in Bush administration decision making on withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol and policy positions on a successor treaty.</ref> According to briefing notes prepared by the [[United States Department of State]] for the under-secretary of state, Bush's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol was "in part based on input from" GCC.<ref name=vidal>{{harvnb|Vidal|2005}}: In briefing papers given before meetings to the US under-secretary of state, [[Paula Dobriansky]], between 2001 and 2004, the administration is found thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, and also seeking its advice on what climate change policies the company might find acceptable. "Potus [president of the United States] rejected Kyoto in part based on input from you [the Global Climate Coalition]," says one briefing note before Ms Dobriansky's meeting with the GCC, the main anti-Kyoto US industry group, which was dominated by Exxon.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Mooney|2005}}: ...the Global Climate Coalition. For her meeting with the latter group, one of Dobriansky’s prepared talking points was “POTUS [President Bush in Secret Service parlance] rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you.”</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Brill|2001}}</ref> GCC lobbying was key to the July, 1997 unanimous passage in the [[United States Senate]] of the [[Byrd–Hagel Resolution]], which reflected the coalition's position that restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions must include developing countries.<ref name="Franz 1998"/><ref>{{harvnb|Van den Hove|Le Menestrel|De Bettignies|2002}}: The GCC was indeed instrumental to the passing the Byrd–Hagel Senate resolution in July 1997</ref> GCC's chairman told a US congressional committee that mandatory greenhouse gas emissions limits were: "an unjustified rush to judgement."<ref>{{cite news |last=Stevens |first=William K. |title=Industries Revisit Global Warming |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=February 8, 2016 |date=August 5, 1997 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/05/world/industries-revisit-global-warming.html |archive-date=May 27, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150527053223/http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/05/world/industries-revisit-global-warming.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The coalition sent 50 delegates to the third Conference of the Parties to the [[United Nations Climate Change Conference]] in [[Kyoto]].<ref name="Franz 1998"/> On December 11, 1997, the day the Kyoto delegates reached agreement on legally binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions, GCC's chairman said the agreement would be defeated by the US Senate.<ref>{{cite news |last=Stevens |first=William K. |title=Meeting Reaches Accord to Reduce Greenhouse Gases |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=February 8, 2016 |date=December 11, 1997 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/11/world/meeting-reaches-accord-to-reduce-greenhouse-gases.html |archive-date=February 17, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160217053940/http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/11/world/meeting-reaches-accord-to-reduce-greenhouse-gases.html |url-status=live }}</ref> In 2001, GCC's executive director compared the Kyoto Protocol to the ''[[RMS Titanic]]''.<ref>{{cite news |title=Some Energy Executives Urge U.S. Shift on Global Warming |last1=Revkin |first1=Andrew C. |author-link1=Andrew Revkin |last2=Banerjee |first2=Neela |date=August 1, 2001 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/01/business/some-energy-executives-urge-us-shift-on-global-warming.html |access-date=February 8, 2016 |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |archive-date=February 17, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160217060659/http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/01/business/some-energy-executives-urge-us-shift-on-global-warming.html |url-status=live }}</ref>