Editing Global Climate Coalition (section)

== Membership decline ==
GCC's challenge to science prompted a backlash from environmental groups.<ref name="Jones 2007">{{harvnb|Jones|Levy|2007}}</ref> Environmentalists described GCC as a "club for polluters" and called for members to withdraw their support.<ref name=nyt20000107>{{cite news |title=DaimlerChrysler Leaving Climate Coalition |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=February 8, 2016 |date=January 7, 2000 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/07/business/daimlerchrysler-leaving-climate-coalition.html |archive-date=June 27, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210627115528/https://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/07/business/daimlerchrysler-leaving-climate-coalition.html |url-status=live }}</ref> "Abandonment of the Global Climate Coalition by leading companies is partly in response to the mounting evidence that the world is indeed getting warmer," according to environmentalist [[Lester R. Brown]].<ref name="Brown 2000">{{harvnb|Brown|2000}}</ref> In 1998, [[European Green Party|Green Party]] delegates to the [[European Parliament]] introduced an unsuccessful proposal that the [[World Meteorological Organization]] name hurricanes after GCC members.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Karliner |first=Joshua |title=Petroleum Weather |journal=Earth Island Journal |volume=14 |date=December 1, 1998 |page=48}}</ref> Defections weakened the coalition.<ref>{{harvnb|Levy|2001}}: The GCC was weakened by a series of defections</ref> In 1996, [[BP|British Petroleum]] resigned and later announced support for the Kyoto Protocol and commitment to greenhouse gas emission reductions.<ref>{{cite news |title=How Green Is BP? |first=Darcy |last=Frey |date=December 8, 2002 |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=February 8, 2016 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/08/magazine/how-green-is-bp.html |archive-date=February 26, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230226022325/https://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/08/magazine/how-green-is-bp.html |url-status=live }}: In 1996, BP resigned from the Global Climate Coalition, then offered its support of the Kyoto Protocol</ref> In 1997, [[Shell plc|Royal Dutch Shell]] withdrew after criticism from European environmental groups. In 1999, [[Ford Motor Company]] was the first US company to withdraw; the ''New York Times'' described the departure as "the latest sign of divisions within heavy industry over how to respond to global warming."<ref name=nyt19991207>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/07/business/ford-announces-its-withdrawal-from-global-climate-coalition.html |title=Ford Announces Its Withdrawal From Global Climate Coalition |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=February 8, 2016 |date=1999-12-07 |last1=Bradsher |first1=Keith |archive-date=2018-10-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181002122740/https://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/07/business/ford-announces-its-withdrawal-from-global-climate-coalition.html |url-status=live }}</ref> [[DuPont]] left the coalition in 1997 and [[Shell USA]] (then known as Shell Oil Company) left in 1998. In 2000, GCC corporate members were the targets of a national student-run university [[divestment|divestiture]] campaign. Between December, 1999 and early March, 2000, [[Texaco]], the [[Southern Company]], [[General Motors]] and [[Daimler AG|Daimler-Chrysler]] withdrew.<ref name=latimes20000315/><ref name=nyt20000107/><ref name=gelbspan>{{cite web |url=http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3440&method=full |title=GCC Suffers Technical Knockout, Industry defections decimate Global Climate Coalition |publisher=The Heat is Online |access-date=February 8, 2016 |author-link=Ross Gelbspan |first=Ross |last=Gelbspan |quote=Between December, 1999 and early March, 2000, the GCC was deserted by Ford, Daimler-Chrysler, Texaco, the Southern Company and General Motors...The defeat of the Global Climate Coalition reflects, among other things, a student divestiture campaign which urged universities to divest their holdings in companies that belonged to the GCC. It also represents a sustained effort by the Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility, which has mounted shareholder actions against a number of intransigent corporations. |archive-date=June 14, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180614195233/http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3440&method=full |url-status=live }}</ref> Some former coalition members joined the Business Environmental Leadership Council within the [[Center for Climate and Energy Solutions|Pew Center on Global Climate Change]] which represented diverse stakeholders, including business interests, with a commitment to peer-reviewed scientific research and accepted the need for emissions restrictions to [[climate change mitigation|address climate change]].<ref name="Jones 2007"/>

In 2000, GCC restructured as an association of [[trade association]]s; membership was limited to trade associations, and individual corporations were represented through their trade association. Brown called the restructuring "a thinly veiled effort to conceal the real issue – the loss of so many key corporate members."<ref name="Mulvey 2015"/><ref name="Brown 2000"/>