Fossil fuel coalition is burning out.

In a span of less than four months, four major energy and transportation companies and the largest electric utility in the United States dropped out of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a Washington-based industry association set up to fight efforts to slow global warming. Between early December 1999 and mid-March 2000, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Texaco, Southern Company, and General Motors (GM) separately announced they had left the coalition. The string of departures could signal the beginning of the end for the powerful lobbying group--which now contains no auto manufacturers and just two oil producers. The departures also raise questions about the future positions of the GCC's former members.

In announcing their withdrawal, companies hinted that their involvement with the GCC and their desire to maintain a positive public image on environmental issues had become irreconcilable. A Ford spokesperson observed that continued GCC membership had become "something of an impediment to pursuing our environmental initiative in a credible way." And a representative of GM said the company's move was part of an effort to adopt "more of a global focus." DaimlerChrysler's president of U.S. operations, citing growing scientific evidence of global warming, announced that "We are at a stage in the climate change debate where we prefer to either speak for ourselves on this issue, or pursue a dialogue on the subject through broader-based business organizations." Texaco--the first large U.S. oil company to leave the group--expressed similar concerns that the company "should speak for itself or through broader-based organizations on the important subject of climate change."

To date, however, none of these firms has attempted to join "broader-based organizations," such as the more progressive International Climate Change Partnership or Pew Center for Global Climate Change. All five appear to be maintaining existing positions independently from the GCC. Ford remains opposed to ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and GM stated that its dropout "doesn't reflect any change in our position" of opposing the international pact. Representatives of DaimlerChrysler immediately contacted Washington legislators after the firm's announcement, assuring them that they were still against the Kyoto Protocol. A Texaco spokesperson said, "We do agree with the members of the coalition that the Kyoto Protocol ... is not going to responsibly address the goal of controlling greenhouse gas emissions."

The GCC, considered by many environmental groups to be the fossil-fuel equivalent of the tobacco lobby, has in its ten years of existence fought aggressively to block efforts to address climate change. It became well-known for funding the research of a handful of scientists who remain outside the growing international scientific consensus on the Earth's twentieth-century warming and the "discernible" human influence on this warming. But in recent years some of the group's efforts--personal attacks on respected climate scientists, for example--have backfired. And the building momentum of the international climate process has rendered the industry group's extreme positions increasingly peripheral to the policy debate.

The three firms join a swelling group of multinationals--among them Royal Dutch Shell, BP Amoco, and Dow Chemical--that have departed from the GCC during the past two years. Remaining GCC members include several coal, mining, utility, railroad, and energy-intensive industry associations, as well as ExxonMobil and Chevron. But some of these groups are beginning to feel the heat. In 1998 and 1999, shareholders of both U.S. oil companies voted on resolutions demanding that the firms report on their activities to slow climate change, on their financial exposure and potential liabilities for contributing to the problem, and on any activities which downplay the issue of climate change.