359. Memorandum From the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (Benedick) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (Negroponte)1
SUBJECT
- Additional Background for Meetings with Lee Thomas and Bruce Smart2
At the CEEM Conference today, I had the chance to speak informally with numerous American industrialists. While virtually all of them support additional controls on CFC’s and the concept of international (as opposed to unilateral) U.S. action, their mood is one of serious distress and concern over the U.S. position and the process.
I was told that Lee Thomas, in his keynote address yesterday, stressed that EPA would be guided by the international negotiating result. There were, therefore, questions why the “State Department” was pushing for a binding international treaty before the domestic agency was in a position to justify regulations at home.
[Page 1027]The attached letter to Secretary Shultz also reflects industry’s current mood.3
Some other points:
—Industry is strongly dissatisfied with the nature and extent of consultation with EPA. Their contacts are essentially limited to one individual (Hoffman), and they have been rebuffed by EPA in their proposal for fuller participation in the analytical and rulemaking process (apparently in contrast to the case with other environmental regulations). Dick Barnett (President of the CFC Alliance) says he has been unable to get an appointment with Lee Thomas and is ready to see him at home on a Sunday.
—The Department of Commerce has the same complaint; in contrast with the process preceding the aerosol ban in 1978, they have the feeling this is a closed game, with EPA (i.e., Hoffman) not open to full collaboration.
—There is great concern over the lack of analysis of costs and consequences of CFC reduction, and the feeling that the figures may be in process of being “cooked” by EPA without adequate industry participation in the analytical process.
—They are particularly worried about the U.S. sticking to the “95% phaseout” in our international position, for which there is neither full scientific nor economic justification. We offered “up to 95%” as “illustrative” in December and February.4 At the April negotiation, I believe it essential that we now show flexibility for a lower figure (EC has proposed 20% in 6 years). If not, we risk totally losing industry support.
—In sum, much of industry seems to feel that low-level EPA staff, in consort with NGO’s and some Congressional circles, are manufacturing an atmosphere for an unreasonable and precipitate U.S. action.
- Source: Department of State, Chemicals, Hazardous Waste, Ozone, 1981–1990, Lot 92D207, Interagency Process. No classification marking.↩
- In a March 25 memorandum to Negroponte, Butcher submitted talking points for Negroponte’s March 26 meeting with Thomas. (Ibid.)↩
- Dated March 23, attached but not printed.↩
- See Documents 356 and 358.↩