Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981–1988, Volume XLI, Global Issues II

369. Minutes of a Domestic Policy Council Meeting¹

Washington, June 11, 1987, 11 a.m.

PARTICIPANTS

• Messrs. Meese, Hodel, Lyng, Bowen, Herrington, Whitehead, Taft, Brown, Covitz, Wright, Cribb, Bauer, Ms. Risque, Messrs. Bledsoe, Thomas, Sprinkel, Dyer, Tuck, Brashear, Dean, Graham, Benedick, Hookano, Willkie, Ms. Schafer, Messrs. Galebach, Gray, Kuttner

Stratospheric Ozone

Attorney General Meese began the meeting by stating that guidance should be given to U.S. negotiators on the positions to be supported during the final stages of negotiation of an international protocol for protecting the stratospheric ozone layer. Mr. Thomas provided an overview of questions raised at the last Council meeting about environmental and health effects, legal and legislative issues, and cost-benefit data. He said that while there is not total agreement on the validity of the models being used, ozone depletion is occurring, and a freeze or reductions of chemicals that seem to be causing the depletion would help prevent further ozone depletion. He described the amounts of depletion reduction projected by the models, including additional skin cancer deaths, more cataracts, and other effects whose magnitudes are uncertain. He described Section 157 of the Clean Air Act which requires him to take action if further ozone depletion may be reasonably anticipated, pointing out that the current international negotiations have caused Congress to ease their pressure for domestic regulations at this time. He said domestic action will be necessary at some later time, possibly near the end of the year. Mr. Thomas said he supports agreeing to a 50% reduction from 1986 levels of production of ozone-depleting chemicals, and that it is important to have an international agreement.

Mr. Sprinkel described a cost/benefit analysis done by a subgroup of the Energy, Natural Resources and Environment Working Group.² He said the costs are relatively straightforward, and that simply put, we can look at emissions reductions as an insurance policy with a specified rate of return. He said the bottom line, despite some uncertainty, is that a freeze will result in far greater benefits than costs; a further reduction of 20% will result in somewhat greater benefits than costs; and a 30% reduction beyond that could have marginal benefits over costs, but we need better data to substantiate this. He recommended increasing the budget for measuring other effects of ozone depletion.

Mr. Bauer felt the analyses are helpful, but questioned the numbers used to represent values of life. Mr. Graham said the models for projecting future effects extend up to 200 years, and do not assume likely changes in skin care protection and other areas. He felt we should not make a commitment to reductions until we have an unbiased scientific review. He also opposed instructing the U.S. delegation to commit to a voting scheme which may require actions not backed by science. Mr. Sprinkel suggested that if we wait too long, international and congressional actions will have passed us by. Mr. Whitehead said his impression was that the scientific community is concerned about depletion of the ozone layer and is supporting freeze and reduction actions. Mr. Graham said that we must accelerate development of knowledge about this situation. Mr. Brown agreed that we have some time before action must be taken, but he felt we must bring all countries along in a cooperative approach.

Mr. Meese said it is important how we handle the scientific aspects of this issue, but even more important how we handle the political situation. Mr. Thomas said we know enough from the science to negotiate a protocol, and that through our actions we have brought other countries to the negotiating table. He felt we should not wait, since we are close to reaching reasonable agreements. Secretary Hodel commented on how facts about stratospheric ozone are changed, citing as an example the National Institutes of Health statement that cataracts will not be increased.³ He felt we should present the President with the best options possible, so that the President can instruct the U.S. negotiators on what reductions to seek, what chemicals should be covered, what countries must join in, and other features of the protocol. Mr. Whitehead said that thus far the Administration can be proud of what we have done, and that we must continue to take action in concert with other countries. He said he would like pressure on the negotiators to get more countries involved in the process. He said the U.S. is being asked about its position on many of the features of the protocol.

Mr. Hodel said he would like the President to affirm that he wants an agreement, and one that will work. Mr. Hodel expressed fear that we may sign an agreement and other countries will not. Mr. Thomas agreed that the President should provide guidance. Mr. Wright said it is important to give the President the options now, so that negotiators will have guidance for the next rounds of negotiations. Mr. Taft did not want the negotiators to pin down agreements on Halons, or possibly CFC 113 chemicals yet. Mr. Thomas felt exclusions of 113s would be a problem at this late time. Ms. Schafer said that the principle we should follow is that any reductions beyond a freeze must be based on scientific, technological, economic, and environmental assessments. Mr. Brown briefly described the NOAA proposal for a reductions plan for inclusion in the protocol.⁴

Mr. Meese summarized the consensus of the Council that the U.S. negotiators should be given guidance from the President. He directed that a series of options for the President be developed by a small group of principals, and that they be routed for comment by other Council members. The options would be forwarded to the President and, if there are disagreements, a meeting would be scheduled. Options would address country participation, chemical coverage, voting, monitoring, and other issues regarding the protocol.

1. Source: Reagan Library, Bledsoe, Ralph: Files, DPC Meeting Minutes—1987–1989 (2). Confidential. The meeting took place in the Roosevelt Room at the White House.
2. Probable reference to Document 368.
3. Not further identified.
4. Not found.