Banning chlorofluorocarbons: epistemic community efforts to protect stratospheric ozone | International Organization | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Extract

The emergence of scientific evidence that emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were depleting the stratospheric ozone layer prompted an epistemic community of atmospheric scientists and concerned policymakers to push for regulations regarding CFC use. Members of the transnational epistemic community played a primary role in gathering information, disseminating it to governments and CFC manufacturers, and helping them formulate international, domestic, and industry policies regarding CFC consumption and production. Community members contributed to the timing and stringency of CFC regulations through a combination of strategies ranging from the persuasion of individuals to the capture of various decision-making channels. Most important, by influencing the actions of the United States and DuPont, the largest producer of CFCs, the epistemic community changed the external environment in which policy decisions were made by other governments and firms.

References

An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., September 1988. The article is based on data derived from over thirty-five interviews conducted from 1988 to 1990 in the United States, Britain, France, and Nairobi (headquarters of the United Nations Environment Programme, or UNEP) and on documents and files from UNEP and the U.S. Department of State. Research was funded in part by the Graduate Research Center and the Department of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts and by the American Council of Learned Societies. For research assistance, I am grateful to Brian Symington and Bret Brown. For helpful discussions and comments on earlier versions of the article, I thank Lincoln Bloomfield, Peter Cowhey, David Feldman, Nigel Haigh, George Hoberg, Sheila Jasanoff, Peter Katzenstein, Stephen Krasner, Karen Litfin, M. J. Peterson, Robert Putnam, Peter Sand, and John Thompson, as well as the Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change of the National Academy of Sciences. For correcting my account, I thank Nigel Haigh and Martin Holdgate. Any remaining errors are my own.

  1. Statement of McFarland, Mack, DuPont's principal science adviser for CFC-related issues, in “Ozone Science, Recent Findings,” mimeograph, 07 1888.Google Scholar

  2. See Haas, Peter M., “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination,” in this issue of IO.Google Scholar

  3. Interview with Holdgate, Martin, Arc-et-Senans, France, 13 09 1989Google Scholar. After serving as chief scientist and head of research in Britain's Department of the Environment, Holdgate became director general of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

  4. See, for example, Keohane, Robert O., “The Demand for International Regimes,” in Krasner, Stephen D., ed., International Regimes (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983), pp. 141–71.Google Scholar

  5. For an elaboration of the various strands of neorealism discussed here, see Nye, Joseph S., “Neorealism and Neoliberalism,” World Politics 40 (01 1988), pp. 235–51;CrossRefGoogle ScholarGrieco, Joseph M., “Anarchy and Cooperation,” International Organization 42 (Summer 1988), pp. 485–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Young, Oran R., International Cooperation: Building Regimes for Natural Resources and the Environment (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1989).Google Scholar

  6. Caldwell, Lynton, “The World Environment: Reversing U.S. Policy Commitments,” in Vig, Norman J. and Kraft, Michael E., eds., Environmental Policy in the 1980s (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1984), p. 320.Google Scholar

  7. For further discussion of the distinction between “preservationist” and “conservationist” environmentalists, see Peterson, M. J., “Whalers, Cetologists, Environmentalists, and the International Management of Whaling,” in this issue of IOGoogle Scholar. Regarding the strategies used by proponents of CFC regulation, see Roan, Sharon L., Ozone Crisis (New York: Wiley, 1989).Google Scholar

  8. Usher, Peter, cited in “The Ozone Layer, CFCs, and the Oceans: An Interview with Peter Usher,” The Siren, no. 35, 12 1987, pp. 30–31.Google Scholar

  9. Mostafa Tolba, cited by Menyasz, Peter in “International Agreement to Protect the Ozone Layer Hailed as Precedent for Global Environmental Solutions,” International Environment Reporter, 14 10 1987, p. 531.Google Scholar

  10. Testimony of Lee Thomas, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Ozone Layer Depletion: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, 100th Congress, 1st sess., 1987, p. 135.Google Scholar

  11. Benedick, Richard, cited in “Protecting the Ozone Layer,” Department of State Public Information Series 21, 01 1985, p. 1.Google Scholar

  12. Testimony of Richard Benedick, in U.S. Congress, Ozone Layer Depletion: Hearings, p. 97.Google Scholar

  13. Benedick, cited by Kamm, Henry in “Thirty Nations Meet on Rules to Protect Ozone Layer,” The New York Times, 26 02 1987, p. A7.Google Scholar

  14. See Dotto, Lydia and Schiff, Harold, The Ozone War (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1987), p. 19;Google Scholar and Roan, , Ozone Crisis.Google Scholar

  15. Richard Stolarski, cited in ibid., p. 125.

  16. Benedick, Richard E., Ozone Diplomacy: New Directions in Safeguarding the Planet (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991), p. 101.Google Scholar

  17. In fact, there was great tension between the epistemic community and the opposing groups because of the inability of the latter to grasp the complexities involved in the scientific research and modeling. During an interview conducted on 1 April 1988 with a scientist affiliated with a nongovernmental organization, the scientist referred to members of the opposing groups as “Martians … with a different standard of values.”

  18. See, for example, “Heads in the Ozone,” Wall Street Journal, 5 03 1984, p. 30.Google Scholar

  19. Alliance for a Responsible CFC Policy, “Remarks of Richard Barnett,” in The Montreal Protocol: A Briefing Book (Rosslyn, Va.: Alliance for a Responsible CFC Policy, 12 1987).Google Scholar

  20. Benedick, Richard E., “The Ozone Protocol: A New Global Diplomacy,” The Conservation Foundation Letter, no. 4, 1989, p. 7.Google Scholar

  21. Meier, Harry, “Ozone Demise Quickens Despite '78 Ban on Spray Propellant,” Wall Street Journal, 13 08 1986, p. 25.Google Scholar

  22. See Davies, J. Clarence, “Environmental Institutions and the Reagan Administration,” in Vig and Kraft, Environmental Policy in the 1980s, p. 156;Google Scholar and McCormick, John, Reclaiming Paradise (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989), p. 136.Google Scholar

  23. In October 1987, for example, the congressional testimony of Harvard University chemist Michael McElroy was covered by the Boston Globe. In his testimony, McElroy made the following statements: “There is no longer reason to doubt that industrial gases containing chlorine are responsible in large measure for a dramatic, large-scale change in the stratosphere observed over Antarctica…. There is, in my opinion, a need for immediate additional cuts in the release of industrial chlorinated and brominated hydrocarbons.” See testimony of Michael McElroy, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, Implications of the Expedition to Investigate the Ozone Hole over the Antarctic: Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees on Environmental Protection and Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Substances, 100th Congress, 1st sess., 1987, pp. 18–19Google Scholar; and Dumanoski, Diane, “Ever Stronger Protection Urged for Ozone Layer,” Boston Globe, 28 10 1987, p. 3.Google Scholar

  24. Chemical Manufacturers Association, “Fluorocarbon Research Program Revision No. 21,” 06 1985, p. 4.Google Scholar

  25. Benedick, cited by Stanfield, Rochele L. in “Global Guardian,” National Journal 12 (12 1987), p. 3139.Google Scholar

  26. Whitney, Craig R., “Twelve European Nations to Ban Chemicals That Harm Ozone,” The New York Times, 3 03 1989, p. 1.Google Scholar

  27. See Morone, Joseph G. and Woodhouse, Edward J., Averting Catastrophe: Strategies for Regulating Risky Technologies (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), chap. 5.Google Scholar

  28. See Molina, Mario and Rowland, Sherwood, “Stratospheric Sink for Chlorofluoromethanes: Chlorine Atom Catalyses Destruction of Ozone,” Nature 249 (06 1974), pp. 810–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Stolarski, R. S. and Cicerone, R. J., “Stratospheric Chlorine: A Possible Sink for Ozone,” Canadian Journal of Chemistry 52 (09 1974), pp. 1610–15;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Stolarski, Richard, “The Antarctic Ozone Hole,” Scientific American 258 (01 1988), pp. 30–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Molina, and Rowland's, hypothesis did not receive widespread publicity until September 1974Google Scholar, when it was presented at the high-profile national conference of the American Chemical Society. See Arie Rip and Peter Groenewegen, “Les faits scientifiques a l'épreuve de la politique” (The political test of scientific facts), in Callon, Michael, ed., La science et ses réseaux: Genèse et circulation des faits scientifiques (Science and its networks: The genesis and circulation of scientific facts) (Paris: Council of Europe and United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, 1988), pp. 149–72.Google Scholar

  29. The new equipment was designed by James Lovelock. Unlike most modern technological innovations, this one was created by an independent scientist and engineer who consciously isolated himself from the traditional institutions of “big science.” When Lovelock found evidence of CFCs in the stratosphere, he did not relate them to a chlorine reaction. Rather, he assumed that CFCs were inert and posed no threat to the environment. For Lovelock, CFCs merely provided a useful indicator for his instrumentation. See Dotto, and Schiff, , The Ozone War, pp. 8–9Google Scholar; and Joseph, Lawrence E., Gaia: The Growth of an Idea (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990), chap. 1.Google Scholar

  30. EPA, “Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Final Rule and Proposed Rule,” Federal Register, no. 239, 12 1987, pp. 47494–95.Google Scholar

  31. There are at least 192 chemical reactions and 48 photochemical processes that occur in the stratosphere, although only about 150 or fewer of these parameters are actually used in most models. The models, which are extremely sensitive to the rate of CFC emissions and their reactions with other trace gases, are designed to project ozone concentrations over a span of one hundred years. The concentrations are in turn used to predict the adverse effects on public health. For example, scenarios based on a 2.5 percent annual growth of CFC emissions yielded projections of public health effects that were 90 percent greater than those based on a 1.2 percent annual growth of CFC emissions. See Maugh, Thomas H. II, “What Is the Risk from Chlorofluorocarbons?” Science 233 (03 1984), pp. 1051–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  32. Adler offers a similar observation about the role of game theorists in arms control. See Adler, Emanuel, “The Emergence of Cooperation: National Epistemic Communities and the International Evolution of the Idea of Nuclear Arms Control,” in this issue of IO.Google Scholar

  33. See Stoel, Thomas B. Jr, Miller, Alan S., and Milroy, Breck, Fluorocarbon Regulation:: An International Comparison (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1980)Google Scholar; and U.S. Congress, Ozone Layer Depletion: Hearings, pp. 406–7.Google Scholar

  34. Document 80/372/EEC, reprinted in Official Journal of the European Communities, no. L90/45, 3 04 1980.Google Scholar

  35. Document 82/795/EEC, reprinted in Official Journal of the European Communities, no. L329/29, 25 11 1982Google Scholar. I am grateful to Nigel Haigh for clarifying my understanding of these decisions.

  36. Sand, Peter H., “Protecting the Ozone Layer,” Environment 27 (06 1985), pp. 18–20 and 40–43.Google Scholar

  37. Hammitt, James K. et al. , Product Uses and Market Trends for Potential Ozone-Depleting Substances, 1985–2000, RAND Corporation, R-3386-EPA, 05 1986, pp. 4–10.Google Scholar

  38. See “Ozone Agreement Up in the Air,” New Scientist, 7 02 1985, p. 8Google Scholar. I am grateful to Nigel Haigh for clarifying my understanding of this point.

  39. The group was named after an informal negotiating meeting hosted by Canada. Regarding the group's proposal, see UNEP/WG 110/4, Annex IV, 1984.Google Scholar

  40. Sand, “Protecting the Ozone Layer.”

  41. Farman, J. C., Gardiner, B. G., and Shanklin, J. D., “Large Losses of Total Ozone in Antarctica Reveal Seasonal CIOx/NOx Interaction,” Nature 315 (05 1985), pp. 207–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  42. See Schell, Ellen Ruppell, “Solo Flights into the Ozone Hole Reveal Its Causes,” Smithsonian 18 (02 1988), pp. 142–55.Google Scholar

  43. See Sand, , “Protecting the Ozone Layer,” p. 20;Google Scholar and Crawford, Mark, “United States Floats Proposal to Prevent Global Ozone Depletion,” Science 234 (11 1986), p. 927.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

  44. NASA et al., Atmospheric Ozone, 1985, World Meteorological Organization Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project Report, no. 16, 3 vols. (Geneva: World Meteorological Organization, 1986).Google Scholar

  45. Dudek, Daniel J. and Oppenheimer, Michael, “The Implications of Health and Environmental Effects for Policy,” in U.S. EPA and UNEP, Effects of Changes in Stratospheric Ozone and Global Climate, vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: EPA, 08 1986), pp. 357–79.Google Scholar

  46. Testimony of A. James Barnes, deputy administrator of the EPA, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Review of the Results of the Antarctic Ozone Expedition: Hearings Before the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 100th Congress, 1st sess., 1987, pp. 395–401.Google Scholar

  47. Alliance for a Responsible CFC Policy, The Montreal Protocol.Google Scholar

  48. Crawford, , “United States Floats Proposal to Prevent Global Ozone Depletion,” p. 928.Google Scholar

  49. Testimony of Richard Barnett, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, Ozone Depletion, the Greenhouse Effect, and Climate Change: Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees on Environmental Protection and Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Substances, 100th Congress, 1st sess., 1987.Google Scholar

  50. “DuPont Position Statement on the Chlorofluorocarbon-Ozone-Greenhouse Issues,” Environmental Conservation 13 (Winter 1986), pp. 363–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  51. Department of State, “Principles for an International Protocol on Stratospheric Ozone Protection,” mimeograph, 3 11 1986, p. 1.Google Scholar

  52. See ibid.; and Department of State, “U.S. Position Paper, UNEP Ozone Layer Protocol Negotiations, Second Session: February 23–27, 1987, Vienna, Austria,” mimeograph, 19 02 1987Google Scholar. Consumption was to be calculated according to the following formula: production – exports + imports – amounts destroyed.

  53. See “Nations Move Closer to Global Consensus on Protection of Stratospheric Ozone Layer,” International Environment Reporter, 13 05 1987, p. 195.Google Scholar

  54. See Negroponte, John D., “Protecting the Ozone Layer,” Department of State Bulletin, no. 2123, 06 1987, p. 59.Google Scholar

  55. Benedick, Richard E., “The Ozone Treaty: Acting Before the Disaster,” Washington Post, 4 01 1988, p. A13.Google Scholar

  56. U.S. Congress, Senate bills 570 and 571, 100th Congress, 1st sess., 1987.Google Scholar

  57. Congressional Record, Senate proceedings, 8 10 1986, p. S15679Google Scholar. At a congressional hearing in May 1987, Chafee asked Benedick if his bills helped in the negotiations for a strong treaty, and Benedick responded affirmatively.

  58. U.S. Congress, Senate resolution 226, 100th Congress, 1st less., 1987.Google Scholar

  59. Benedick, Richard E., “International Efforts to Protect the Stratospheric Ozone Layer,” U.S. Department of State Current Policy, no. 931, 1987.Google Scholar

  60. See “The Environmental Agenda and Foreign Policy,” U.S. Department of State Current Policy, no. 943, 1987Google Scholar; and Negroponte, , “Protecting the Ozone Layer,” p. 59.Google Scholar

  61. Lewis, Paul, “Borderline Protection,” The New York Times, 12 04 1987, p. E26.Google Scholar

  62. U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, “An Analysis of the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer,” 1 02 1988, p. 36.Google Scholar

  63. Johnston, Kathy, “Europe Agrees to Act for Protection of the Ozone Layer,” Nature 326 (03 1987), p. 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  64. See Doniger, David, “Politics of the Ozone Layer,” Issues in Science and Technology 4 (Spring 1988), p. 90;Google Scholar and Dickman, Steven, “West Germany Strives Toward CFC Elimination by 2000,” Nature 327 (05 1987), p. 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  65. Block, Paula M., “UN Focuses on Ozone Levels,” Chemical Week, 13 05 1987, p. 8.Google Scholar

  66. See “Nations Move Closer to Global Consensus on Protection of Stratospheric Ozone Layer,” p. 198.

  67. See “Council Discusses Global Efforts to Protect the Stratospheric Ozone Layer,” International Environment Reporter, 10 06 1987, p. 276.Google Scholar

  68. See Benedick, , Ozone Diplomacy, p. 36Google Scholar. EC positions were initially formulated in a committee composed of the past, present, and future chairs of the EC Committee of Environmental Ministers, all of whom serve six-month terms. With Britain's absence, this committee could support more stringent controls; however, Britain could still block votes in the full committee, which operated by consensus.

  69. UNEP, “Ad Hoc Scientific Meeting to Compare Model-Generated Assessments of Ozone Layer Change for Various Strategies for CFC Control,” UNEP/WG 167/INF 1, 1987.Google Scholar

  70. Interview with an official at the U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C., 23 03 1988.Google Scholar

  71. Johnston, Kathy, “First Steps in Ozone Protection Agreed,” Nature 329 (09 1987), p. 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  72. Watson, R. T., Prather, M. J., and Kurylo, M. J., Present State of Knowledge of the Upper Atmosphere, 1988: An Assessment Report (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1988).Google Scholar

  73. See “EPA Chief Asks for a Total Ban on Ozone-Harming Chemicals,” The New York Times, 27 09 1988, p. A20;Google Scholar and Zurer, Pamela, “EPA Calls for a Total Ban on Chlorofluorocarbons,” Chemical and Engineering News, 3 10 1988, p. 8.Google Scholar

  74. See “Ninety-Three Countries Agree to Ban Chemicals That Harm Ozone,” The New York Times, 30 06 1990, p. 1.Google Scholar

  75. See “London Conference on the Ozone Layer,” Financial Times, 7 03 1989, p. 14Google Scholar. The Federation of European Aerosol Manufacturers concluded a voluntary agreement for a 90 percent reduction in the use of CFCs in aerosols used in 1990. See “April in the EEC,” Economist, 29 04 1989, p. 148;Google Scholar“More Companies to Phase Out Peril to Ozone,” The New York Times, 11 10 1989, p. A27;Google Scholar and Roan, , Ozone Crisis, pp. 242–43Google Scholar. Various U.S. municipalities banned the use of foam plastic food containers made with CFCs. See “EPA Plan May Allow Delays in Clean Air Rule,” The New York Times, 24 09 1987, p. 14.Google Scholar

  76. Manzer, L. E., “The CFC-Ozone Issue: Progress on the Development of Alternatives to CFCs,” Science 249 (07 1990), pp. 31–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

  77. See Glas, Joseph P., “Protecting the Ozone Layer: A Perspective from Industry,” in Ausubel, Jesse H. and Sladovich, Hedy E., eds., Technology and Environment (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1989), p. 150;Google ScholarRoan, , Ozone Crisis, pp. 242–43;Google ScholarTheys, Jacques, Faucheux, Sylvie, and Noel, Jean-Francois, “La guerre de l'ozone” (The ozone war), Futuribles, 10 1988, pp. 67–73Google Scholar; and U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation and Office of Program Development, “How Industry Is Reducing Dependence on Ozone-Depleting Chemicals,” 06 1988.Google Scholar

  78. For comparative studies of science policy and for discussions of patterns of technical advice to policymakers, see Brickman, Ronald, Jasanoff, Sheila, and Ilgen, Thomas, Controlling Chemicals (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Vogel, David, National Styles of Regulation (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1986), p. 181;Google ScholarJasanoff, Sheila, Risk Management and Political Culture (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1986)Google Scholar; and Hoberg, George Jr, “Risk, Science and Politics: Alachlor Regulation in Canada and the United States,” Canadian Journal of Political Science 23 (06 1990), pp. 257–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For studies of the United States, see Dietz, Thomas M. and Rycroft, Robert, The Risk Professionals (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1987)Google Scholar; and Hays, Samuel P., Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955–1985 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).Google Scholar

  79. Jasanoff, , Risk Management and Political Culture, p. 30.Google Scholar

  80. SORG, Stratospheric Ozone: First Report (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1987).Google Scholar

  81. See Lean, Geoffrey, “Cancer-Causing Hole in the Sky Is Man-Made,” The Observer, 6 09 1987, p. 3.Google Scholar

  82. SORG, Stratospheric Ozone, 1988 (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1988).Google Scholar

  83. House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, The Ozone Layer: Implementing the Montreal Protocol, H.L. Paper 94, 17th Report, 1987–88 session (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1988).Google Scholar

  84. Margaret Thatcher, cited by Lean, Geoffrey in “Tories Plan ‘Green Bill,’” The Observer, 2 10 1988, p. 1.Google Scholar

  85. Hunt, John, “Conference Urges Faster Action on CFCs,” Financial Times, 8 03 1989.Google Scholar

  86. See “The Greening of Margaret Thatcher,” Economist, 11 03 1989, pp. 55–56Google Scholar; and Lean, Geoffrey, “Ozone: UN Acts to Tighten Controls,” The Observer, 5 03 1989, p. 2.Google Scholar

  87. See Burke, Tom, “The Year of the Greens,” Environment 31 (11 1989), p. 20;Google Scholar and “The Greening of British Politics,” Economist, 3 03 1990, p. 49.Google Scholar

  88. For a list of French research, see Secretariat d'Etat a l'Environnement, “La protection de la couche d'ozone” (The protection of the ozone layer), Paris, 1989.

  89. See “London Conference on the Ozone Layer,” p. 14.

  90. Ehrlichman, James, “Stores Drop Ozone Carriers,” Guardian, 28 07 1988, p. 3.Google Scholar

  91. See Peterson, Cass, “Administration Ozone Policy May Favor Sunglasses, Hats,” Washington Post, 29 05 1977, pp. 1 and 26;Google Scholar and Crawford, Mark, “Ozone Plan: Tough Bargaining Ahead,” Science 237 (09 1987), p. 1099Google Scholar. I have, however, been assured that the statement about personal protection was incorrectly attributed to Hodel and was actually made by someone from another department at an Office of Management and Budget briefing.

  92. Interviews with DuPont executives, Wilmington, Del., 21 07 1988.Google Scholar

  93. Glaberson, William, “Science at Center Stage in DuPont Ozone Shift,” The New York Times, 26 03 1988, pp. 41 and 43.Google Scholar

  94. See Hounsell, David A. and Smith, John Kenly Jr, Science and Corporate Strategy: DuPont R&D, 1902–1980 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988)Google Scholar; and Chandler, Alfred D. Jr, Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1962).Google Scholar

  95. See Shea, Cynthia Pollock, “Why DuPont Gave Up $600 Million,” The New York Times, 10 04 1988, section 3, p. 2Google Scholar. CFCs may actually have accounted for slightly more of DuPont's profits, since its CFC plants were well established and required little maintenance.

  96. Interviews with officials at the OMB and the Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 23 03 1988.Google Scholar

  97. See Renner, Michael, “A Green Tide Sweeps Europe,” Worldwatch 3 (01–02 1990), pp. 23–27Google Scholar; Parkin, Sara, Green Parties: An International Guide (London: Heretic Books, 1989); and “The Greening of British Politics,” pp. 49–50.Google Scholar