TL: PROFIT$ OUT OF THIN AIR Du Pont and Ozone Destruction SO: Greenpeace Canada (GP) DT: March 1992 Keywords: greenpeace reports canada atmosphere du pont multinationals cfcs production ozone reductions gp profits business profiles history / Copies of this paper are available from Greenpeace. Vancouver 1726 Commercial Drive Vancouver British Columbia Canada V5N 4A3 Toronto 185 Spadina Avenue Toronto, Ontario Canada M5T 2C6 Montreal 2444 Notre-Dame ouest Montreal (Quebec) Canada H3J 1N5 A Paper Prepared by Greenpeace Canada Produced By: David Robbins, Sarita Srivastava, Andrea Imada March, 1992 The Earth's ozone layer is being destroyed. At a press conference on February 3, 1992, a team of NASA scientists released disturbing findings about the state of the earth's atmosphere. They predicted that the formation of an Arctic ozone hole is all but certain. A hole in the ozone layer was discovered over Antarctica in 1985. #1. Based on the NASA data, Environment Canada anticipated 15% ozone depletion in the spring of 1992, over southern Canada. #2. In 1974, scientists sounded the first ozone destruction warning bell. They discovered that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), invented by the Du Pont chemical company in the early 1930's, could lead to the breakdown of stratospheric ozone. In 1978, the alarm was ringing louder and worried governments in North America and Sweden instituted a ban on CFC use in aerosol cans. But chemical companies fought the ban and circumvented it by expanding their markets in other applications. Today, CFCs have become one of the best known - and feared - chemical acronyms, and the ozone destruction alarm is deafening. In response to the NASA predictions Canadian Environment Minister Jean Charest warned parents to protect their children by keeping them out of the sun. #3. Meanwhile, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) released a troubling report about the anticipated effects of ozone destruction caused by an increase in ultra violet radiation reaching the Earth. #4. Among the predicted effects on human health and the environment: increased incidence of skin cancer and eye cataracts in humans and wildlife, weakening of the human immune system, damage to plant life and agricultural crops, and damage to phytoplankton, the base of the food chain in the world's oceans. The impetus behind ozone destruction can be traced to companies such as Du Pont which remains the world's largest producer of CFCs. The executives, and shareholders of Du Pont and its subsidiaries reap the profits at the expense of the environment, wildlife and human health. These people and the companies, banks, and institutions that they represent are well-placed to speak out and stop Du Pont's ozone destroying policies. If they remain silent, they share the blame for the ozone crisis that is now before us. DU PONT: PROFITS FROM POLLUTION Du Pont is the world's inventor and largest producer of CFCs. As scientific consensus was building over the destructive nature of CFCs, the company, along with other industry players, consistently tried to cast doubt on the cause-and-effect relationship of CFCs and ozone destruction, and to block any initiatives to shut off the CFC valve. Facing international consensus on the need to eliminate CFC production, Du Pont has turned its attention to promoting its line of chemical alternatives, the ozone-destroying chemicals hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and potent greenhouse gas, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Du Pont's present ozone destroying activities echo a suspect record on environmental issues. The statistics delineating the chemical giant's polluting history build a legacy of environmental disregard. Du Pont is the United States' worst industrial polluter; the US government's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that Du Pont produced some 158 million kilograms of pollutants In 1989. #5. The monumental figure is 4.5 times that of Dow Chemical, Union Carbide, WR Grace and PPG Industries combined. #6. Du Pont's corporate connections add to the chemical tally. Friends of the Earth has estimated that, internationally, Du Pont and its subsidiaries produce a phenomenal 720,000 kilograms of pollutants a day. #7. In return, Du Pont reaps millions in profit. DU PONT AND CFCs While Du Pont promotes itself as playing a crucial and responsible role towards "an orderly transition" away from the use of CFCs, its record on the issue tells a different story. Close parallels exist in Du Pont's efforts to promote and defend both CFCs and tetra-ethyl lead (TEL), despite their impacts on human health. #8. The company ran full-page magazine ads in the 1920s defending the poisonous gasoline additive, while a growing scientific consensus cried out against the substance. In children, exposure to lead emissions has caused severe neurological damage resulting in mental retardation. The use of TEL was not regulated until the 1990s. "If production of CFCs were to be stopped abruptly, the public could be placed at risk." -- Du Pont, External Affairs Background, June 6,1990 And, in the case of CFCs, the tactics are the same and have proved effective. In the 1970s, the company defended their production of CFCs by running full-page newspaper ads proclaiming, "Should reputable evidence show that some fluorocarbons cause a health hazard through depletion of the ozone layer, we are prepared to stop production of the offending compounds." #9. The Wilmington, DE, News Journal ran a special 4-day series on E.I. Du Pont de Nemours in the summer of 1991. #10. Journalist Merritt Wallick chronicled Du Pont's defence and promotion of CFCs in the face of growing evidence of adverse environmental and human health effects associated with the chemical. Freon, the company's brand name for CFCs, was promoted as a non-toxic, "safe as water" substance that would serve human industrial needs without adverse health-effects. Wallick cites an article in the journal of the American Medical Association which describes the sudden death of over a 100 people after breathing CFCs. #11. He charges that Du Pont consistently down-played any danger for decades. "No other product we know of offers the performance characteristics, safety, and value in use of fluorocarbons." #12. --Du Pont technical director Raymond L. McCarthy,, 1976. DU PONT and Ozone Destruction For the thirteen years between the 1975 newspaper advertisements pledging action and 1988, Du Pont worked hard to deter legislation controlling the production and use of CFCs. After the aerosol ban in 1978, Du Pont deterred further legislation controlling CFCs by warning of dire economic consequences pending regulation. Charles Masten, director of Du Pont's Freon products division, said, "A production freeze could drive up prices artificially, and could affect consumer safety, energy costs and jobs." #13. In 1980, Du Pont initiated the formation of the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy, an anti-regulatory industry lobby group that found a natural ally in the Reagan administration. Anne Gorsuch, the incoming administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, dashed any hopes of further CFC regulation, saying, "additional scientific data [would be needed] before the international community would be willing to accept it as a basis for additional government action." #14. The Toronto Star reports that, in 1988, Du Pont opposed local efforts in Toronto and Vancouver to pass municipal bylaws which would regulate the sale, manufacture, use and maintenance of any machine using CFCs. The company said that such laws would bring "chaos" and actually hinder efforts to eliminate the pollutants. #15. After CFCs in non-essential aerosols were banned in 1978, Du Pont and other companies developed and expanded other uses for CFCs throughout the world. According to Friends of the Earth, "the CFC industry began to recover as world demand grew for non- aerosol uses. By the mid-1980s, demand for CFCs as refrigerants, cleaning agents, and foam insulation was beginning to offset the lost aerosol market." #16. In Canada, domestic production of CFC-11, CFC-12 and CFC-22 from 1983 to 1987 increased by 27%. #17. In 1981, anticipating cooperation within the Reagan government, Du Pont shelved its research into chemical alternatives to CFCs. According to a Harvard Business School case study, Du Pont cut its research because the company "doubted that further regulatory restrictions on CFCs were forthcoming, and because the substitutes were uniformly more expensive". #18. It was not a technological impasse that created Du Pont's research gap. Rather, it was a motive for profits. The Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to phase- out CFCs was signed in 1987. Nevertheless, Du Pont and the other companies continued to profit handsomely and to secure new CFC markets. The US EPA projected that CFC prices would rise as industry alternatives were phased in, generating additional profits of $1.8 to $7.2 billion. #19. Du Pont's earnings from fluorocarbons increased by 20% from 1989 to 1990. #20. BETTER THINGS FOR BETTER LIVING? The terms of the Montreal Protocol have until now proven to be inadequate for protecting the ozone layer. Part of the reason is that industry has succeeded in keeping its preferred chemical alternatives, HCFCs and HFCs, unregulated. Du Pont has invested millions of dollars to stay in the ozone destruction business and profit from CFC alternatives. The company now promotes the "alternative" chemicals, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), under the tradename Suva. HFCs do not deplete ozone, but are potent global warming gases, hundreds of times more powerful than carbon dioxide. "When you have $3 billion of CFCs sold worldwide and 7O per cent of that is about to be regulated out of existence, there is a tremendous market potential." #21. --Joseph Glas, Du Pont Freon division director. A recently opened plant in Maidland, Ontario, will manufacture HCFC 123, one of a class of chemicals for which Du Pont will charge 5 to 12 times more than CFCs. According to Friends of the Earth, "Freon division director Joseph Glas said Du Pont planned to sell the substitute for $4 a pound - compared to 60 cents a pound for CFC-12". #22. DON'T BE DUPED BY DU PONT AGAIN Some Better Alternatives Du Pont advertises these chemicals as "environmentally enlightened" and disingenuously describes them as "transitional substances", implying that they are part of a phase out, not an increase. Clearly, this advertising pitch is seriously misleading. The HCFCs promoted by Du Pont are really CFCs with smaller amounts of chlorine and will continue to destroy the ozone layer which has already passed the breaking point. And Du Pont plans to produce these chemicals into the middle of the 21st century. A report released in early 1992 by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) in Washington D.C. uses Du Pont's own research to show that, in the short term, HCFCs are far more damaging to the ozone layer than industry claims. For example, HCFC-22 is three to five more damaging on a 10 to 20 year time frame than Du Pont's 5% "ozone depletion potential" (ODP) indicates. #23. A more accurate measurement of a chemical's ozone destroying potential is its "chlorine loading potential" - the amount of chlorine it can deposit in the stratosphere. #24. In August 1991, Friends of the Earth released a report detailing how Du Pont was "in effect determining what the range of commercially available CFC alternatives would be". The company did so by quickly investing in, and patenting, HCFC and HFC production, and lobbying both U.S. government and business. A Du Pont submission to a United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) meeting in 1989 argues strongly that, "Regulation or potential regulation of the HCFC and HFC alternatives will delay or prohibit investments and the transition away from CFCs". #26. However, safer alternatives to these ozone destroying chemicals already exist for virtually all present uses of CFCs. A few examples: Northern Telecom has changed its circuit boards so that cleaning with CFCs is unnecessary. The company claims it will save $50 million by eliminating the CFC cleaning process. Prototype refrigeration units that use helium and hydrogen have been developed. Other technologies use ammonia, water, propane, or zeolite. Some of these alternative refrigerants, such as propane, are several times cheaper than HCFCs - but unlike HCFCs they cannot be patented. #27. Air conditioning technologies in use or in development include water evaporation, hydrogen, helium, and zeolite. "We know of no viable substitute for HCFC-22." --Du Pont representative Dwight Bedsole, speaking to a U.S. Congressional Committee, January 1990. #28. DU PONT'S ROLE IN OZONE DESTRUCTION An 18 Year Chronology 1974: Rowland and Moline's ozone-depletion theory is announced. #29. 1975: A White House Task Force announces that CFCs are "cause for concern" and may need to be restricted. #30. Oregon becomes the first state to introduce legislation banning CFCs. Others soon follow. #31. Du Pont says that the ozone depletion theory is "a science fiction tale ... a load of rubbish ... utter nonsense." #32. Du Pont says, "Should reputable evidence show that some fluorocarbons cause a health hazard through depletion of the ozone layer, we are prepared to stop production of the offending compounds." #33. 1976: Du Pont executive admits that company scientists began "wondering what was happening to fluorocarbons in the atmosphere" as early as 1970. #34. 1977: Du Pont produces 450 million pounds of CFCs for world markets. #35. 1978: The United States, Canada and Sweden ban non-essential CFC aerosols. Du Pont fought vigorously against the ban. The company soon found other applications and markets for CFCs. #36. 1979: The U.S. National Academy of Sciences warns that continued CFC use will eventually lead to 16.5% ozone loss. #37. Du Pont says "No ozone depletion has ever been detected...all ozone depletion figures to date are based on a series of uncertain projections." #38. 1980: Ronald Reagan, an advocate of corporate de-regulation, is elected president. Du Pont initiates the formation of the industry lobby group "Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy", which in 1981 warns the EPA not to create "an unnatural scarcity of CFCs". #39. 1981: DuPont shelves its research into alternatives for CFCs, anticipating no further regulation of CFCs. Meanwhile, it expands CFC production in Japan. #40. 1982: The U.S. National Academy of Sciences predicts an eventual ozone loss of 5-9%. Du Pont produces about 415 million pounds of CFCs for world markets. #41. 1985: British scientists report hole in ozone layer over Antarctica. 1986: Du Pont and the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy drop their opposition to a cap on CFC production. #42. 1987: The Montreal Protocol is signed, calling for a 50% reduction of 5 CFC compounds by 2000 and a freeze in the use of 3 halons by 1992. One year later the EPA announces that the document is completely inadequate. #43. 1988: Du Pont changes the name of CFC-22 to HCFC-22. #44. By the end of the year, Du Pont announces further research and development of HCFCs at its plants in Corpus Christie, Texas and Maitland, Ontario. #45. On March 4th, Du Pont Chair Richard E. Heckert writes to U.S. senators, saying, at the moment, scientific evidence does not point to the need for dramatic CFC emission reductions." #46. On March 15th, NASA's Ozone Trends Panel releases further proof that CFCs have damaged the ozone layer. #47. On March 24th, Du Pont calls total phase-out of CFCs by 2000 "prudent". #48. 1989: Ozone depletion over the Arctic is reported. #49. Du Pont plans to continue promoting HCFCs for at least the next 50 years. #50. 1990: Studies published in Nature find that HCFCs, promoted by Du Pont as alternatives to CFCs, will also have to be phased out as they are ozone-depleters as well as global warming gases. One of the studies is sponsored in part by Du Pont. #51. The Montreal Protocol is modified, but still allows for continued ozone depletion. The agreement calls for a 100% phase- out of CFCs by the year 2000 in industrialized countries, and by the year 2010 in developing countries. HCFCs and HFCs remain unregulated. The EPA states that a 10-year delay in CFC phaseout, and less than 100% worldwide participation, would result in an extra fifty years of peak chlorine levels in the stratosphere. #51. The ozone hole over Antarctica worsens. Du Pont produces about 460 million pounds of CFC-11, CFC-12 and HCFC22,45 million pounds more than in 1982. #53. 1991: In April, NASA scientists announce findings that ozone depletion over North America is two to three times worse than previously predicted. Du Pont persists in its plans for HCFCs and opens a new manufacturing plant in Maitland, Ontario even though they will contribute to global warming as well as ozone depletion. #54. For the first time UNEP Report warns of ozone depletion in mid- latitudes, during summer months, increasing the dangers of ultra-violet radiation. #55. Claiming to be responsive to the mounting scientific evidence against CFCs, Du Pont announces that it will stop the production of CFCs by 1997 in developed countries. DuPont refused to place before its shareholders a resolution asking the company to stop making CFCs and halons before 1995. #56. 1992: A NASA report documents large amounts of chlorine over mid-northern latitudes, including Canada and the U.S., which indicates the likelihood of severe ozone depletion. #57. UNEP releases a report predicting that increased ultraviolet radiation will have serious effects on ocean and plant life, and human health, including "profound influences" on the human immune system. #58. Canadian Environment Minister Jean Charest warns that it would be "prudent" to keep out of the sun. #59. The Canadian government begins issuing UV radiation warnings on March 11, 1992. THE CANADIAN FACE OF DU PONT At the end of 1990, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours employed over 140,000 people worldwide in various endeavours, including chemicals, fibres, polymers, petroleum, coal and "diversified business". As of 31 December 1990, the Wilmington, DE based company held 76.9% of the over 30 million shares in Du Pont of Canada Inc. Like its American parent, Du Pont Canada was initially a gunpowder company, selling blasting powder to the railways and enjoying brisk business during wartime. In Canada today it has 11 plants and offices, manufacturing chemicals, fibres, plastics and films. At the end of 1991, Du Pont Canada reported a net income of over $56 million. Who Shares The Blame The Canadian face of Du Pont includes people who are the executives, directors and major share-holders of Du Pont and its subsidiaries. They, in turn, are linked to numerous other companies, banks, and academic institutions. When an individual sits on the boards of both Du Pont and another company, it can be an indication of a vital relationship between the companies. These interlocks are part of a network of alliances that help Du Pont operate in the corporate world. All individuals that are part of this alliance share the responsibility for Du Pont's policies. Seagram's Hold On Du Pont The dominant shareholder in E.I. Du Pont de Nemours is the Montreal-based Seagram Company, which holds 24.5% of its shares. Of the eighteen people who sit on the board of E.I. Du Pont de Nemours, seven also sit on the board of Seagram. They include Seagram CEO Edgar M. Bronfman, president and chief operating officer Edgar Bronfman, Jr., co-chair Charles R. Bronfman, and Canadian Senator Ernest Leo Kolber. Senator Kolber is also a director of Cineplex Odeon Corporation and the Toronto-Dominion Bank. The board of directors of Du Pont Canada includes three executives of E.I. du Pont de Nemours: Elwood P Blanchard, Jr., is vice-president of the parent company's board; J. Edward Newall is senior vice-president of the Agricultural Products Department; and John J. Quindlen is senior vice-president of finance as well as chief financial officer. Also on the Du Pont Canada board is Arnold M. Ludwick, Deputy Chair of Joseph E. Seagram and Sons, Ltd. and vice-president of The Seagram Company, Ltd.. The circle of connections from the Seagram Company, Ltd. to E.I. Du Pont de Nemours to Du Pont Canada is thus complete. Du Pont Canada's Corporate Ties Some of Du Pont Canada's directors play significant roles on other boards. (See appendix A for a more comprehensive listing.) For example, Michael F. Belanger is also a director of Hydro- Quebec and Inco Ltd.; Dr. Wendy K. Dobson is also a director of IBM; Gordon E Osbaldeston is also on the boards of Bell Canada and The Molson Companies. They are also directors of major Canadian banks: Osbaldeston and Belanger sit on the board of The National Bank of Canada, while Dobson is a director of The Toronto-Dominion Bank. Osbaldeston is a senior fellow at the University of Western Ontario, and Dobson is a senior fellow at the University of Toronto. As shown above, there are a number of individuals that are tied to Du Pont through interlocking directorates and shareholdings. If destruction of the ozone layer is to cease, we must pressure these individuals to take a stand, and push Du Pont to ban CFCs, HCFCs and HFCS. If they continue to support, or condone by their silence, Du Pont's dangerous policies, they are part of the problem. GREENPEACE DEMANDS THAT DU PONT: Bring and immediate end to production of CFCs and HCFCs, and the potent global warming gases, HFCs; Promote the use of safe alternatives to CFCs, such as helium refrigeration and water based solvents and cooling systems; Inform citizens of the long-term damage to people's health and the environment from ozone-destroying chemicals. END NOTES NOTE: Appendices A and B are not complete lists. SOURCES for appendices A and B: The Financial Post Directory of Directors, 1991, Du Pont Canada Annual Report, 1990, The Seagram Company Ltd. Annual Report 1991. Appendix A DIRECTORS: DU PONT OF CANADA INC. Michel E Belanger: Director of Du Pont Canada, Hydro-Quebec, Canadian Pacific Forests Products, Ltd., National Bank of Canada. Elwood P. Blanchard, Jr.: Vice-Chair of the Board of Directors, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.. Wendy K. Dobson: Director of Du Pont Canada, IBM, Pratt & Whitney Canada Inc., Toronto-Dominion Bank, Senior Fellow, Faculty of Management at the University of Toronto. Arnold M. Ludwick: Director of Du Pont Canada, President and CEO of Claridge Inc. (Seagram's holding company), Deputy Chair of Joseph E. Seagram and Sons, Ltd., Vice-President of The Seagram Company Ltd.. Gerald J. Maier: Director of Du Pont Canada, BCE Inc.; Policy Committee Member Business Council on National Issues. Donald S. McGiverin: Director of Du Pont Canada, The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, Noranda Inc.; The Wellesley Hospital. J. Edward Newall: Chair and (outgoing) CEO of Du Pont Canada, Senior Vice-President, Agricultural Products, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Chair of Business Council on National Issues. Hon. Gordon F. J. Osbaldeston, PC., O.C.: Director of Du Pont Canada, Bell Canada, Bow Valley Industries, Ltd.; National Bank of Canada; Senior Fellow, School of Business Administration, University of Western Ontario. John J. Quindlen: Director of Du Pont Canada, Senior Vice-President, Finance, and Chief Financial Officer, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.. George T Richardson: Director of Du Pont Canada, Inco Ltd., Honourary Chairman, Richardson Greenshields of Canada Ltd.. Elvie L. Smith: Director of Du Pont Canada, Chair of Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc.. Cordon R. Wittman: President and Chief Operating Officer of Du Pont Canada. Appendix B DIRECTORS: THE SEAGRAM COMPANY Edgar M. Bronfman: Chair of the Board and CEO of Seagram. Charles R. Bronfman: O.C.: Co-Chair of the Board and Chair of the Executive Committee of Seagram. Edgar Bronfman: Jr.:President and Chief Operating Officer of Seagram. David M. Culver: C.C.: Director of Seagram, American Express Co., American Cyanamid Co.; Trustee of the Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific; Honourary Chair and Policy Committee Member of the Business Council on National Issues. William G. Davis: PC., C.C., Q.C.: Director of Seagram, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Honeywell Ltd., Power Corporation of Canada. Paul Desmarais: C.C.: Director of Seagram, Chair and CEO of Power Corporation. Marie-Josee Drouin: Director of Seagram. A. Jean de Grandpre: C.C., Director of Seagram, Bell Canada, Northern Telecom; Chancellor of McGill University. Alain de Gunzburg: Director of Seagram, Chair of the Board of G.H. Mumm & Co. (a subsidiary of Seagram). Richard E. Heckert: Director of Seagram; Chair, Finance Committee of E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company. David L. Johnston, O.C.: Director of Seagram, Southam Inc.; The Canada Trust Co.; Principal and Vice-Chancellor of McGill University. Ernest Leo Kolber: Director of Seagram, Cineplex Odeon, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Co.;Toronto-Dominion Bank. C. Edward Medland: Corporate Director of Seagram, President of Beauwood Investments, Director of Abitibi-Price, Inc,. Neil E Philips, Q.C.: Director of Seagram. David G. Sacks: Vice Chair of Seagram. John L. Weinberg: Director of Seagram. Edgar S. Woolard, Jr.: Chair of the Board and CEO of E.I. Du Pont de Nemours. REFERENCES 1. US National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA), press release, Feb. 3 1992. 2. David Wardle, Environment Canada, personal communication, Feb. 7, 1992 3. P. Poirier, "Keep Children Out of Sun: Charest Warns'," Globe&Mail, February 8, 1992. 4. United Nations Environment Programme, "Environmental Effects of Ozone Depletion", November, 1991. 5. US Environmental Protection Agency,"Toxic Release Inventory", 1989: compiled by Friends of the earth. 6. Ibid. 7. J. Doyle, Hold the Applause! A Case Study of Corporate Environmentalism as Practised at Du Pont, Friends of the Earth, Washington, D.C., August, 191, P.19. 8. Curtis Moore, "Du Pont's Duplicity: Profiting at the Planet's Expense", Multinational Monitor, March 1990, pp. 13-17. 9. Du Pont advertisement, New York Times, 30 June 1975. 1O. Merritt Wallick,"CFCs: Du Pont's Safety Whitewash," News- Journal, Wilmington, DE: 25-28 August 1991. 11. Journal of the American Medical Association, June 23, 1970, cited in Wallick, op. cit., p. 2. 12. Business Week, Industrial Edition, 14 June, 1976. 13. Du Pont press release, 15 April, 1980. 14. Cited in Doyle, op. cit. p. 38. 15. Toronto Star, 1 December 1988. 16. Doyle, op. cit., p. 37. 17. Corpus Information Services, "Fluoromethanes Product Profile," Don Mills, 1989, p. 2. 18. Cited in Doyle, op. cit., p. 39 19. U.S. EPA, "Proposed Rules", 12 August 1988, cited in Doyle, op. cit., p. 44. 20. Du Pont Canada, Annual Report, 1990. 21. M. Gladwell, "Du Pont Plans to Make CFC Alternative", Washington Post, September 30, 1988. 22. Doyle, op. cit., p.39. 23. Makhijani A, Gurney K, Makhijani A, (1992) Saving Our Skins: The causes and consequences of ozone layer depletion and policies for its restoration and protection, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Washington DC. 24. Stratospheric Ozone Review Group, 1990, United Kingdom. 25. Doyle, op. cit., p. 50. 26. Du Pont Company, "Fluorocarbon/Ozone Update", Wilmington DE, August 1989, p 6. 27. D MacKenzie, 'Cheaper alternatives for CFCs', New Scientist, June 1990 28. D. Bedsole, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Testimony Before the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, U.S. House of Representatives, January 25, 1990. 29. See John Cribbin, The Hole In The Sky, New York, N.Y.: Dell Publishing Group, 1988. 30. Doyle, Op. Cit. p.56. 31. Chemical Week. 1 October 1975. 32. Du Pont Chair Scorer, Chemical Week, 16 July 1975. 33. Du Pont Advertisement, New York Times, 30 June 1975. 34. Roy L. Schuyler, Vice-President and General Manager of Du Pont's organic chemicals department, Business Week, 5 April 1976. 35. Doyle, op. cit., p. 56. 36. Doyle, op. cit., pp. 37-39. 37. Doyle, op. cit. p. 56. 38. Ibid. 39.Alliance Chair E. Douglas Kenna, Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy, press release, 25 February 1981. 40. Du Pont Flourocarbon/Ozone Update, March 1987, cited in Doyle, op. cit. p. 39. 41. Doyle, op. cit., p. 39. 42. Wallick, op. cit., p. 6. 43. J.S. Hoffman and M.J. Gibbs, "Future Concentrations of Stratospheric Chlorine and Bromine", U.S. EPA, 1988. 44. Kathy Forte, Du Pont spokesperson, in Curtis Moore's "Du Pont's Duplicity: Profiting at the Planet's Expense", Multinational Monitor, March 1990, p. 14. 45. Sharon L. Roan, Ozone Crisis, New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1990, p. 231; Du Pont Canada position paper, Focus on Ozone, 1988, p. 3. 46. Wallick, op. cit.. 47. Roan, op. cit., p. 231. 48. Wallick, op. cit.. 49. Doyle, op. cit., p. 57. 50. Du Pont, "Fluorocarbon/Ozone Update", op. cit., 1989. 51 .Chemical Marketing Reporter, 9 April 1990. 52. Greenpeace International, The Failure of the Montreal Protocol, Amsterdam: Tradewinds Printers, June 1990 p. 3. 53. Doyle, op. cit., p. 57. 54. Tony Vogelsberg, Environmental Manager for Du Pont Fluorochemical, Associated Press, 21 January 1991. 55. UNEP, op. cit.. 56. Global Environmental Change Report, 19 April 1991. 57. NASA, press release, 3 February 1992. 58. UNEP, press release, 6 February 1992. 59. Globe and Mail, 8 February 1992, p.. A1.