U.S. Assailed for Opposing Ozone Aid Pact

Key allies of the United States warned Wednesday that the Bush Administration’s opposition to a new aid package that would help Third World countries switch to ozone-friendly chemicals could jeopardize efforts to repair the widening hole in the Earth’s ozone layer.

At a meeting in Geneva sponsored by the United Nations to amend an accord on the ozone problem, delegates from Japan, Australia and European countries roundly criticized American opposition to the proposed $100-million aid program.

On Wednesday, a U.S. delegation led by U.S. Ambassador Richard Smith officially announced its opposition to a proposal to help Third World countries pay the higher cost of switching to substitutes for ozone-damaging chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) when they become available.

But delegates to the conference said that unless financially pressed developing countries such as China and India are persuaded to join an international accord to limit use and production of CFCs, planned cutbacks by industrialized countries will be futile.

Neither India nor China has ratified the accord, known as the Montreal Protocol, and both are committed to raising their standards of living by making refrigeration widely available to their burgeoning populations. CFCs are used as coolants in refrigerators and air conditioners. Although substitutes are being developed that are less harmful to the Earth’s ozone layer, they will be more expensive.

Deputy White House Press Secretary Roman Popadiuk said in Washington on Wednesday that the Bush Administration sees no need for additional funding to deal with the problem.

“At this time the resources are sufficient,” he said. “We do not feel it is sensible to set up new financial mechanisms with new rules, regulations and procedures. . . .”

The position reportedly was formulated by White House Chief of Staff John H. Sununu and Richard G. Darman, director of the Office of Management and Budget, over the objections of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chief William K. Reilly.

An official observer at the meeting said from Geneva on Wednesday that the U.S. position also would place the Administration against tough new restrictions on ozone-destroying chemicals.

He explained that the aid program and the new restrictions, which the United States has supported, are scheduled to be voted on together at a major ozone accord conference in London next month.

“There’s only going to be one vote, up or down, on the entire package of amendments,” said David Doniger, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Doniger said the United States had “isolated” itself, and he quoted a delegate from Norway as calling the decision “mind-boggling. . . . Not even the Japanese backed America. The U.S. position amounts to making Third World countries rob Peter to pay Paul.”

Representatives of numerous Third World countries are scheduled to address the Geneva conference today.

At a separate conference last month in New Delhi, about 20 developing countries from Asia, Africa and Latin America met to forge a united front before the London conference and called for the financial aid.

Even before the United States announced its opposition to the package, it had been accused of acting too slowly on global environmental proposals.

At a conference called by Bush in Washington last month, the President irritated some European participants by focusing on the scientific uncertainties of global warming instead of pressing for immediate action.

In Washington on Wednesday, 12 Republican senators led by Sen. John H. Chafee of Rhode Island urged Bush to rethink the decision. “Our negotiating team has isolated the U.S. and placed us in an untenable position,” the senators said. They noted that the U.S. share of the fund would be $25 million over three years.

“For this small amount, the United States is threatening to disrupt the negotiations to strengthen the protocol. There has rarely been, we believe, a better example of being penny-wise and pound-foolish.”

Criticism also came from several Senate Democrats, including Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut and Albert Gore of Tennessee, who called the position “shortsighted and just plain outrageous.”

Times staff writers James Gerstenzang and William Eaton in Washington contributed to this story.