Day 011 - 12 Jul 94 - Page 63


     
     1   MR. MORRIS:  But in 1985/86 there was hard, solid evidence,
              whether before that there was none or not, that CFC
     2        production, broadly, was causing catastrophic effects
              which could lead to an increase in skin cancers and other
     3        problems?
              A.  With respect, in 1986 there was hard evidence there
     4        was, in fact, depletion of the Antarctic ozone layer.  The
              link between that and the CFCs were suspected but not
     5        proven.
 
     6   Q.   So why has not CFC production been banned, whether it was
              1986 or 1990 or 1993, why has it not been banned?
     7        A.  If you look at the Montreol Protocol and its
              revisions, you can see that, effectively, the CFC
     8        production in countries which have subscribed the protocol
              has, in fact, been banned.  If you were try to buy some of
     9        the CFCs in the United Kingdom, you would discover in
              about two months time they are no longer available.
    10
         Q.   So it has finally now effectively been banned in the UK?
    11        A.  Yes.
 
    12   Q.   So why has HCFCs not been banned?
              A.  The HCFC has not been banned because in the opinion of
    13        the people who gave the advice to the politicians who
              signed the treaties that it should be allowed as basically
    14        a substance which, again to make sure I get the notation
              correctly, it can be as used a transitional substance i.e.
    15        one which can be used in temporary basis to replace
              existing refrigerants until such time as the refrigeration
    16        and other machinery can be adapted to work in a different
              way.
    17
         Q.   So where there are alternatives, as someone concerned with
    18        the ozone depletion, if there are alternatives available
              they should be used?
    19        A.  Yes.
 
    20   Q.   Yes.  There certainly are alternative blowing agents in
              the plastics industry, is that correct, so far as you can
    21        see?
              A.  Yes.
    22
         Q.   Those alternatives have been there since 1987, or
    23        whenever, since the Montreal Protocol?
              A.  It has been possible to use other blowing agents.  If
    24        you look at the depositions, you will discover that
              because they actually form the plastic differently, not
    25        necessarily all the work on the physical processes of
              plastic blowing has been completed with the alternative 
    26        blowing agents. 
  
    27   Q.   Surely, Mr. Duxbury -- I am not questioning your
              scientific expertise; I certainly would not dare to -- but
    28        as someone who is concerned about this problem of the
              ozone layer, would you not say it is grossly irresponsible
    29        for HCFC production to have claimed to be an alternative
              to CFCs when there were other alternatives that did not
    30        damage the ozone layer, now looking in hindsight, may be?
              A.  I am basically not an engineer.  I would put it to you

Prev Next Index