Day 201 - 15 Dec 95 - Page 13
1 MR. MORRIS: No. We have heard a great deal about CFCs and
2 HCFCs ---
3
4 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I know we have.
5
6 MR. MORRIS: -- in the pleadings.
7
8 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Is there anything which I have missed in the
9 particulars which refers to paper making, apart from that
10 general point?
11
12 MR. MORRIS: Yes, page 4 in the meaning ---
13
14 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I have that as well.
15
16 MR. MORRIS: -- "(B) For many years the First and Second
17 Plaintiffs used materials for food packaging which were
18 harmful to the environment. The First and Second
19 Plaintiffs continued to use packaging which was harmful to
20 the environment."
21
22 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I have that. What troubles me is, those
23 matters are pleaded, but where is there anything in the
24 leaflet -- you can plead whatever you like, but where is
25 there anything in the leaflet which actually brings in the
26 topic of wood pulp processing?
27
28 MR. MORRIS: It is not mentioned specifically, but obviously in
29 the section that you refer to about "It takes 800 square
30 miles of forest just to keep them supplied with paper for
31 one year", and next, under "Colonial Invasion", it
32 says: "Not only McDonald's, but many other corporations
33 contribute to a major ecological catastrophe",
34 et cetera, "forcing troubled peoples off their ancestral
35 territories". Then we would submit that part of the
36 ecological catastrophe being caused by McDonald's and
37 others is the result of the production of paper packaging.
38 Therefore, Ms. Link's evidence is relevant and useful in
39 identifying how the paper production process is damaging to
40 the environment.
41
42 You cannot really separate one aspect of packaging
43 production, such as the CFCs, and the other, which is paper
44 production, the effect of chlorination of paper on the
45 environment, because the problem for McDonald's packaging
46 is that because of the scale of it and the choices which
47 they have made, whether it is paper production or styrene
48 production, it is damaging to the environment; and we
49 should be able to make that point clearly. Otherwise it
50 will be said: "Well, they are moving towards paper
51 production, so everything is fine and, you know, CFCs are
52 being dropped", or whatever. The point is that that
53 statement about major ecological catastrophe we would argue
54 applies as much to their paper production as to the effects
55 of cattle ranching.
56
57 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Is there anything you want to say in addition
58 to that with regard to incineration?
59
60 MR. MORRIS: I mean, again, it is something that Mr. Lipsett
