Day 010 - 11 Jul 94 - Page 69
1
Q. Mr. Lipsett, please understand something?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. What people say or what we read out about what other
people have said or did not say, does not prove anything;
4 what matters is what was the truth at the time?
A. Well, essentially, then what my point is, is that our
5 relationship -- this goes to the truth of our relationship
with these environmental organisations in at least the
6 specific sense. If you flip to the back side of that page
hopefully, or the next page, we asked them for comments --
7 actually starting on the page previously -- David Doniger,
NRDC's representative, says: "I did not see that we had
8 any leverage on them to say you all ought to go to
cardboard. And EDF Michael Oppenheimer admits that CFC and
9 HCFC are the same chemical and that chemical is capable of
destroying ozone in the stratosphere".
10
We wrote them after this article came out and Doniger
11 responded by denying, they condoned the deception. This
is part of the issue here, the deception that McDonald's,
12 that more notes in McDonald's use of CFCs free on their
liner, on their trays in their restaurants.
13
Q. It is not part of the issue here. That is not for you to
14 decide, Mr. Lipsett; that is for his Lordship.
A. I am sorry.
15
Q. What is in issue in this case is not for you to decide; it
16 is for the judge to decide.
A. Forgive me, please. EDF, director Fred Crup defended
17 his part in the industry negotiations. We do not condone
the semantic games played on this issue, but the basic
18 fact remains that one industry decided to act responsibly.
FPI and McDonald's deserve criticism for over-stating
19 their environmental accomplishments so far, but also
praise for taking a 95 per cent step towards solving 100
20 per cent of a serious environmental problem. Friends of
the Earth did not reply to Paul Preston". We were
21 concerned at the time ----
22 Q. Mr. Lipsett, I am sorry, we have a limited amount of
time. If I do not finish my cross-examination this
23 afternoon, you will have to come back tomorrow. I do not
know if that is inconvenient or not. I am not trying to
24 threaten you. My question originally was -- I will put it
a different way -- the Natural Resources Defence Council,
25 the Environmental Defence Fund and the Friends of the
Earth warmly applauded McDonald's decision, amongst others
26 in the industry, to move from CFC-11 and 12 to HCFC-22,
did they not?
27 A. That is true.
28 Q. Are you suggesting that their approval of that change was
simply a result of the fact they had been conned by the
29 industry's scientists?
A. No.
30
Q. That is in April 1988. Do you accept that in April 1988
