Day 011 - 12 Jul 94 - Page 75


     
     1        any further on it.
 
     2   MISS STEEL:  I have one question.  Could you get your statement
              at page 6?
     3        A.  Yes.
 
     4   Q.   This is going back to what we have called the numbers
              game.  Do you consider 23.7 tonnes of HCFCs which were
     5        used in 1991 to be a significant amount?
              A.  In terms of the worldwide usage of the chemicals at
     6        that time, no.
 
     7   Q.   You do not think that .2 per cent which is 1/500ths of
              everybody's use of HCFCs in the world is a large amount?
     8        A.  It was .02 per cent, not .2 per cent.  The answer is
              no.  Are we talking about 1988 or 1991?  In 1988 it was
     9        significant, but the whole point of those figures is that
              the speed with which they were phased out which is a
    10        three-year period to produce a 10-fold reduction is an
              extremely rapid phase out.
    11
         Q.   The amount they were using in 1988 you would accept was
    12        significant?
              A.  Yes.
    13
                             Re-Examined by Mr. Rampton.
    14
         Q.   I am taking these questions in order in which they arose
    15        in the course of your cross-examination, so I am afraid
              they will not have any structure to them.  First, taking
    16        chlorine loading, the orange bundle I (my Lord, this is
              for reference) tab C, which is the SORG report for 1990.
    17        A.  Yes.
 
    18   Q.   Page 16.
              A.  Yes.
    19
         Q.   The conclusion at the bottom of the right-hand column.
    20        You told us earlier that 1990 was the first time that SORG
              put its finger on chlorine loading, overall chlorine
    21        loading in the atmosphere as being the right measure?
              A.  Yes.
    22
         Q.   Can you read to yourself paragraph 2.4 on this page and
    23        the next.  It does not take very long.
              A.  Yes.
    24
         Q.   Does that adequately summarise the approach offered by
    25        chlorine loading as opposed to ozone depletion potential?
              A.  Yes. 
    26 
         Q.   Can I ask you another question in relation to 
    27        polystyrene?  Do you know whether or not -- you have a
              background as a chemist after all -- polystyrene releases
    28        methane in a landfill site?
              A.  I am not sure about the details of the degradation of
    29        polystyrene, so I cannot comment.
 
    30   Q.   When you told us that the use of pentane as a blowing
              agent made a comparatively small contribution to the

Prev Next Index