Day 011 - 12 Jul 94 - Page 29


     
     1   Q.   That is what it says.  I take it that you have read the
              Montreal Protocol.
     2        A.   Yes.
 
     3   Q.   It has been modified from time to time as the years have
              gone by, has it not?
     4        A.   It has been modified significantly.
 
     5   Q.   Broadly speaking, in what ways has it been modified?
              A.   It has been modified in three ways.  First, the
     6        original estimates of the phase- out time have been
              greatly reduced.  Secondly, a range of other substances
     7        have been included, one of the most significant of which
              in fact is technically not a CFC at all.  It is in fact
     8        carbon tetrachloride which is primarily used in the
              drycleaning industry - which is methane with four
     9        chlorines.  This is in fact now perceived to be very
              dangerous and is included on the list of substances to be
    10        phased out rapidly. Finally, the HCFC family have been
              included - transitional substances, i.e. Substances which
    11        can be used in processes for which there are what are
              sometimes referred to as a drop - in replacement with the
    12        understanding that these will be phased out as soon as is
              practicable.  So, they are not actually listed as CFCs but
    13        as a particular class of substances which have a slightly
              different behaviour.
    14
         Q.   When were the HCFC family first included in the Montreal
    15        Protocol?
              A.   I will actually have to check.  I think it is
    16        actually 1990, but ----  In fact, in terms of the United
              Kingdom it is in the HMSO publication Miscellaneous Series
    17        No. 12, 1991 which is the amendment to the Montreal
              Protocol which was presented to Parliament in 1991.  It is
    18        in fact Annex C entitled 'Transitional Substances'.
 
    19   Q.   I know the defendants have got these.  I do not know if
              his Lordship has.
    20
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Professor Duxbury, when the 'CFC treaty
    21        signed' box had been read and Mr. Rampton asked you a
              final question in relation to it, you said, "That is what
    22        it says, yes."  Were you doubting the accuracy of the
              summary in the box?
    23        A.   No, what I was doubting was the wisdom of actually
              allowing large countries to in fact carry on using ----
    24
         Q.   That is all right.  I wondered whether you were doubting
    25        the summary.
              A.   No, the reason I gave, my Lord, is that if one takes 
    26        carbon tetrachloride as an example, although it has been 
              phased out in the United States, in fact there has been an 
    27        increase in its use in the Far East which partly negates
              the effects of reducing the chlorine- containing compounds
    28        elsewhere.
 
    29   MR. RAMPTON:  Professor Duxbury, have you got the one there
              which came out in June 1991?  It is Cm 1567 in the bottom
    30        left hand corner.  It calls itself 'Amendment to the
              Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone

Prev Next Index