Day 010 - 11 Jul 94 - Page 70


     
     1        it was the generally held view amongst the scientific
              community that the ozone depleting potential of HCFC-22
     2        was but 5 per cent as opposed to 95 per cent of the CFCs?
              A.  I think have we been over that before, or am
     3        I mistaken?
 
     4   Q.   Are you accepting that that is so?
              A.  I accept the fact that is what the scientific
     5        knowledge is, but I note in addition that the
              manufacturers of CFCs, in general, have never fully
     6        accepted or acknowledged the ozone affect to begin with.
 
     7   Q.   That may be so.  Let us go back in time, if we can?  You
              were very active at this time, in 1987/88/89?
     8        A.  Yes, that would be true.
 
     9   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Mr. Rampton, you may well be able to ask or
              may have a reason for not doing, but I wonder if the
    10        witness accepts that it was generally held view, whether
              he accepts it was your client's view or has no opinion one
    11        way or the other.
 
    12   MR. RAMPTON:  I have put it twice.  He says, I think, that he
              does accept that it was the view of scientific community
    13        in general that it had this comparatively minor ozone
              depletion potential; is that right?
    14        A.  I would not refer to it as comparatively minor
              because, if you look at the statements of David Doniger in
    15        his letter to the editor of the Washington Post following
               -----
    16
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Just leave out "comparatively minor".
    17        I know Mr. Rampton put that in his question, but you do
              accept, do you, that in April 1988 it was the generally
    18        held view amongst the scientific community that the ozone
              depleting potential of HCFC-22 was 5 per cent of -----
    19
         MR. RAMPTON:  Five per cent of that of CFC-12?
    20
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Five per cent of that of CFC-12?
    21        A.  Yes.
 
    22   MR. RAMPTON:  Thank you very much.  You had already told us, as
              you understood it, the way that was calculated was by
    23        reference to the different ways in which the two
              substances behaved in the atmosphere?
    24        A.  Yes.
 
    25   Q.   It follows, does it not, they were, effectively, at that
              time viewed as a completely different substance.  It would 
    26        not be right to confuse them by giving them the same 
              label? 
    27        A.  I am not sure I understand your question.  What I have
              stated is that the industry was allowed by the EPA to
    28        relabel one of the CFCs they had been using for 50 years,
              and that the relabelling then came to be used by various
    29        organisations, including McDonald's, as endorsement of
              their decision to use this product as opposed to other CFC
    30        products.
 

Prev Next Index