Day 001 - 28 Jun 94 - Page 34


     
     1        is Professor of Chemical Physics at the University of
              Strathclyde will say that it has not.  He has, for
     2        example, calculated that in 1991 the amount of HCFC -- it
              happens to be 22 -- used on behalf of McDonald's in this
     3        exercise was about 0.022 per cent of world usage.
 
     4        My Lord, there is this further consideration, from the
              time when it was first proposed that HCFCs might cause
     5        damage to the ozone later, though in a different way from
              CFCs, the plaintiffs have been working with their
     6        suppliers of polystyrene foam to change as fast as they
              practically can from HCFCs to hydrocarbons for this
     7        purpose.  Though it must be added that even hydrocarbons
              are not without their problems so far as the environment
     8        is concerned.  My Lord, I add this:  It was not in every
              country in every case that HCFC succeeded CFC.  In the
     9        United Kingdom where CFC were used for a period of only
              about 18 months, McDonald's suppliers changed straight
    10        back to Pentane (which is a hydrocarbon) after the
              Montreal Protocol in 1988 condemned HCFCs.
    11
              My Lord, in the result, by January 1993, there were no
    12        countries in the world where CFCs were still being used to
              produce polystyrene foam for McDonald's and only nine
    13        which were still using HCFCs, most of those being in the
              Far East, one exception was Hungary.
    14
              Professor Duxbury is, therefore, able to conclude, and I
    15        quote: "Given the rate of phase-out, the environmental
              impact of the blowing agent (HCFC22) should soon be
    16        negligible".
 
    17        My Lord, the second question I ask is this:  Has the
              plaintiffs' use of paper for packaging made a significant
    18        contribution to the loss of trees and forest environment
              in the world at large?  I answer that question in the
    19        following way:  First, the plaintiffs' paper has only ever
              come from trees grown in sustainable managed forests,
    20        never from rainforests.
 
    21        Second, in North America (which is by far the plaintiffs'
              largest single market and where almost all the packaging
    22        is now made from paper) it is estimated that the
              plaintiffs' use of paper accounts for only -- a maximum
    23        this is -- 9.4 square miles timberland annually.  That is
              0.00125 per cent of the total timberland cover of the
    24        USA.  My Lord, one reason for that, of course, is that
              50 per cent of the paper used in McDonald's packaging in
    25        the USA is now recycled.
  
    26        In Europe, my Lord, the paper used for McDonald's 
              packaging consumed a mere 1.3 square miles annually. 
    27        I invite your Lordship to consider whether those figures,
              totalling, I think it is, 10.7 square miles annually may
    28        helpfully compare with the 800 square miles alleged in the
              leaflet.
    29
              Finally this, my Lord:  There are now more trees in North
    30        America and in Europe than ever before.  In North America,
              there are 28 per cent of more trees than there were in

Prev Next Index