Day 011 - 12 Jul 94 - Page 70
1 which can get rapidly into the atmosphere, which from a
refrigerator it should not.
2
Q. If somebody was to promote CFC usage now, would that be
3 grossly irresponsible?
A. In my view, yes.
4
Q. Even if they themselves only used a fraction of CFCs,
5 would they be encouraging others to do so, would that be a
bad thing?
6 A. To promote CFC use you mean encourage the use of it?
7 Q. Yes.
A. In my view that would be irresponsible. If by promote
8 the use you mean continuing using it until you -- that is
not what I would call promoting the use of something.
9
Q. No, but, for example, when you give the figures about beef
10 production and you conclude that they play a small part in
McDonald's as a single company in the creation of methane,
11 does that take into consideration the huge advertising
budget they have promoting something?
12 A. I have been trying to give a scientific assessment of
what actually is the use of existing cattle resources. My
13 expertise is not in advertising, and if you actually want
the figures in the United Kingdom, which is where the
14 local meat comes from, you will discover over the last few
years the amount of increase in beef production has been
15 just about mirrored by a slight decrease in cows used for
milk production, which means in terms of methane
16 production it would be environmentally neutral.
17 Q. What I am trying to say is, it is the numbers game which
has been identified in your statement and brought up to
18 date -- is that really a scientific approach to the
responsibilities of a particular organisation or
19 otherwise, is it a scientific approach when it comes down
to it?
20 A. The numbers game I have been using is a minor version
of the numbers game used by the World Meteorological
21 Organisation for doing an assessment of the impact of all
climate changing gases on the climate of the earth. To
22 the extent that I have used the same sort arguments they
have done, I would say it is in fact in accord with the
23 best estimates of how you go about doing it at the moment.
24 Q. Presumably by that method, the numbers game, no single
organisation would be having any negligible impact on
25 either greenhouse gases or CFC or HCFC uses, would you?
Everybody would basically be having a negligible
26 contribution? Is that not so? It is not really a
scientific approach, is it?
27
MR. JUSTICE BELL: Are you talking about methane now?
28
MR. MORRIS: I am talking about both.
29
MR. JUSTICE BELL: There may be a difference, because a large
30 part of the emission of methane may be beyond human and
certainly corporate control, and different factors may
