Day 007 - 06 Jul 94 - Page 61


     
     1
         Q.   No, your answer was -- if anyone wants to check, it is
     2        page 44 line 22; it just follows on from there -- "No,
              that was a good transition because if we speculate, if we
     3        had done this chart another year earlier those would all
              have been in the CFCs column, so I think this was
     4        demonstrating good progress".
              A.  If I said "all", I am surprised, because I do not have
     5        that information.  Maybe it is a comment I should not have
              made.  If we did track it back then .....
     6
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I think the difficulty is you said that his
     7        answer was that it did not concern him.
 
     8   MISS STEEL:  The question was:  "Would it cause you concern?"
              The answer was:  "No, it was a good transition".  I mean,
     9        that was not the point I was making.  The point was that
              he said all 22 were using CFCs the year before.
    10
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    11
         MR. MORRIS:  You have worked for Perseco since 1987?
    12        A.  That is correct.
 
    13   Q.   Has McDonald's ever had any direct influence in the
              company in terms of directors?
    14        A.  No, none whatsoever.
 
    15   Q.   Did they own any shares in Perseco?
              A.  No shares either.
    16
         Q.   Have they ever owned any shares?
    17        A.  No, it is a private company owned by a singular
              gentleman and his managing staff.
    18
         Q.   The figures that the chart showed -- when you said
    19        "HCFCs", let us assume that the accepted figure at the
              time when you changed from CFCs to HCFCs, you felt that
    20        HCFCs were only five per cent as damaging.  Would you say
              that was a tiny figure compared to CFCs?
    21        A.  I would say it is five per cent of what was compared
              to CFCs.
    22
         Q.   It is still five per cent.  It is still damaging.  Would
    23        you say that was a tiny percentage compared to 100 per
              cent?
    24        A.  I would say it is an improvement.  I do not know that
              I would say -- its scale depends on your perspective.  It
    25        is five per cent.  That is a good number -- it was at the
              time. 
    26 
         Q.   It is said that in the late 80s McDonald's did studies on 
    27        the three, reduction, re-use, recycle.  Did you do those
              studies or was that done by McDonald's?
    28        A.  That is a continual process.  We evaluate everything
              that we do in terms of environmental impact with using
    29        source reduction, recycle, recyclable content.  That
              continues.
    30
         Q.   So when was the first formal report on that?

Prev Next Index