Day 007 - 06 Jul 94 - Page 31
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Two things about it: First of all, the right hand column.
You give percentages for the amount of recycled paper for
3 each of those years?
A. Correct.
4
Q. We notice that.
5
MR. JUSTICE BELL: Just pause a moment, page 349.
6
MR. MORRIS: For some reason we have completely different
7 numbering on Helen's. They are completely different
numbers.
8
MR. JUSTICE BELL: It has 13 written in longhand at the bottom
9 or, rather, in manuscript.
10 MR. RAMPTON: You have given the percentage of recycled paper
for each of these years- 1987 was 6 per cent; 1988 it was
11 7 per cent; 1989 it was 7 per cent. In 1991 it suddenly
becomes 51 per cent?
12 A. Yes, it jumped quite dramatically.
13 Q. Can you make a stab at what the figure might have been in
1990 from memory because it is missing, is it not?
14 A. I speculatively would make a stab. It certainly is
between 7 and 51 per cent, probably closer to the 50 per
15 cent.
16 Q. You think it might have increased since 1989 above 7 per
cent?
17 A. I think it would have.
18 Q. Can I ask you two questions about this: First, do you
know the reason why there was such a steep climb in the
19 percentage of recycled paper between, let us say, 1989 and
1991?
20 A. Yes, I do. During that time, subsequent to 1989, it
was identified that there was a landfill shortage in our
21 country. To try to increase the amounts of recycling
activity, McDonald's felt, and Perseco felt, that if we
22 purchased more recycled material that that would pull
along the market for recycling. So, we tried to increase
23 our purchases of recycled materials. That is, indeed,
what we did.
24
Q. I will not ask you; I will ask Mr. Langert that question.
25 I will leave that on one side for the moment. You notice
also about this table that they believe that despite the
26 fact, as you told us, that McDonald's abandoned for many
purposes the polystyrene foam in favour of paper, yet the
27 total tonnage of paper used in 1991 in the left hand
column, you see, 166,628 is not vastly greater than it
28 was in 1989. What is the reason for that, do you know?
It leaps a bit in 1992?
29 A. It leaped a bit more than our typical growth and when
we switched from foam to wraps, the weight did not
30 significantly change. The weights ----
