Day 007 - 06 Jul 94 - Page 73


     
     1        might, for example, wish to stop using C02 because they
              are concerned about the greenhouse effect, if they knew
     2        they could sell their product to the McDonald's
              Corporation?  Would that not be a factor in them
     3        continuing to use that damaging greenhouse gas?
              A.  Well, the place that we would get it from would not be
     4        using C02.  It would be a bi-product of their necessary
              production process.  For instance, if they burned coal or
     5        LP or whatever they may burn to produce energy, a natural
              bi-product of that process of burning is C02.  So we would
     6        take and recycle it after that process and then use it.
              So it is not like -- nobody is making C02 to market to
     7        us.  That is not the intention at all.
 
     8   Q.   You do not think McDonald's would get tainted with this
              support for this, whatever process it is that you get it
     9        as a bi-product, would you not be seen to be supporting a
              process that maybe should not be happening?
    10        A.  I cannot imagine.  No.  You have to produce energy,
              unless you do not want electricity.  There are necessary
    11        processes that will we can possibly draw the raw materials
              from.  It has nothing to do with our demand.
    12
         Q.   So what is better about C02 than, say, compared with
    13        pentane environmentally?
              A.  There are trade offs with both.  You are concerned
    14        with releases of hydrocarbons, that that is a greenhouse
              gas.  It is flammable.  I have heard Brian Lipsett making
    15        accusations that it presents a dangerous manufacturing
              environment.  So C02 is an inert gas to the point it is
    16        not flammable, but it has environmental impacts just as
              hydrocarbons do.
    17
         Q.   But it definitely you feel on balance would be better than
    18        pentane environmentally?
              A.  Because of our use of a recycled material that we
    19        would not be in a net contributor, yes, I do feel it would
              be better.
    20
         Q.   Would environmental groups campaigning or making public
    21        concern over the use of CFCs before the Montreal
              convention?
    22        A.  I started at Perseco in the fall of 1987, so I would
              not be aware.
    23
         Q.   So that convention was in 1987 and McDonald's said they
    24        would try to phase out CFCs by 18 months?
              A.  Correct.
    25
         Q.   Why are there still countries now using HCFCs in their 
    26        blowing agents? 
              A.  Because HCFCs are not CFCs. 
    27
         Q.   Yes.  I apologise for that.  But it has subsequently --
    28        all right.  HCFCs are still known to be damaging, yes?
              A.  HCFCs have an environmental impact also, yes.
    29
         Q.   Everything has an environmental impact, does it not?
    30        A.  Yes.
 

Prev Next Index