Day 011 - 12 Jul 94 - Page 24

     
     1        than the one that Mr. Lipsett produced?
              A.  That is correct.
     2
         MR. RAMPTON:  It is two or three months before the Montreal
     3        Protocol in September of that year?
              A.  Indeed.
     4
         Q.   You will see it is headed, "Foam industry seeks CFC
     5        substitutes to meet crisis".  Can you run your eye over to
              the last column, there is a bold heading "Soft CFCs", do
     6        you see that?
              A.  Yes.
     7
         Q.   There is a quote: "'Our research work has focused on CFCs
     8        that have very low ozone depletion and greenhouse effect
              potentials,' Elwood Blanchard, Du Pont's vp. Chemicals and
     9        pigments, told a U.S. House subcommittee on health and the
              environment in March. He was referring to so-called 'soft'
    10        CFCs, most of them products still in development but which
              are said to exhibit greatly reduced potential for damaging
         the environment.
 
    12        Current research by Du Pont's Freon Div., one of three
              domestic CFC manufacturers, has identified possible ways
    13        that existing 'hard' CFCs are linked to the twin evils
              some scientists attribute to them - depletion of the ozone
    14        layer and warming of the earth's atmosphere (the
              greenhouse effect)."  Can we pause there?  Is it correct
    15        that CFCs, as well as being ozone damagers, are also
              greenhouse eater uppers?
    16        A.  It is correct that CFCs also contribute to the
              greenhouse effect.  However, the mechanism by which they
    17        contribute to the greenhouse effect is completely separate
              from the mechanism by which they cause ozone destruction,
    18        although under some circumstances people have linked the
              two -- one is a chemical process, which is ozone
    19        destruction; the other is purely affecting the earth's
              radiation bounds and has nothing whatsoever to do with the
    20        chemistry.
 
    Q.   So that is a physical effect?
              A.  It is a physical effect.
    22
         Q.   What HCFC-22?  It was observed in this article that HCFC
    23        or the soft CFCs might not have the same greenhouse or
              global warming effect.  What is the position now?
    24        A.  The position now is that some studies have been made
              over the last three years of the infra red spectrum, which
    25        is the amount by which they block out infra red light, and
              in fact they would actually have some greenhouse 
    26        potential. 
  
    27   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What do you mean by 'potential'?
              A.  They would contribute in a minor way to the greenhouse
    28        effect.
 
    29   MR. RAMPTON:  Should we strictly speaking say 'increase in the
              greenhouse effect'?
    30        A.  Yes, it would cause an increase in the greenhouse
              effect, the reason being that if one regards the