Day 002 - 29 Jun 94 - Page 34
1
So, the ecological catastrophe in that as well as the
2 packaging sentences, we will justify also with the
reference to the ecological consequences of cattle
3 ranching with methane emissions. That was seen as not a
serious point by Mr. Rampton because it obviously relates
4 to cattle farts, but it is actually a serious point
because it has been calculated that 18 per cent of global
5 warming, 18 per cent of the responsibility of global
warming is from cattle emissions. Global warming is
6 extremely serious because, if, as it turns out, it has a
destructive effect that has been calculated.
7
MR. JUSTICE BELL: Did you say 18 or 80?
8
MR. MORRIS: 18. It is in McDonald's own pamphlet. It used to
9 be document 23 on one of their -- it is a pamphlet called
ecology which is financed, I believe, jointly by
10 McDonald's Corporation and the World Wild Life Fund (after
they got over their dispute with Prince Phillip and his
11 criticism of them for destroying rainforests). They
produced a joint pamphlet. In it it talks about cattle
12 methane emissions being responsible for around 18 per cent
of global warming gases. So, it is actually quite an
13 important point.
14 Cattle ranching is now, the pace is increasing and
McDonald's must be responsible for the increasing amounts
15 of cattle. They are the world's largest user of beef.
I have just thought of something -- this is a point that
16 will come up. In their experts' statements they have made
suggestions that if you calculate exactly how many cattle
17 they have got, for example, just on the cattle subject, or
it could be some of the other issues, if you calculate the
18 number of cattle they have compared to the amount of total
cattle and then compare to the amount of the percentage of
19 global warming that is down to cattle, you turn up with a
very small percentage that McDonald's is responsible for,
20 01 per cent, or something, of the problem and, therefore,
it is trivial.
21
But McDonald's Corporation is only one of many thousands
22 of companies. The point is certainly they are the world's
largest user of beef and also probably the world's largest
23 user of styrofoam packaging. They cannot say that they
cannot share any responsibility for the damage caused by
24 cattle methane or ozone depletion. It is just a
completely ridiculous argument.
25
Obviously, when we come to those points in the case we
26 will express them better, but if I go and attack somebody
then say: "I am only one hundred millionth of the
27 violence in the world, so do not criticise me", it is
ridiculous; the court will assume if I have done it
28 wrongly, I should be punished.
29 So we are under "Colonial Invasion" -- I got sidetracked.
The general conclusion is: "It's no exaggeration to say
30 that when you bite into a Big Mac, you're helping the
McDonald's empire to wreck this planet". We are basically
