Here here! A weighted approach is called for here....

Here or there?

Everywhere....

"Perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date has been the Montreal Protocol." -Kofi Annan, Former Secretary General of the United Nations. The effort of the world community to protect the ozone layer is a fascinating example of how humanity can act as one to face a common danger. During late eighties researches have predicted that more than four decades of research is required to replace the CFCs which dominated the refrigeration industries for many years due to its excellent thermodynamic and physical properties.

"Since the late 1970s, the use of CFCs has been heavily regulated because of their destructive effects on the ozone layer. After the development of his electron capture detector,James Lovelock was the first to detect the widespread presence of CFCs in the air, finding a mole fraction of 60 ppt of CFC-11 over Ireland. In a self-funded research expedition ending in 1973, Lovelock went on to measure CFC-11 in both the Arctic and Antarctic, finding the presence of the gas in each of 50 air samples collected, and concluding that CFCs are not hazardous to the environment. The experiment did however provide the first useful data on the presence of CFCs in the atmosphere. The damage caused by CFCs was discovered by Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina who, after hearing a lecture on the subject of Lovelock's work, embarked on research resulting in the first publication suggesting the connection in 1974. It turns out that one of CFCs' most attractive features-their low reactivity- is key to their most destructive effects. CFCs' lack of reactivity gives them a lifespan that can exceed 100 years, giving them time to diffuse into the upper stratosphere. Once in the stratosphere, the sun's ultraviolet radiation is strong enough to cause the homolytic cleavage of the C-Cl bond.

NASA projection of stratospheric ozone, inDobson units, if chlorofluorocarbons had not been banned. Animated version.

By 1987, in response to a dramatic seasonal depletion of the ozone layer over Antarctica, diplomats in Montreal forged a treaty, theMontreal Protocol, which called for drastic reductions in the production of CFCs. On March 2, 1989, 12 European Community nations agreed to ban the production of all CFCs by the end of the century. In 1990, diplomats met in London and voted to significantly strengthen the Montreal Protocol by calling for a complete elimination of CFCs by the year 2000. By the year 2010 CFCs should have been completely eliminated from developing countries as well.

Ozone-depleting gas trends

Because the only CFCs available to countries adhering to the treaty is from recycling, their prices have increased considerably. A worldwide end to production should also terminate the smuggling of this material. However, there are current CFC smuggling issues, as recognized by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in a 2006 report titled "Illegal Trade in Ozone Depleting Substances". UNEP estimates that between 16,000-38,000 tonnes of CFCs passed through the black market in the mid-1990s. The report estimated between 7,000 and 14,000 tonnes of CFCs are smuggled annually into developing countries. Asian countries are those with the most smuggling; as of 2007, China, India and South Korea were found to account for around 70% of global CFC production,^[6] South Korea later to ban CFC production in 2010.^[7] Possible reasons for continued CFC smuggling were also examined: the report noted that many banned CFC producing products have long lifespans and continue to operate. The cost of replacing the equipment of these items is sometimes cheaper than outfitting them with a more ozone-friendly appliance. Additionally, CFC smuggling is not considered a significant issue, so the perceived penalties for smuggling are low. While the eventual phaseout of CFCs is likely, efforts are being taken to stem these current non-compliance problems.

By the time of the Montreal Protocol it was realised that deliberate and accidental discharges during system tests and maintenance accounted for substantially larger volumes than emergency discharges, and consequently halons were brought into the treaty, albeit with many exceptions."

"In 1978 the United States banned the use of CFCs such as Freon in aerosol cans, the beginning of a long series of regulatory actions against their use. The critical DuPont manufacturing patent for Freon ("Process for Fluorinating Halohydrocarbons", U.S. Patent #3258500) was set to expire in 1979. In conjunction with other industrial peers DuPont sponsored efforts such as the "Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy" to question anti-CFC science, but in a turnabout in 1986 DuPont, with new patents in hand, publicly condemned CFCs.^[10] DuPont representatives appeared before the Montreal Protocol urging that CFCs be banned worldwide and stated that their new HCFCs would meet the worldwide demand for refrigerants.^[10]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HFO-1234yf

In fact the opposite is true....DuPont started an organization to question the science of CFC related ozone depletion, called the "Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy" the group lobbied to stop the changes....It wasn't until they developed replacement refrigerants through R&D efforts, that they then jumped on the bandwagon doing a complete 180º and preaching to anybody who would listen, that the Montreal Protocol was necessary for the survival of Mankind, now that it held several patents for new compliant refrigerants....

"In 1980, Du Pont initiated the formation of the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy, a fancy and misleading title for an anti-regulatory industry lobby group, that found a natural ally in the Reagan White House.^[1] Once Ronald Reagan took office, Du Pont suspended further research for alternatives to CFCs, knowing that there would be no political pressure for immediate action. As late as 1986, the Alliance was still arguing that the science was too uncertain to justify any action."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alliance_for_Responsible_CFC_Policy

http://www.faqs.org/tax-exempt/VA/Alliance-For-Responsible-Cfc-Policy-Inc.html

"When refrigerants are released to the atmosphere they seek the lowest place they can migrate to (example): place Freon into a large garbage bag and seal. Now raise the bag a couple of feet and then stop, pay attention as to what takes place in the bag, you will notice the Freon continues to rise in the bag due to the inertia from your movement and then it falls back to the bottom of the bag and remains there. You can actually see the bag expanded in the area occupied by the Freon (the bottom of the bag). With a large Freon release you evacuate the lower areas to prevent health issues so how does this rise up and damage the ozone layer when it is a heavier molecule?"

Then there is the other issue that the reaction between CFC's and ozone works most efficiently with some heat and pressure of which where the ozone layer is located lacks both.

Ammonia--the real refrigerant.

Wait a minute here. How exactly does this ozone hole thin spot manage to show up in less than one season then go away in another and do so every year?

Wouldn't that suggest that it may be a natural cyclic event that has been going on long before we found it and/or that the ozone layer has a high self repair rate?