The anti-science denier nitwits here are twisting their brainwashed heads into knots trying to find politically correct spins to a simple question. Chlorofluorocarbons account for a tiny tiny fraction of the global economy and there are feasible alternatives on a suitable scale. Fossil fuels have been the bedrock of global economic growth over the past two centuries. All of which explains why taking significant effective action on greenhouse gas emissions is very difficult. As for why there has been almost no action AT ALL, not even of the obvious win-win kind, such as cutting taxpayer subsidies for oil, gas and coal production and consumption, there the explanation has to take into account the massive two-decades long campaign of anti-science lies and trickery from the fossil fuel industry, and its astroturf front groups, and its army of arrogant ignorant dupes and wannabes eager to tell lies all day in unfunded support of multi-millionaire extremists such as the Koch Brothers:

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

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

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

http://www.newsweek.com/2007/08/13/the-t...

http://video.pbs.org/video/2295533310/

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/opinio...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mckib...

http://jcmooreonline.com/2013/01/31/engi...

CFC ban had replacements ready in the wings, so it was easy to switch. Just pay a bit more, and get new equipment when the old wears out. But ozone depletion started with the sudden increase in human population in the late 1700s... nearly 200 years before CFCs were invented. CFCs just added insult to injury.

"Is it because greenhouse gases are produced from the burning of fossil fuels and humans need fossil fuels to do everyday activities such as driving and electricity? And there is no immediate solution because we can't just "stop" burning coal tomorrow because then we would have no power, hot water, etc. ??"

That is pretty much it. We have no intention of controlling our population voluntarily. So our energy needs force us to consume all natural resources, and every square meter of land. Which so far has resulted in more warming. We cannot maintain the current levels of population, with significantly less energy. But coal-fired plants take too long to build, new. You can get a natural-gas fired power plant up and running in months, about the same time as a wind turbine or similar.

It all comes down to population. Are we a virus, or are we stewards?

Earth to Krystal! Ozone depletion is not due to CFCs. That has been proven. That has been put to bed. That is finished That is done. That is over. Yes we have needlessly outlawed CFCs, R12 in particular, with that hole over Australia going away. Hurrah! Hurrah! Once the celebrating was over, a new hole appeared at another place, larger and deeper. Ha! Ha! Where is your 'knowledge' coming from?

Now consider this! With all that hullabaloo and banning of just R12, considered a great victory by the greenies, what has that accomplished? R12, in part, was invented by Charles Kettering, a great scientist and inventor, is a compound that works efficiently and is cheap and easy to produce. It has been substituted by other refrigerants, less effective and more costly. Take for example, your automobile with AC. It takes more power to product the same cooling effect than it does with R12. By greenie standards, that means more CO2 output. You greenies have just shot yourself in the foot and proven that you are all a bunch of ignorant fools.

The Ozone was as simple as getting rid of certain aerosols. Greenhouse gases are different. Most of the evidence surrounding the Global Warming Theory is botched up and many of it was forced by the government. (convienient eh?) Al Gore continues to fly around in his private jet after insisting that that very action is bad for the environment and "Global Warming". All of the evidence is inconclusive. Check for yourself.

I think it's because ozone depletion seems like a more pressing issue that's easier to solve. Removing these chlorofluorocarbons hasn't impacted our lives, but doing away with fossil fuels would be a tremendous upset to society. Already we see skin cancer rates on the rise, but the consequences of global warming seem far to distant for our so called leaders to care. And by the time they start to, it will probably be too late.

You answer your own question.

There was an available alternative to CFCs, so they were able to be phased out quickly.

As yet, nobody has come up with an alternative to fossil fuels, maybe in the future, but not yet.

Some minor points. Things are seldom win-win.

Ozone is a greenhouse gas but we want to keep more of it.

CFCs are greenhouse gases. Their replacements are greenhouse gases.

Their replacements are also less efficient as refrigerants. So our fridges, freezers and air conditioners now consume more energy to do the same amount of cooling.

If a factory over produces the replacement gases you can get money if you promise not to release it into the atmosphere. It has been suggested that some Chinese factories have been overproducing on purpose because you get more money for not releasing it then you do for selling it.

The replacement gases have higher residency times than CFCs so will be more damaging than first thought.

Ozone depletions were due to chloroflourocarbons and it was easy toi find replacements. Greenhouse admission are primarily caused by volcanoes and the second largest cause is from digestion of plant material. Neither of these are people in control of. Human fossil fuels use comprises 0.01% of greenhouse gas production. So even if we convert complely to solar, nuclear, wind and other non-greenhouse gas production, we still will only have a marginal effect. We could actually do 10 times better just by stop eating beef and slaughter all the cows.

The short answer is that alternatives to CFCs were readily available and the cost of switching was negligible.

Fossil fuels are a lot harder to switch from. So I'd agree with you.

You swallowed it hook, line, and sinker! Downstream media touts the "success" of controlling cfc gases for the sake of positive-perception publicity for the U.N. There is still an ozone hole. There has always been one, and there will always be one. It is caused by acid formed in stratospheric ice clouds during cold and dark winters over the poles. The catabolic effect on ozone is triggered by the return of the sun in the spring. Continued warmth and radiation in the polar region during summer season replenishes ozone (see links).

Perhaps you are familiar with another U.N. ban "success": DDT. That one cost millions of lives. Many countries are allowing DDT again because of its tremendous benefits. The latest U.N. fundraising ban, carbon dioxide, is just another campaign, backed by militant environmentalists. Use a little discretion when listening to the nightly news.

Why has been easier to find solutions to ozone depletion compared to reducing greenhouse emissions? Is it because greenhouse gases are produced from the burning of fossil fuels and humans need fossil fuels to do everyday activities such as driving and electricity? And there is no immediate solution because we can't just "stop" burning coal tomorrow because then we would have no power, hot water, etc. ?? Ozone depletion is due to chlorofluorocarbons and many have been banned from being used in refrigerators. So why were we able to ban them much more quickly? Please help me answer!!

Namaste,

If by greenhouse gases you mean that old demon CO2, the miraculous gas that gives life to you, me, everything on the planet, and is loved by nature ? Then I would have to ask, why would you want to do that ? Don't you love love our planet ?

Look at real biological science instead of believing propaganda, this is a topsy turvey world and sometimes people are so easily led astray that white can somehow become black.

Boomshanka.

yeah.