β
The development of the ozone hole was an unforeseen and unintended consequence of widespread use of chlorofluorocarbons as aerosols in spray cans, solvents, refrigerants and as foaming agents. Had, inadvertently, bromofluorocarbons been used instead, the result could have been catastrophic. In terms of function as a refrigerant or insulator, bromofluorocarbons are as effective as chlorofluorocarbons. However, on an atom-for-atom basis, bromine is about 100 times more effective at destroying ozone than is chlorine. As Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen has written βThis brings up the nightmarish thought that if the chemical industry had developed organobromine compounds instead of the CFCs β or, alternatively, if chlorine chemistry would have run more like that of bromine β then without any preparedness, we would have been faced with a catastrophic ozone hole everywhere and at all seasons during the 1970s, probably before the atmospheric chemists had developed the necessary knowledge to identify the problem and the appropriate techniques for the necessary critical measurements. Noting that nobody had given any thought to the atmospheric consequences of the release of Cl or Br before 1974, I can only conclude that mankind has been extremely lucky.β (Source: P. Crutzen (1995) My life with O3, NOx and other YZOxs. Les Prix Nobel (The Nobel Prizes) 1995. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. pp. 123-157).
β
β
Will Steffen (Global Change and the Earth System: A Planet Under Pressure: Executive Summary)