INITIAL RESPONSE BY INDUSTRY

      At the onset of scientific discovery of the threat posed by CFCs to the ozone layer more than 20 years ago, scientists were met with skepticism and rejection by industry. The initial response was a plea by industry urging government not to act in haste to a problem that seemed to pose only a minor threat, and could possibly correct itself before the turn of the century.
      During this time, DuPont was the largest producer of products that used CFCs in the U.S. During a symposium about the issue in 1976, DuPont claimed that knowledge of the stratosphere was limited, and that the claims of Dr. F. Sherwood Rowland and Dr. Mario Molina, if taken too seriously without consideration of every aspect of the isse, could lead to the unnecessary loss of profits be the major corporation. Other companies began to speak out against the government bans and proposed the theory of a tropospheric "sink", namely nitryl chloride. This compound would minimize ozone depletion by doing away with CFCs before they could reach the stratosphere¹. As the pressure mounted, industry started to consider other substances that would serve the same purpose of CFCs without posing the same threat to the atmosphere.
     Due to the scientific inquiry of Rowland, and Molina and bans in the U.S., Canada, and Sweden on aerosols containing CFCs, companies promoted their CFCs in new markets such as air conditioning and refrigeration in order to offset some of the loss that would result from governmental interference. When the ozone hole over Antarctica was finally discovered in 1985, it had become clear that stronger bans would have to be implemented and enforced, thus the Montreal Protocol on Substance that Deplete the Ozone Layer was signed by 24 countries including the U.S. Chemical companies then turned to the use of hydrfluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons.