The Montreal Agreement of September 16, 1987, laid down rules for the phasing out of the production and use of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons). Every country in the world agreed and ratified this, the only time this has happened in history.
There are now no CFCs in use (except perhaps in the air conditioners of very old cars), or production (unless a rogue state or company is producing them illegally).
CFCs were replaced in most cases by HCFCs (hydrochlorofluorocarbons), which were not so dangerous for the ozone layer. The Montreal Agreement was extended to phase out HCFCs by 2015.
CFCs and HCFCs have now been replaced by HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons) which do not contain chlorine, and so do not destroy ozone. However, CFCs are dangerous greenhouse gases, much more potent than carbon dioxide, so their threat to global warming is very real.
Scientists are now looking for a safer option to HFCs.
There are still levels of CFCs in the atmosphere, which may lead to ozone layer depletion, and further leading to loss of lives on earth due to skin cancer, etc. caused by the ultra-violet radiation.
The Montreal Agreement of September 16, 1987, laid down rules for the phasing out of the production and use of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons). Every country in the world agreed and ratified this, the only time this has happened in history.
There are now no CFCs in use (except perhaps in the air conditioners of very old cars), or production (unless a rogue state or company is producing them illegally).
CFCs were replaced in most cases by HCFCs (hydrochlorofluorocarbons), which were not so dangerous for the ozone layer. The Montreal Agreement was extended to phase out HCFCs by 2015.
CFCs and HCFCs have now been replaced by HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons) which do not contain chlorine, and so do not destroy ozone. However, CFCs are dangerous greenhouse gases, much more potent than carbon dioxide, so their threat to global warming is very real.
Scientists are now looking for a safer option to HFCs.
There are still levels of CFCs in the atmosphere, which may lead to ozone layer depletion, and further leading to loss of lives on earth due to skin cancer, etc. caused by the ultra-violet radiation.
no
Yes, even though they are primarily harmful because of their effect on ozone depletion. CFCs have both effects. The two effects are different. The ozone depletion is worse.
yes, flourocarbons and isobutane
CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons)What type of substance is it?CFCs are a class of man-made chemicals, generally non-toxic, non-flammable, chemically unreactive, colourless liquids or gases that evaporate easily. They are a group of ozone depleting substances. They damage the Earth's ozone layer, which protects the earth's surface from harmful ultra-violet radiation. CFCs are also powerful greenhouse gases which contribute to global warming.How is it released?Release to the atmosphere is primarily from CFC-containing aerosols, refrigeration equipment and some foams. There are no natural sources of CFCs.
The manufacture of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for industrial use has been banned. When old refrigerators and airconditioning units are scrapped, the CFCs they contain should be trapped for reuse or destruction.
CFCs have been banned.
Provision to reduce CFCs & CO2 emission
Yes, it is possible. We can do this by minimizing the use of CFC's.
CFCs are neither soluble in water or reactive with it. Rain has no impact on CFCs
We can stop CFC's by using their alternatives. A ban has to be placed.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are non-toxic.
Replacements for CFCs (dependding on use) included:HCFCsNitrogenAirPropane
CFCs or chlorofluorocarbons are released when a device that holds it is leaking. Also some aerosols release CFCs into the atmosphere.
CFCs were the compressed gas that was used as "spring" to push the can contents out of the container. CFCs have been replaced with HCFCs as a consequence of the Montreal Protocol.
By the CFCs being sorced into the air, the sun is Breaking them down into the earth.
CFCs
no