HCFCs are transitional HCFC substitutes used as refrigerants, solvents, thrusters for the manufacture of plastic foam and fire extinguishers. With respect to the potential for ozone depletion (ODP), these HFC codes are lower than those of CFCs with ODP 0.6 – 1.0 (0.01 – 0.5). In terms of global warming potential (GWP), the potential for HFC (GWP) is lower than that of CFCs with a potential of 4,680 to 10,720 GWP (76 – 2,270). The parties to the Montreal Protocol amended the protocol to allow, among other things, the control of new chemicals and the establishment of a financial mechanism to allow developing countries to comply. The Montreal Protocol also contains a unique adaptation provision that allows the parties to the protocol to react quickly to new scientific information and agree to accelerate the reduction of chemicals already covered by the protocol. These adaptations will automatically apply to all countries that have ratified the protocol. Since then, the Montreal Protocol has been strengthened several times by the control of additional ozone depletion substances (SOOs) and by the postponement of the date when already regulated substances must disappear. In addition to the adaptations and amendments to the Montreal Protocol, the parties to the protocol meet annually and make a series of decisions to enable the effective implementation of this important instrument. The Global Alliance of Nations for the Protection of the Ozone Layer is the most effective measure to prevent the depletion of the ozone layer over Australia. Australia accounts for less than one per cent of global emissions of ozone-depleting substances. Promoting and supporting other countries through our participation in the Montreal Protocol is the best way to reduce ozone depletion. Reducing ozone-depleting substances also had a positive side effect. Substances that deplete the ozone layer are also very potent greenhouse gases that contribute to this phenomenon, since other substances widely known as the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O).

By reducing emissions of ozone-depleting substances, the Montreal Protocol protected both the ozone layer and the climate. Chlorofluorocarbons (HFCs), mainly produced in industrialized countries, have replaced HCFCs and HCFCs. CFCs do not cause damage to the ozone layer because they do not contain chlorine, unlike CFCs and HCFCs. However, these are greenhouse gases with high global warming potential (GWP), comparable to cfDCs and HCFCs. [27] [28] In 2009, a study calculated that a rapid reduction in GWP-intensive HFCs by 2050 could potentially prevent the equivalent of a maximum of 8.8 Gt of CO2-Eq emissions per year. [29] As a result, an expected phasedown of CFCs has been planned to prevent warming of up to 0.5 degrees Celsius by 2100 in the high HFC growth scenario and up to 0.35 degrees Celsius in the low-growth scenario of HFC. [30] Recognizing the potential of the Montreal Protocol to gradually reduce CFCs under the 2009 Montreal Protocol by the Federated States of Micronesia, they proposed an amendment to use the high-level HFC breakdown[31] with the United States, Canada and Mexico, following the introduction of a similar proposal in 2010. [32] As a result of the international agreement, the hole in the ozone layer in Antarctica is slowly recovering. [5] Climate forecasts indicate that the ozone layer will return to its 1980 level between 2050 and 2070. [6] [7] [8] The success of the Montreal Protocol is attributed to its effective burden-sharing and solution proposals, which have helped to mitigate regional conflicts of interest in relation to the inadequacies of the overall regulatory approach to the Kyoto Protocol. [9] However, global regulation was put in place before a scientific consensus was reached, and public opinion was convinced of the potential risks associated with the ozone layer. [10] A huge effort by the international community has resulted in an international agreement