Public misconceptions and misunderstandings of complex issues like ozone depletion are common. The limited scientific knowledge of the public led to confusion about global warming[51] or the perception of global warming as a subset of the "ozone hole".[52] In the beginning, classical green NGOs refrained from using CFC depletion for campaigning, as they assumed the topic was too complicated.[53] They became active much later, e.g. in Greenpeace's support for a CFC-free fridge produced by the former East German company VEB dkk Scharfenstein.[53][54]
Public misconceptions and misunderstandings of complex issues like ozone depletion are common. The limited scientific knowledge of the public led to confusion about global warming[51] or the perception of global warming as a subset of the "ozone hole".[52] In the beginning, classical green NGOs refrained from using CFC depletion for campaigning, as they assumed the topic was too complicated.[53] They became active much later, e.g. in Greenpeace's support for a CFC-free fridge produced by the former East German company VEB dkk Scharfenstein.[53][54]
The metaphors used in the CFC discussion (ozone shield, ozone hole) are not "exact" in the scientific sense. The "ozone hole" is more of a depression, less "a hole in the windshield". The ozone does not disappear through the layer, nor is there a uniform "thinning" of the ozone layer. However, they resonated better with non-scientists and their concerns.[55] The ozone hole was seen as a "hot issue" and imminent risk[56] as laypeople feared severe personal consequences such as skin cancer, cataracts, damage to plants, and reduction of plankton populations in the ocean's photic zone. Not only on the policy level, ozone regulation compared to climate change fared much better in public opinion. Americans voluntarily switched away from aerosol sprays before legislation was enforced, while climate change failed to achieve comparable concern and public action.[55] The sudden identification in 1985 that there was a substantial "hole" was widely reported in the press. The especially rapid ozone depletion in Antarctica had previously been dismissed as a measurement error.[57] Scientific consensus was established after regulation
