There are some parallels between atmospheric chemistry and anthropogenic emissions in the discussions which have taken place and the regulatory attempts which have been made. Most important is that the gases causing both problems have long lifetimes after emission to the atmosphere, thus causing problems which are difficult to reverse. However, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol that amended it are seen as success stories, while the Kyoto Protocol on anthropogenic climate change has largely failed. Currently  efforts are being undertaken to assess the reasons and to use synergies, for example with regard to data reporting and policy design and further exchanging of information.Sebastian Oberthür, International Environmental Agreements July 2001, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 357-377, Linkages between the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols – Enhancing Synergies between Protecting the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate While the general public tends to see global warming as a subset of ozone depletion, in fact ozone and chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other halocarbons, which are held responsible for ozone depletion, are important greenhouse gasses. Furthermore, natural levels of ozone in both the stratosphere and troposphere have a warming effect. The two atmospheric problems have achieved significantly different levels of understanding by the public, including both the basic science and policy issues. People have limited scientific knowledge about global warming and tend to confuse it with or see it as a subset of the ozone hole.Compare Sheldon Ungar, 2000 and various web sites such as Gavin Schmidts realclimate complaint in depletion and global warming 2005 or the UCS FAQ on the topic Not only on the policy level, ozone regulation fared much better than climate change in public opinion. Americans voluntarily switched away from aerosol sprays before  legislation was enforced, while climate change has failed in achieving a broader scientific comprehension and in raising comparable concern. The metaphors used in the CFC discussion (ozone shield, ozone hole) resonated better with non-scientists and their concerns. The ozone case was communicated to lay persons "with easy-to-understand bridging metaphors derived from the popular culture" and related to "immediate risks with everyday relevance", while the public opinion on climate change sees no imminent danger. The ozone hole was much more seen as a "hot issue" and imminent risk compared to global climate change, as lay people feared a depletion of the ozone layer (ozone shield) risked increasing severe consequences such  skin cancer, cataracts, damage to plants, and reduction of plankton populations in the ocean's photic zone. This was not the case with global warming.
There are some parallels between atmospheric chemistry and anthropogenic emissions in the discussions which have taken place and the regulatory attempts which have been made. Most important is that the gases causing both problems have long lifetimes after emission to the atmosphere, thus causing problems that are difficult to reverse. However, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol that amended it are seen as success stories, while the Kyoto Protocol on anthropogenic climate change has largely failed. Currently , efforts are being undertaken to assess the reasons and to use synergies, for example with regard to data reporting and policy design and further exchanging of information.Sebastian Oberthür, International Environmental Agreements July 2001, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 357-377, Linkages between the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols – Enhancing Synergies between Protecting the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate While the general public tends to see global warming as a subset of ozone depletion, in fact ozone and chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other halocarbons, which are held responsible for ozone depletion, are important greenhouse gasses. Furthermore, natural levels of ozone in both the stratosphere and troposphere have a warming effect. The two atmospheric problems have achieved significantly different levels of understanding by the public, including both the basic science and policy issues. People have limited scientific knowledge about global warming and tend to confuse it with or see it as a subset of the ozone hole.Compare Sheldon Ungar, 2000 and various web sites such as Gavin Schmidts realclimate complaint in depletion and global warming 2005 or the UCS FAQ on the topic Not only on the policy level, ozone regulation fared much better than climate change in public opinion. Americans voluntarily switched away from aerosol sprays before the legislation was enforced, while climate change has failed in achieving a broader scientific comprehension and in raising comparable concern. The metaphors used in the CFC discussion (ozone shield, ozone hole) resonated better with non-scientists and their concerns. The ozone case was communicated to lay persons "with easy-to-understand bridging metaphors derived from the popular culture" and related to "immediate risks with everyday relevance", while the public opinion on climate change sees no imminent danger. The ozone hole was much more seen as a "hot issue" and imminent risk compared to global climate change, as lay people feared a depletion of the ozone layer (ozone shield) risked increasing severe consequences such as skin cancer, cataracts, damage to plants, and reduction of plankton populations in the ocean's photic zone. This was not the case with global warming.
R
which
that
A
,
A
the
A
as