The idea that climate sensitivity is the same regardless of the forcing, is a significant and largely unchallenged and unexamined assumption that is typical of immature academic disciplines. It is also typical of an unexamined political position, and moreover is also common within many government-based research programs. (Another typical government ‘assumption’ I have come across, is the one that various types of natural resources are typically evenly distributed across the landscape; the trouble is, this often conflicts with what actually occurs in nature. And so you often get armies of bureaucrats trying to ‘smooth out’ natural data to be more in line with their unexamined assumptions. It isn’t just climate science and the BOM where this sort of thing occurs, it is rampant within many government research fields; anomalies and variations are often treated as ‘errors’ rather than true and significant variations.)
In order to minimize or eliminate the impacts of ozone layer depletion, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was signed in 1987, and then came into force in 1989. Under this agreement, various nations that signed up the treaty pledged to reduce the production and consumption of harmful halogen gases .This reduction target begins with the slowing down the production and then their eventual phase out through the use of substitute gases. The use of ozone friendly Hydrochloroflourocarbons (HCFCs) was adopted to substitute the use of CFC-12 in the manufacture of refrigerants and foam making agents.
A case in point is the proposal of the International Biochar Initiative (IBI). ‘Biochar’ is charcoal produced to be buried in the soil that IBI has been promoting worldwide over the past several years  as a means of sequestering carbon from the atmosphere to save the climate and enhance soil fertility. It involves planting fast growing tree and various other crops on hundreds of millions of hectares of ‘spare land’ mostly in developing countries, to be harvested and turned into charcoal in a process that could produce crude oil and gases as low grade fuels. There are many excellent arguments against this initiative , but the most decisive is that it will certainly further accelerate deforestation and destruction of other natural ecosystems (identified as ‘spare land’). In the process, it could precipitate an oxygen crisis from which we would never recover  ( Beware the Biochar Initiative , SiS 44).