Based on the speed at which high emissions destroyed the ozone layer, it seems like the answer is “yes.”
evidence/argument needed? Note that outside Antarctica, ozone gets regenerated by UV from the sun, so it’s going to be an equilibrium condition where that is balanced with ozone destruction from chlorine, and not zero.
As a follow-on, I stumbled across a counterfactual simulation study (2009), which found that if CFCs had continued to be used at half the rate use was growing at in the early 1970s, 17% of ozone would be depleted by 2020 and 67% by 2065, to 50-100 DU down from 300-500 DE in 1960.
Another counterfactual study from 2021 gave a worst-case scenario finding (using similar metrics of CFC use as in other older studies) for the effects on plant life:
As a result of these large reductions in net carbon uptake, global terrestrial biomass decreases from 340 Gt C (1976–2005) to 245 Gt C (200–285 Gt C) by the end of the century (not shown).
So a 30% loss in terrestrial biomass. But of course this must be very hard to simulate with high confidence and it represents continuous 3% year on year growth in CFCs through 2099, which is something like a 46x increase from 1970-2099. It seems both unlikely to me that in 130 years of massive plant die-off and increases in skin cancer, that the entire global scientific community would have just failed to figure this one out.
evidence/argument needed? Note that outside Antarctica, ozone gets regenerated by UV from the sun, so it’s going to be an equilibrium condition where that is balanced with ozone destruction from chlorine, and not zero.
As a follow-on, I stumbled across a counterfactual simulation study (2009), which found that if CFCs had continued to be used at half the rate use was growing at in the early 1970s, 17% of ozone would be depleted by 2020 and 67% by 2065, to 50-100 DU down from 300-500 DE in 1960.
Another counterfactual study from 2021 gave a worst-case scenario finding (using similar metrics of CFC use as in other older studies) for the effects on plant life:
So a 30% loss in terrestrial biomass. But of course this must be very hard to simulate with high confidence and it represents continuous 3% year on year growth in CFCs through 2099, which is something like a 46x increase from 1970-2099. It seems both unlikely to me that in 130 years of massive plant die-off and increases in skin cancer, that the entire global scientific community would have just failed to figure this one out.
Yeah, this is an essential point—an under-thought-out off the cuff take by me.