The latter were phased out by the Montreal Protocol, the former were the replacements. Since the replacements required manufacturers having fluorination capability to manufacture them, the same manufacturers who made CFC's, it was something of an easier sell to industry.
CFC's, even though banned, continue to be emitted by historical refrigeration units as they degrade. However overall they're declining in the atmosphere.
Recently it was discovered that there was rogue manufacture of them in China.
Since the HFC's are persistent, and because they are potent greenhouse gases, there are plans to phase them out as well. It appears that they are more soluble in water than the CFC's were, if I recall correctly from my general reading.
Replacement of these with Peltier devices would be a good approach, but we should keep in mind that they are currently at much lower thermodynamic efficiency than reverse heat engines, at least currently. Thus the replacement would require increases in energy consumption. This might therefore have the undesired effect of further accelerating climate change, since no serious effort has been made to make clean electricity, the effort to do so being subsumed by a nonsensical approach that did not, is not, and will not work, solar and wind energy.
In theory, if not in practice, we could accelerate their degradation, both residual and rogue CFC's and HFC's by exposing them to ground level radiation, which would have the added benefit of degrading ground level ozone, which in the troposphere, where almost all of us live, ozone is a serious air pollutant.
Because of their high molecular weight, CFC's and HFC's are much more concentrated at low altitude than at high altitude, which is a good thing, since this slowed the destruction of the ozone layer that protects the Earth from UV.
Regrettably, however, most used nuclear fuels are stored isolated from the atmosphere, in canisters under helium. Ideally, in my view, they would be removed from the canisters, reprocessed, with the strong gamma emitter system of Cs-137/Ba-137m utilized to synthesize insoluble cesium titanates. Titanates are wonderful catalysts for the mineralization, the complete destruction, of alkyl fluorides, the set of compounds to which both CFC's and HFC's. The radiation would provide the energy.
Radioactive cesium titanates might also prove useful for the destruction of PFOS and PFOA in severely contaminated ground waters, such as those observed in parts of Michigan and, I believe, Minnesota.
We do not have as much used nuclear fuel on this planet to make this practice a total solution to the problem, although it might help some. Cesium-137 is subject to Bateman equilibrium, which means at a given power level, it eventually approaches a point, asymptotically where it is decaying at exactly the same rate as it is being formed. It takes many centuries to approach this equilibrium point, but each year that passes, smaller and smaller amounts accumulate, and eventually the accumulations reach gram quantities per year, industrially insignificant.
But again, we're not even close to doing this, since most people - and it's supremely ignorant - regard used nuclear fuels as "nuclear waste," and not the valuable material it actually is. Used nuclear fuels are evaluated by the general public, fed by nonsense from scientifically illiterate and sensationalist journalists, with fear and ignorance.
The investment in fear and ignorance are serious, and in fact dangerous and deadly, psychological cultural practices.
I am very pleased that you observe in your daughters and their friends, the same qualities I see in my sons and their friends. Usually a great generation follows a disastrous generation, and one hopes history will repeat. From what I see, there is good evidence that it will
= new reply since forum marked as read