"Twenty years ago, getting rid of ozone-depleting chemicals looked really hard,"

Well, it is, because some CFC containing products are still commercially available, at least through the end of next year.

Why does DuPont support the measure?

The patents have run out on the other stuff. However, they have new stuff patented.

Did i mention the new stuff is not as thermodynamically efficient, which leads to more energy production/CO2 output.

Thus, regulation of anthropogenic global warming will work!

Just for clarification, the ozone hole and global warming are two entirely different things. The ozone hole was (almost assuredly) caused by loose compounds which react with an oxygen allotrope which blocks a lot of 270 nm to 320 nm wavelengths of light. Anthropogenic global warming is thermal reflection off of certain molecules in the upper atmosphere.

In surprising twist, ozone actually provide a (very small) warming effect, while the chemical compounds that destroy it do not, meaning that fixing the hole could result in more warming in that area. Since CFCs and some Cl byproducts last decades before getting out of the atmosphere, though, this isn't a big worry.

In surprising twist, ozone actually provide a (very small) warming effect,

Actually the warming effect "thing" that warms the earth is not "ozone," it's the Sun.

In fact I would be so bold as to claim unequivocally, that even if the whole atmosphere was 100% ozone, if our celestial body were to vanish overnight, the Earth would freeze.

The absence of ozone is obviously caused by pollution-control efforts. We need more smog!

"Considering its record size (since 1985) last year, The Hole probably grows and shrinks without any help from humans. (Which I suspect has been happening long before its discovery.)"

Not likely. It is well known chemistry that CFCs deplete the ozone layer. It's also well known that stratospheric cooling, the fingerprint of an increased greenhouse effect, is exacerbating the current effects.

And Milloy's point is just stupid (but expected from him). There hasn't been enough ozone depletion over populated areas to measure any effect. However, the science is clear, less Ozone = more UV = more skin cancer. That said, estimating the number of lives saved contains too many uncertainties to be of any real use.

Previously...www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2007/2007-01-03-02.asp

Is the reverse true? Warmer weather will shore up the Ozone hole?

“From September 21 to 30, 2006, the average area of the ozone hole was the largest ever observed, at 10.6 million square miles,” said Paul Newman, atmospheric scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.

The size and persistence of the 2006 ozone hole area with its record ozone mass deficit of 40.8 megatons can be explained by the continuing presence of near-peak levels of ozone-depleting substances in combination with a particularly cold stratospheric winter, the WMO said.

Low temperatures in the first part of January prompted a 20 percent loss in the ozone layer over the Arctic in 2006, but the ozone loss was not as large as that seen in 2005.

Dr. Neil Harris who helped compile the WMO's first Arctic Ozone Bulletin, issued in September 2006, said, “Thankfully the Arctic ozone loss was not too large in 2006. However with the cold winters becoming colder, it is important to use the international observing network to continue monitoring the Arctic stratosphere each year, so that there can be early warning of large losses.”