>

Leaded gasoline was the mental defects cfcs are for the ozone layer
It’s weird how concentrated efforts by all the worlds governments might actually affect the climate.
But I’m sure there are no lessons to learn from this. >

It was easy to all get together and agree to use alternative refrigerants and aerosols, when cost effective alternatives were really available. It didn't require any significant change in lifestyle or cost for the average consumer. It was easy
Stopping the use of hydrocarbons, on the other hand... >

Not entirely. 
There were options for years. Nuclear could have replaced coal and gas plants. Yet, there was a very strong opposition to nuclear by both environmental activists and the oil/gas industry. We sought a 'perfect' solution, rather than a practical one and it paralyzed us. 
It didn't help that politicians kept rolling over backwards for the oil and gas lobby >

Even if America went 100% nuclear in the 50s we'd still have gas powered vehicles and other CO2 emitting sources. Nuclear power plants would basically remove all the CO2 caused by heating and cooling our homes,which is a big chunk of CO2 emissions but not all of them. We'd be in a better spot than we are now but we'd still have climate change.
We need a multi prong approach to climate change that gives us green energy alternatives for all aspects of our lives. >

I’m not just referring to the states. Germany, UK, Canada, etc. all should have gone with nuclear when we knew climate change was staring us in the face. We could have let developing countries use gas as a transition fuel instead of coal while we eliminated co2 from our economy entirely with vehicles and other production (similar to how Montreal agreement was structured to have developed countries lead the way while developing transition) 
Also.. GM was trialing EV back in the 90/00’s before the project was randomly killed. Literally everyone loved those cars. 
Coal/gas burning for energy is such a big part of the co2 generation, it’s hard to understate that stuff effects >

I agree, the vast majority of people are just so hung up on nuclear power plants and will immediately deny any potential use it could have... its sad; modern ones are very safe, just like planes, but there is an irrational fear of one over the other. And for good reason, I suppose. >

Nice to get some good news about international collaboration having a positive effect:

Most of atmospheric layer that protects planet from ultraviolet radiation likely to be fully recovered for most of world by 2040.  
The hole in the Earth’s ozone layer, once the most feared environmental peril facing humanity, is set to be completely healed over most of the world within two decades following decisive action by governments to phase out ozone-depleting substances, a new UN assessment has found.  
The loss of the ozone layer, which risked exposing people to harmful ultraviolet rays from the sun, is on track to be completely recovered by 2040 across the world, aside from the polar regions, according to the report. The poles will take a little longer – the ozone layer will fully bounce back by 2045 over the Arctic and by 2066 over the Antarctic.  
Following alarm over the loss of ozone in the 1980s, the ozone layer has been steadily improving in the wake of the 1989 Montreal protocol, an international agreement that has helped eliminate 99% of ozone-depleting chemicals, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that were used as solvents and refrigerants. >

Finally some good news.
But we all know idiots are gonna say that this means we can go back to doing all our crap from before >

I guess that means we can finally switch back to using leaded gasoline.