I think the main difference is the pain to people. We had alternatives to CFCs pretty much ready to go, it wasn't a major economic cost. You could still get hai

I think the main difference is the pain to people. We had alternatives to CFCs pretty much ready to go, it wasn't a major economic cost. You could still get hairspray after. Businesses could not run subtle campaigns about the issue because it was too hard to care about. What does subtle look like? Fossil fuel companies spending money on influencers to make videos about how gas cooktops are so much better - because if you have gas supply for one thing, even if that isn't a big climate issue by itself, why would you not also use that to heat your house? If environmentalists hadn't been campaigning against nuclear power since the 60s then we'd have been in a much better position. That was an anti-intellectual as the current climate change deniers.