Actually, it is the one piece of man’s impact on his world that is based on solid science, and the ozone layer does matter to us inhabitants of of the planet. Sunlight is a great thing - just not too much of it. UV is a powerful disinfectant, but you don’t want to disinfect the entire planet.
I don't believe the science is settled on that. Natural fluctuations in ozone concentration may be a better explanation of ozone holes than CFC damage. There were some legitimate concerns that CFCs were rising into the atmosphere and 'destroying' ozone molecules, but were vastly overstated. Have the doomsday predictions materialized?
Before 'Global Warming', there was the fear of the 'Ozone Hole'. They used the same fear-mongering language and official 'scientific pronouncements' as most of us now recognize with the global warming social engineering. This was the original successful sale of anthropogenic climate change. The premise was that if the world didn't ban CFCs, UV radiation levels on the ground would skyrocket causing skin cancer rates to rise, widespread ecosystem destruction, and species extinction.
U.S. National Cancer Institute statistics show melanoma induced mortality leveled off before the ban; and what species have gone extinct, and what ecosystems have been damaged as a result of UV radiation?
Before Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' global warming scam, he wrote 'Earth in the Balance'. In that he claimed that thanks to the Antarctic ozone hole, 'hunters were now finding blind rabbits and fisherman catching blind salmon'. Same crap he's been peddling for a while.
I'm not going to claim it's a good idea to release CFCs into the atmosphere, but it definitely isn't the apocalypse causing agent they were made out to be. There are a lot of parallels with global warming so color me skeptical.