I totally agree. Here’s and excerpt you may also agree with.
Potential options include “natural” refrigerants such as carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrocarbons (HC), and ammonia (NH3) as well as HFOs and HFO/HFC blends. All involve significant trade-offs among GWP, energy efficiency, safety, and cost. Environmental policy must consider the indirect effects of increased CO2 emissions for less efficient refrigerants, not just the direct global warming (GWP) of the refrigerant. We must insist on using metrics such as Total Equivalent Warming Impact (TEWI) that balance refrigerant direct GWP, charge level, leakage emissions, and efficiency of the refrigerant in actual systems. This allows the best possible comparison of refrigerants for each application. In the right policy environment, we can achieve reduced environmental impact and increase efficiency. This will probably require increased differentiation of application-specific refrigerant choices that are associated with somewhat higher first costs but very attractive life cycle costs with acceptable safety and environmental impacts.
Source:
http://aceee.org/files/proceedings/2010/data/papers/1933.pdf
Frankly, I am not convinced that HCFC/R-22 had/has a deleterious effect on the “ozone layer”. For decades “political” scientists have been foisting a belief system upon policymakers and the public. Just as the hoax of “Silent Spring” has led to deaths and disease due to banned pesticides, the costs associated with moving from CFC’s to HCFC’s, I believe, have been largely unnecessary. Now, preparing to re-tool, yet again, with different refrigerants and delivery systems, costs will rise and the only results will be the public being fleeced and the elites getting richer. I, for one, will not be happy having to work on ammonia based systems. Not one bit.