The governments of many developing nations opposed the CFC (Chlorofluorocarbon) ban primarily due to economic reasons. CFCs were widely used in various industries such as refrigeration, air conditioning, aerosols, and electronics due to their stability, non-toxicity, and non-flammability. For developing nations, these industries were crucial for their economic growth and development. The transition to CFC alternatives was not only costly but also technologically challenging. Therefore, these nations viewed the CFC ban as a hindrance to their economic progress and industrialization. The question of whether developed nations should require these governments to ban CFCs is complex. On one hand, CFCs are known to deplete the ozone layer, which protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet rays. This environmental concern is global, not confined to the borders of any one country. Therefore, it could be argued that developed nations, which have the resources and technology to find and implement alternatives, have a responsibility to lead the way in banning CFCs. On the other hand, imposing such requirements could be seen as an infringement on the sovereignty of these developing nations and could exacerbate economic disparities. However, a balanced approach could be more effective. Developed nations could assist developing nations in transitioning away from