Your argument assumes that the propaganda is true despite admitting that it is alarmist. If they lied about a lot of it, what makes you believe any of it?

Let's assume the real science was as honest as possible. That means there is a "hole" developing over the poles and CFCs are responsible. The rest is conjecture at best. What is purely scientific here does not prove that this situation is dangerous.

First, the fact that the hole is forming over the poles despite the fact that no one lives there, and no one uses CFCs there must mean that all the CFCs are pumped there by natural phenomenon, or the effects of CFCs are uniquely effecting the poles because of lower solar radiation there.

That means that the phenomenon could very well be localized there forever without any intervention. Either because the CFCs are always pumped away and sequestered there or because solar radiation replenishes O3 in lower latitudes faster than it is destroyed.

Meanwhile, the low angle of incidence of solar radiation at the poles means that the ozone layer is not necessary there because the solar radiation has to go through much more atmosphere to reach the poler terrain.

So literally nothing had to be done. And what is never calculated is the impact of all the forced changes. What products are we using instead of CFCs? What are thier negative side effects? The negative impacts are incalculable.

This is why lying is never a good thing.