A new ad released by "CO2 is green, Inc." states that CO2 is good for the environment and we all need it. It is not pollution but, on the contrary, higher CO2 will help the Earth's ecosystems, support more plant and animal life.

Let's suppose that this campaign is a matter of personal beliefs. Let's also suppose that EPA being expected to classify Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant is the main reason behind it.

But there are two lines in the ad that I can relate to from a different perspective:

1. At one point, the voice over says "This will cost us jobs."  Who is "us"? Some time ago, when I was working on a CSR campaign for one of our local oil companies, their marketing department kept asking for a campaign that would underline the equity & common goals of all people in the company, from CEO to janitor. And one of the message that needed to be showcased was "This affects all of us (people in the company)" Is it just me or a CEO & a janitor would hardly ever have similar goals?

On the other hand, in a funny, yet ironically way, if you know the South Park series, there is one episode the same line reminds me off. In the animation series, "They took our jobs" line acts like a firestarter and turns on the mob mentality that - in times of crisis, when priorities are set instinctually by primary needs and not by logic - can be manipulated easier.

2. Furthermore, the same voiceover makes another statement "There is NO scientifical evidence that CO2 is a pollutant" . Well, how about the following scientifical facts?

However, while experiments on natural ecosystems have also found initial elevations in the rate of plant growth, these have tended to level off within a few years. In most cases this has been found to be the result of some other limiting factor, such as the availability of nitrogen or water.

The regional climate changes that higher CO₂ will bring, and their effect on these limiting factors on plant growth, such as water, also have to be taken into account. These indirect effects are likely to have a much larger impact than CO₂ fertilisation.

For instance, while higher temperatures will boost plant growth in cooler regions, in the tropics they may actually impede growth. A two-decade study of rainforest plots in Panama and Malaysia recently concluded that local temperature rises of more than 1ºC have reduced tree growth by 50 per cent (see Don't count on the trees).

Another complicating factor is ground level ozone due to air pollution, which damages plants. This is expected to rise in many regions over the coming decades and could reduce or even negate the beneficial effects of higher CO₂ (see Climate change warning over food production).

In the oceans, increased CO₂ is causing acidification of water. Recent research has shown that the expected doubling of CO₂ concentrations could inhibit the development of some calcium-shelled organisms, including phytoplankton, which are at the base of a large and complex marine ecosystem (see Ocean acidification: the other CO2 problem). That may also result in significant loss of biodiversity, possibly including important food species. (More on this at: Climate myths - Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production. )

Now, pros & cons regarding the CO2 levels will probably go on for many years to come. My only concern is that this ad is just as much about CO2 as it is about higher interests and about how much money will be lost if CO2 will be classified as pollutant.