I agree with you about particulates and VOCs[1], however I want to push back on:
There’s good evidence that higher ambient CO2 [...] meaningfully impair cognition & productivity
I believe that a reasonable interpretation of the evidence would suggest the evidence mixed at best. I am personally quite skeptical.
***
In JP’s memory of the situation there were a few bad studies a while back that found enormous (I might provocatively say implausible) effect sizes. Having not done a strong literature review, I am not aware of any that have found anywhere near the original effect size. Recently I went quickly looking to see if someone had found any more evidence and found this:[2]
The effect of the indoor concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) is smaller and only matters during phases of the game when decisions are taken under high time stress.
...Which, yeah, sounds like p-hacking to me. At the very least, not consistent with a large effect size from CO2.
Scott Alexander agrees with me, and did a self experiment with a null result, which I would have expected to come out positive in the event of a large effect size from CO2.
***
In the end this debate isn’t especially action-relevant. You should probably buy that air monitor. And pay attention to the CO2 as a measure of outdoor air exchange. Indoor air pollution is a big deal, even when you think it’s fine. But it’s probably not the CO2 directly doing the work.
This study seems pretty cool to me (though I haven’t done a thorough skeptical evaluation), and is consistent with, “indoor air pollution is a big deal, yo”.
I agree with you about particulates and VOCs[1], however I want to push back on:
I believe that a reasonable interpretation of the evidence would suggest the evidence mixed at best. I am personally quite skeptical.
***
In JP’s memory of the situation there were a few bad studies a while back that found enormous (I might provocatively say implausible) effect sizes. Having not done a strong literature review, I am not aware of any that have found anywhere near the original effect size. Recently I went quickly looking to see if someone had found any more evidence and found this:[2]
...Which, yeah, sounds like p-hacking to me. At the very least, not consistent with a large effect size from CO2.
Scott Alexander agrees with me, and did a self experiment with a null result, which I would have expected to come out positive in the event of a large effect size from CO2.
***
In the end this debate isn’t especially action-relevant. You should probably buy that air monitor. And pay attention to the CO2 as a measure of outdoor air exchange. Indoor air pollution is a big deal, even when you think it’s fine. But it’s probably not the CO2 directly doing the work.
Which cannot generally be filtered out with an air filter, and as such, improving ventilation matters for. Also airborne pathogens are a thing.
This study seems pretty cool to me (though I haven’t done a thorough skeptical evaluation), and is consistent with, “indoor air pollution is a big deal, yo”.