Workplace consultant Mike Bowler has called for organizations and remote workers to pay closer attention to indoor carbon dioxide, arguing that poorly ventilated rooms may contribute to fatigue and weaker decision-making during long meetings. His account combines readings from a portable monitor with summaries of laboratory research, rather than presenting a new controlled study.
Outdoor air registered around 400 parts per million on Bowler’s device. In a closed meeting room occupied by several people, he recorded a level of 2,143 ppm and has seen readings pass 2,000 ppm. People exhale carbon dioxide, so concentrations can rise as occupants remain in a space without enough fresh-air exchange. The gas can therefore serve as a practical indicator that ventilation is not keeping pace with occupancy.
Bowler cited research at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in which participants were exposed to different CO2 concentrations while other conditions were held constant. According to his summary, performance at 1,000 ppm was significantly lower than at a 600 ppm baseline on six of nine decision measures. At 2,500 ppm, seven measures declined substantially, with some scores reaching a range the researchers characterized as dysfunctional. He also referred to a Harvard study that associated rising CO2 with lower cognitive scores, including in strategy, planning and the use of information under pressure.
The post argues that ordinary work conditions can reach the ranges examined in those experiments. Small home offices with closed doors, crowded conference rooms and windowless off-site venues may accumulate exhaled air over an hour or a full day. Occupants may notice tiredness or mental fog without identifying ventilation as a possible contributor.
Bowler cautioned against assuming that a central office automatically provides better air. In one client’s building, his monitor found some areas close to outdoor conditions but worse readings in meeting rooms and places with more people. The observation suggests that performance can vary by room and occupancy even within a mechanically ventilated building.
His proposed interventions are modest: measure conditions with an inexpensive CO2 monitor, then open a window or door where appropriate. In buildings with managed heating, ventilation and air conditioning, a high reading can instead prompt a facilities check or a move to another space.
CO2 readings alone do not diagnose the cause of every difficult meeting, and Bowler’s source summary does not provide enough methodological detail to establish effects for every workplace. The practical takeaway is narrower: ventilation is measurable, can change during a session and deserves consideration alongside scheduling, facilitation and employee wellbeing when teams investigate declining concentration.
