“New and improved — now with added ozone” will no longer be the slogan.
My first thought (and hopefully I’m wrong), is carbon credits, but either the cartoonist thinks it’s ridiculous & wants to mock the idea by expanding it to other pollutants, or someone changed it to other pollutants to be less topical (i.e. fewer people will object).
Of course this breaks down because you go to marketing to sell something, whereas if you have too much carbon you buy credits, not sell them. But I’m sure there are cases of unwanted byproducts being turned into something that gets sold. (Fluoride and artificial vanilla flavouring are two that come to mind, but I refuse to name the sources, in case someone here doesn’t yet know where they come from, and would like to remain ignorant.)
I’m more intrigued by the guy’s golf pants and lack of socks.
I’m going to go the other way – he’s telling the marketing people to try to sell the destruction of the ozone layer as a good thing. Which is the only reason they’d go to marketing at all.
I agree with KN — indeed, I don’t really follow the other explanations. That is, they have some actual product, whose use or manufacture damages the ozone layer, and this will be positioned as a benefit of the product.
“Ozone” doesn’t necessarily refer to the ozone layer of our atmosphere, high up and out of reach. Ozone can and does exist here at the surface, as well, and down here, more ozone is not a good thing. It smells, and is a regulated pollutant, and it has adverse health effects, too.
No ozone layer means no hole in the ozone layer. Problem solved.
Comics I Don't Understand 
“New and improved — now with added ozone” will no longer be the slogan.
My first thought (and hopefully I’m wrong), is carbon credits, but either the cartoonist thinks it’s ridiculous & wants to mock the idea by expanding it to other pollutants, or someone changed it to other pollutants to be less topical (i.e. fewer people will object).
Of course this breaks down because you go to marketing to sell something, whereas if you have too much carbon you buy credits, not sell them. But I’m sure there are cases of unwanted byproducts being turned into something that gets sold. (Fluoride and artificial vanilla flavouring are two that come to mind, but I refuse to name the sources, in case someone here doesn’t yet know where they come from, and would like to remain ignorant.)
The comic is from 1/27 and this appeared a few days before: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/nasa-study-first-direct-proof-of-ozone-hole-recovery-due-to-chemicals-ban
So, the ozone layer is getting better because the bad guy released what he was hoarding ?
Maybe he needed it to get rid of the bad smoke smell of his plant.
I’m more intrigued by the guy’s golf pants and lack of socks.
I’m going to go the other way – he’s telling the marketing people to try to sell the destruction of the ozone layer as a good thing. Which is the only reason they’d go to marketing at all.
I agree with KN — indeed, I don’t really follow the other explanations. That is, they have some actual product, whose use or manufacture damages the ozone layer, and this will be positioned as a benefit of the product.
“Ozone” doesn’t necessarily refer to the ozone layer of our atmosphere, high up and out of reach. Ozone can and does exist here at the surface, as well, and down here, more ozone is not a good thing. It smells, and is a regulated pollutant, and it has adverse health effects, too.
No ozone layer means no hole in the ozone layer. Problem solved.