I can’t quite remember what the ad was about – but I was struck by the images, and mostly what I felt watching. The outdoors, a person reaching out for a fruit, in a tree. My reaction was, sweet! . . . and boredom. It failed to grab me. I stopped to think, and wondered, is that how I feel, genuinely, with nature imbued narrative, usually? And my response was, yes . . . and maybe others are too?
Contrast this with the excitement from my friend, after he had just come from watching the Waste=Food documentary:
When I heard him talk about the Chinese story, and also Nike’s revolutionary process for making eco-friendly shoes, I wanted to learn more.
In the search for a more sustainable world, we humans may be more impressed by stories of our own ingeniosity, than nature’s goodness. Technology, creativity, and news seem like a potent recipe for effective green communication, worth using over, and over again. Not so, bucolic scenes, and the romanticization of our natural world.
La Marguerite 
As a fairly grizzled veteran of the messaging wars over the environment, I can say with complete confidence that if you want to move public will on an environmental issue, you better find a way to connect with the concerns they hold closest: family, health, economic and physical security. Technology-heavy “solutions” framing works pretty well.
As for nature- or wildlife-centered framing, it works only with the “deep green” traditional (and graying) base of the environmental movement. It’s for fundraising appeals to that base. For most advocacy work, you can talk about the environment but not within this framing.