|
That's understandable Peter. The common benefit quoted is 'CO2 fertilization'. It's true that increasing [CO2] could help plants, and there is serious research being done in the area, but no one would claim that the pros outweigh the cons.
During the last glacial, when [CO2] was ca. 180ppm, this caused plants physiological stress that possibly contributed to the sparsity of vegetation - but everyone agrees that aridity was the dominant reason. So the increase to the pre-industrial 280ppm was good for plants (as was the increased temperature and increased water availability) but, as with all fertilization, there is probably a point where extra CO2 (or water or heat) will not assist plant growth.
|