Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.
I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters. However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link. Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.
Furthermore, the main increase in CO² as we warm out of the last mini ice age is warming oceans, because CO² as we know trails warming, it does not cause it. This is well documented.
Whatever the cause there seem to measurably evidenced benefits, not only in my country in a draught year, but globally.
Here are some case studies:
And this article which raises the point that plant increases will actually absorb more CO² and thereby regulate modest increases but ensure no runaway increases happen. It's a natural buffer, but even so that is the smallest of many natural atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial buffers which are known to exist.
Here is a website dedicated to basic science, the unrefuted basic science of the benefit of CO² to plants:
We could go on and on, but nobody contests this. The real areas of interest are who stands to gain from stopping green spending on Mercury, Lead, Solvents, Nuclear Waste, Toxic chemicals etc and redirecting them to chasing CO² ghosts?
Well fortunately I've already covered that in great detail here, I strongly suggest taking a look because I took great care to address every aspect in detail: