The more I study the topic, the less satisfied I am with people's interpretations. As an example, some use the term "pollution" to describe Co2. Others use the term beneficial byproduct of production.

A May 2018 report by The Heartland Institute, “The Social Benefits of Fossil Fuels,” states the “increase in atmospheric [carbon dioxide] concentration … caused by the historical burning of fossil fuels has likely increased agricultural production per unit [of] land area by 70 percent for C3 cereals [which include rice, wheat, oats, cotton, and evergreen trees], 28 percent for C4 cereals [which include sorghum, maize, and various grasses], 33 percent for fruits and melons, 62 percent for legumes, 67 percent for root and tuber crops, and 51 percent for vegetables.”
The moral of the story is this: you can have more crops, lower food prices, and fewer hungry people and deaths due to starvation, or you can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and produce little or no reduction in future temperatures, but with current and reasonably expected future technologies, you can’t have both.

Source

Is a greener planet a bad thing?