Wow,I just don't know what to say to a piece like this. First, to frame carbon dioxide as "a pollutant but also a fertilizer" is, it's fucking incredulous. You

Wow,I just don't know what to say to a piece like this. First, to frame carbon dioxide as "a pollutant but also a fertilizer" is, it's fucking incredulous. You are made of carbon dioxide and water. You can classify it as a pollutant when it has negative impacts, but that is what is secondary on this planet. Are they being disingenuous, or do they expect that their readership is naive to this fact? Then, to frame the obvious consequence of increased carbon dioxide being a greener world as potentially bad, and those negatives are things like ecosystem destruction, lack of biodiversity, that the plants decompose eventually (not a consideration when you're talking about greening in aggregate), runoff... I thought the big giant problem we need to be solving is carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Will they address the negative impact of ocean greening, a far more consequential increase in biomass with regard to climate that they mention but don't address? Is there one? All I see is a good thing dressed up as a bad thing because can't have good things happen to the planet as a result of human beings, ever.