> More pressingly, when it comes to plant life RIGHT NOW, we're still dangerously close to CO₂ starvation levels.

This is the most provocative claim you make and coincidentally the one you don't back up with any evidence. The one article you post from phys.org (1) does not use the colorful and misleading language of CO2 'starvation' and (2) actually concludes the opposite of the less dramatic point (plants will be better off with more CO2):

> But, as we know, C3 plants waste a lot more resources at higher temperatures, so any increase in photosynthesis from rising CO₂ levels seems likely to be at least cancelled out by the effects of the global warming it will cause. And that's without factoring in changes to rainfall patterns such as more frequent droughts. Solutions that seem to be too good to be true generally are – and, for the moment, that still seems to be the case for the idea that CO₂ enhanced crop yields will feed the world.

However the idea of being in a CO2 'famine' was recently brought up by the head of the Presidential Committee on Climate Security, William Harper, and also does not seem to be backed by any evidence or the scientific community:

> "It's a silly argument," added Britton Stephens, a senior scientist in the Earth Observing Laboratory at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in an interview.

> Both independent academic institutions and government agencies around disparate parts of the globe have concluded more carbon dioxide will "bring many negative impacts" to plant environments, Stephens emphasized. "If someone is going to claim it's good, it's incumbent upon them to show evidence." [0]

I mean just using common sense plants can and clearly have thrived with lower levels of CO2, before the far bigger threat of human deforestation decimated forests and plant life. The issue isn't whether plant life will be slightly better off with more CO2 or not, but what negative effects changing climate will have on crops, which could be catastrophic and is the point the phys.org concludes with.

This seems like just another flavor of a very similar climate change denialist argument that there was higher CO2 levels during previous glacial periods, also debunked [1].

[0] https://mashable.com/article/trump-climate-panel-william-hap...

[1] https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermed...

The current vegetation is adapted well to the CO2 levels before industrialisation, that is about 300ppm CO2. The change in CO2-content is actually detrimental to some plants. Furthermore, the quick temperature change is going to wipe out large eco systems. The question isn't, what is the optimal CO2 concentration for single species, but about the health of the eco systems we are living in. We are about to wipe out large eco systems and as a consequence, the environment we are living in.

I actually agree with you.

Perhaps the confusion stems from my too-vague use of "we". Your "we" (understandably) refers to humans, who indeed stand much to lose by dramatic CO₂ swings. At least on a suitably mayfly time scale.

My "we" meant more "life on this planet", without as much anthropomorphic bias. Periods of increased warmth and easy access to carbon — the two are historically highly correlated, though not synonymous — are an overall boon to life, referred to as "warm periods", "climatic optimums", "life explosions", etc. This despite the ecosystem upheavals that accompany such large-scale climatic changes being detrimental to incumbent organisms. No argument there.

Coupled with the polarized political nature of the topic, I suspect this difference in "we" resulted in people reading too much into my comment, if you take the time to re-read it. My stance on short-term human-centric status-quo-preserving actions is probably not that different from yours, although I do find broader perspectives and facts helpful in framing rational discourse.

The topic of the article discussed is an approach reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere, to fight the current and ongoing climate change. This sets the context for the discussion. Yes, in geological times, we had much higher CO2-content and some of the plants are still rather optimized for that. This is interesting information, but is an entirely different topic - though it is an argument often used to deny the harmful impact of CO2 onto the climate.

Also, the sole concern of the human species is the survival of the species. Of course we should try to ensure this survival in the most ethical way. Protecting the environment comes from those concerns. Climate change is a very big danger to our civilisation right now.

CO2 drought? Starvation levels?

What's your point? We need more CO2 because... what?

Edit: I can't help but think your comment was sponsored.

Insinuations of astroturfing are not allowed here. Please read the site guidelines and don't post like this to HN.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

If anyone wants more explanation of why we have this rule, I've written plenty at https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....

Op provided a clear explanation of their argument. I don't think they argued that we need more CO2 just provided an interesting perspective on a different time scale. No need for ad hominem attacks.

I think you need to read the comment you're responding to again. OP is not arguing for anything, rather pointing out that different plants evolved to more effectively handle low CO2 environments.