If we didn't live in a society so saturated by anti-humanism--specifically the dogma that human impact on the planet is immoral and inevitably self-destructive--we would be open to the possibility that rising CO2 levels, by bringing about more warmth and greening, are desirable.

In a pro-human society, without the pseudoscientific, primitive religious Earth worship that dominates ours, we'd see more headlines like this: "Earth is not the best place to live, scientists say." https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/earth-alien-life-nasa-planets-worlds-b811661.html

"Being slightly warmer would also make a planet more habitable, with an ideal of about 5 degrees Celsius hotter than Earth thought to be the biggest improvement."

So why are we outlawing most of our energy supply to stop us from getting 2 degrees warmer? https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/earth-alien-life-nasa-planets-worlds-b811661.html

"It's sometimes difficult to convey this principle of superhabitable planets because we think we have the best planet. We have a great number of complex and diverse lifeforms, and many that can survive in extreme environments....doesn't mean that we have the best of everything.”

Remember that a warmer, greener planet will be a byproduct of billions of people using a lot of energy to live lives of abundance, safety, and opportunity. By a human flourishing standard, such a planet is an improvement. By by the anti-human-impact religion, it's terrible.

https://twitter.com/alexepstein/status/976595125039259655?lang=en