That is a false equivalence. To take it to the extreme, water is the base of life on earth. So adding an extra 2km of water on earth's surface couldn't possibly

That is a false equivalence. To take it to the extreme, water is the base of life on earth. So adding an extra 2km of water on earth's surface couldn't possibly be bad for life, right? And it wouldn't necessarily. The thing most of us are concerned with, is to preserve our ecosystem as we know it. Part of it is bebause we know it can sustain us (selfishly). Another part is, fast changes are hard to adapt to, and fast changes in the environment have already sparked multiple mass extinction events. And ecosystems are complex and interlinked. They are flexible to an extent, but something that's good for part of the ecosystem isn't necessarily good for the rest; it's easy to have it all collapse (this is documented, as we have witnessed multiple local ecosystem collapses over the years, and it's quite simple to imagine). Of course, what you say is also true. But, for instance, how do the same plants grow in warmer temperatures? With less water? Without the usual organic life in the soil? Our ecosystems are not so resilient once we stress them too much, too quickly. Our current way of life is just irresponsible. Let's stop burying our heads in the sand, and come up with rationalizations that arise from cognitive dissonance (which I suspect is what drove you to write this post).