Suppose a tub was best at two inches of water, got worse for every inch, and overflowed at four feet.

And you had turned on the tap and there is now three feet of water. You propose:

1. Reducing the rate of the tap

2. Turning off the tap

3. Turning off the tap and removing water until it gets back to two inches

Most people think of climate change prevention as #1. #3 is what actually gets you back to ideal.

But if you get back to that level and then leave the tap off, things are fine and no active management is required.

I don’t understand the bathtub analogy, but I will say it should be a goal of humanity to control the climate of the entire earth. The alternative is we don’t and are forever at the whim of what Earth and the solar system decides to throw at us.

I’ve found this argument to be appealing to people on both sides of the climate change debate.

I agree tbh, a modern focus is one of conservation; what better way to guarantee the ongoing proliferation of various species other than being able to control the environment they live in.

Controlling the climate (and by that of course we mean very carefully holding it at what it should be) benefits all life on the planet.