That is a very difficult question.
Reversible to what height?Deforestation For example has been going on for a very long time. The harsh Greece we know is bar because it was dedesed during ancient Greek civilization.
Europe was essentially one big forest.Today, there is little more to it. This is not the result of recent developments, but has grown historically. A return to a much more forested Europe, for example, seems rather unlikely, although I think it can, by the one hand, the increasing urbanization and stagnant population growth, and on the other, evolutions within the food technology (in-vitro Meat for example) which will release a lot of space for forests.
What is gone is not coming back.For example, you can plant forest, but the biodiversity has been affected. In a way, these matters are irreversible, but that is not to say that there is absolutely nothing more possible.
If we are specifically talking about pollution, then it is a very difficult story that is actually much broader than a Quora response reasonably permits.The environmental pollution itself consists of a number of aspects. Pesticides are generally broken down after a relatively short period of time. There are exceptions to the POPs (persistent organic pollutants) that are much less quickly broken down; A notoriously example is DDT. Generally speaking, you can argue that if you stop spreading (harmful) pesticides, they will also disappear from the ecosystem quite quickly.
The effects of these pesticides are of course felt longer.We currently have a gigantic insect crisis, where we already perceive 75 -80% less insects from certain groups.This is the result of climate change, but also of the overuse of pesticides and monoculture in agriculture. Certain insects are so bad that they are actually threatened with extinction or are even extinct.
Another crisis is the abundance of plastics, especially in (sea) water.This is what Boyan Slat wants to solve with his Ocean Cleanup Project.
The most famous ‘ pollution crisis ‘ is of course climate warming, which is largely caused by the emission of [mathCO_2 [/math].This leads to many problems, such as the gigantic population decline of krill, which in turn forms a basis of a genuine food chain -just like insects. When we massively switch to efficient, clean energy (read: nuclear energy), we adapt our food production and combine all of this with active measures, such as [mathCO_2 [/math from the air pumps (and this, for example, the Food production), there is still something to be done about it, but it is really 5 for 12 in that area.
So it is a very difficult answer.Strictly speaking, the situation is irreversible. What is gone, never returns the same. I do think, however, that if we ‘ outdo ‘ certain evolutions in the right way, we can restore a large part back, not in the original state, but still in a state that is valuable in terms of biodiversity.
If we manage to concentrate the population in certain areas, make our food production radically more efficient, and make our energy production cleaner, and combine all this with specific measures to minimise nature and biodiversity Possible to restore, it is certainly possible.That does not sound obvious -and it certainly isn’t, but these are all evolutions that are already underway.
If we can also stimulate these same trends in certain fragile areas, which is certainly not obvious but is not impossible, then we can preserve a large proportion of the existing biodiversity.Forest juice and agriculture are not very profitable. Give people an alternative and they often leave agriculture and forest cover lying to the left; We have also known this evolution in our parts.
It is therefore partly irreversible, but a large part can still be prevented -although it is not easy -and a large part also falls to a valuable state to restore.
No, I don’t think so.When you look at the history of the Earth since the Cryogenium, life on Earth has stood up for the hotter fires. Ultimately, the planet is recovering itself.
The real question is whether there is still a place for us people or that we are thrown on the side as a failed experiment.And if we want to see that positively answered, we should begin to become a little less arrogant, selfish and short-sighted, and to pursue politicians who proclaim that as their divine right.