Except no. Read carefully, the NG article focuses on the animals returning, not the clearer waters. The article doesn't invalidate everything. Unless people are master photoshoppers, the hundreds of photos of clear to the bottom canals demonstrate things return to normal as soon as we stop inputting more.
haha la terre devient plus propre sans l'activité humaine.. good job a te contredire
Let break this down because it seems complicated for some.
The most important: Pollution is not the same as climate change. Climate change would happen even without humans. Earth goes through ice ages, warm periods and it's constantly changing. Pollution is humans introducing something into their surroundings that degrades the quality of those surroundings. Exhaust fumes, chemicals in the water, heck even garbage on the ground.
Thinking we really affect the climate in any significant way is laughable, like someone who thinks they've raised the temperature of the ocean
by any significant matter by pissing in the water. We have trouble controlling our building climates, you think we really have any real influence on the entire world? Climate change is to fools as monsters under the bed are to children. It's a way to exercise control over gullible people using fear.
On to pollution. First, don't get me wrong, I hate pollution. I want to breath clean air, drink clean water and general want to be places that are pristine. We do pollute and it should be reduced where easily possible but once again you got these big hearted little brained ecofacists that come around claiming that we've "reached the tipping point,
there's no turning back now, we must relinquish all our technologies to save the planet".
To this I claim bullshit and it's not contradicting. We can and should for example stop packaging shit in 10 nested layers of plastic but we don't need to all give up our cars and plane travel this very second because the earth will bounce back once we do move on to a clean technology.