Simple answer is, "NO". Global pollution in the form of air pollution, water pollution, soil pollution, noise pollution, radiation pollution, just to mention a few is increasing day by day. So far, I dont think we are winning the war against global environmental pollution. we are on losing side and therefore, pollution is increasing in different forms.  

This requires massive participation of people and change in the attitude of public towards the environment. This can not be achieved by enforcement of laws and regulations, as anything done through compulsions will not be sustainable. Hence if we try towards pollution free region/state/country, we can do it, its not impossible.

Some Scientests may be wining some battles here and there, however they are actively participating in losing the war againt war. As for the municipalities, can they truly cope with the aftermath of a depleted uranium* ( eternally polluting an area) attack? . Let alone similar or worse still largely unknown dirty weapons?

Its a fierce battle, the more we fight as scientist, the more it seems we are just beginning. I choose to be optimistic and do my best as a scientists in searching for more viable pollution management techniques. Especially eco-friendly methods.

The answer is definitely no especially in developing countries like Nigeria. The major method of municipal solid waste disposal in Nigeria is open dumping and there is scientific evidence that GHGs such as Carbondioxide and NOx are released to the atmosphere through that method. If there is proper municipal solid waste management such as aerobic and anearobic digestion which produces compost and biogas respectively and when these are combined with recycling, the emissions can be reduced by more than 50% thus reducing environmental pollution and preventing release of GHGs and preventing global warming and climate change on the long run.

@Olugbenga, African is the most affected continent with all forms of pollution and yet we do little or nothing to counter and manage the effects. Our leaders only make unrealistic policies that end up in the books and never see the light of the day. Given the concentration of GHGs released everyday, i wonder if Africa will still be habitable in the coming years.

We are not winning globally. Most developing countries are in their way to winning, whereas most developing countries are far behind. The controlling factors of economy, technology and society are critical to the winning process. Think about when electric cars will take over combustion engines as a time frame to winning, but the threat of U.S.A. to back-out from the global climate change accord also spells not winning. See recent publication of SAGE, WM&R titled: "Global capacity, potentials and trends of solid waste research and management"

Both sides exist, those doing much to reduce pollution and those who are not bothered in taking steps to reduce.

I believe integrating life cycle thinking in different systems would reduce to some extent the pollution problem. It is high time nations and organizations incorporated life cycle thinking in their policies, this can help in closing the loop that is going circular or near circular. There is need for investment in sustainable solutions in different sectors.

Scientists for themselves cannot win the war against global pollution. Scientists have an important role in preserving the nature. They are constantly assessing the environmental factors condition, and alerting to decision makers on identified problems and proposing solutions to solve them. Scientists develop methods and tools to support the decision making, implement and evaluate policies and strategies on sustainability both at the national, and international level. They innovate, seek new ways to improve the sustainable performance of industries and to develop more sustainable products and services. But, the solution to global pollution depends on the cooperation among involved actors (States, civil society and international organisations).

States have the responsibility to make decisions to deal with the global environmental problem. In this connection, States have to develop and to implement policies and strategies to achieve sustainability targets. States have to implement a regulatory and legal framework to protect the planet that meets the International Law and Multilateral Environmental Agreements. States have to develop an educational system focused on sustainability. They have to contribute developing cooperation networks both at the national and international level to face the sustainable development challenge.

Scientists have the merit of being the most active fighters in preserving the nature. The solution to the global environment problem depends on those who make decisions, mainly the Head of States because he can negotiate international agreements.

  “Many countries and societies disagree about the nature, impacts of and necessary responses to problems.” Herein lies the heart of the problem.

I would agree with the comments made above, but your question is about winning and I would assume by implication are scientists "losing the war?" There is no war, there is a quest. With specific comments about municipal waste management, There are a number of activities that have been helpful in addressing environmental pollution overall. Recycling of waste such as plastics and select metals has been ongoing for some time. In respect to plastics, the world is an auction house and as such buying price for the recycled material plays a primary role. When prices are low as they are now due to an abundance of plastic materials such as PET, PC and PE then there is little incentive financially to recycle. In addition, many municipalities have installed methane recovery systems to power their own energy requirements at landfills or to feed a generator and put energy back into the grid. Again, this all depends on finanical advantage and not whether they are doing something good for the environment "at any cost." Many waste facilities have been operating for decades as the "town dump." They have no bed liners to protect the ground water and have had little restriction on what can be placed in the waste facility. As such, there is an enormous impact on groundwater quality that will influence water resources for many kilometers around the facility. This includes hazardous chemicals containing carcenogenic compounds leading to high cancer rates experienced by local populations. There is also a practice of mining landfill dsposal sites for valuable metals or materials. This is a recovery methodology of disposed resources, but again is driven by price not environment.

Where scientists have played a significant role is in materials science and reducing materials composition where such matreial can become more benign on human health and thus reducing the overall impact at that material's end of life. Also, many scientists are looking at the entire lifecycle of a molecule or a compound and so forth. They are trying to determine how they can create materials whose life cycle will not impact the environment or at least at this point reduce the impact of the material's demise.

Scientists are stuck with the concept that "science follows its own trajectory." There is a lot of effort and exploration of materials disposal on the ambient environment with many false starts and a few successes. This is science at its best.

As long as man exists on planet earth eradicating (if that is what you mean by winning) pollution  is practically impossible, however it can be reduced and or controlled. Pollution abatement can not also be achieved convincingly by scientists only, yes scientists will through their study/research take the lead, but all hands must be on deck from the individual, family, private and public organizations as well government at the various levels must work in synergy to achieve the desired result. A situation where a multinational firm will comply with stringent environmental standards and regulations set for themselves in their country but will jettison same when they find themselves in developing or third world nations will certainly not help the global environment.   

Municipal wastes  when properly managed and or disposed as is the case in most advanced nations will certainly contribute in reducing  environmental pollution, the reverse as is the case in most urban centers in developing countries will equally increase the menace of environmental pollution. 

Thank you. You all got me thinking early this morning! Its a very complex consideration and each of you added a very different perspective all of which should be integrated eventually.  Its a little bit like Edward O Wilson's Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. Great study and has more meaning at each turn.

Agreed! Human nature may actually be the war!

Given the various perspectives from each quatar on pollution, it seems we are seriously on the losing side to make matters even worse, the world population seems to increase at an exponential rate which is directly proportional to the pollutants released in the environment. I agree that all hands must be on deck.

Cutting through the smog: Is pollution getting worse?

By Nic Fleming

In rapidly growing economies, the amount of pollution in the air is undeniably rising, but it is a different story in most rich countries. Take, for instance, PM2.5 particulates – believed to account for most of the health burden of air pollution (see “What’s in the air“). Worldwide, average concentrations rose 11 per cent between 1990 and 2015, according to a report by the Health Effects Institute and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, both in the US. The trend reflects large increases in India, Bangladesh and China: concentrations in the US, the European Union, Canada and Australia fell over the same period

Media reports on air pollution in the West frequently don’t mention the major improvements made since the 1950s. But the rate of progress has slowed and Europe, including the UK, is showing no signs of meeting WHO guidelines for clean air any time soon. “The data from monitoring sites across western Europe shows PM2.5 levels are going down,” says Gavin Shaddick of the University of Bath, UK, who develops air pollution models for the WHO. “But they are not falling quickly enough.”

.....

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2129548-cutting-through-the-smog-is-pollution-getting-worse/

I have just spent 10 years working in India and I have spent a lot of time in China as well. In both cases I was working in matters relating to water pollution. I have also spent a number of years with projects in Russia. In each of these places, air and water pollution are major health concerns and have a quantifiable impact not only on human health but also the economy of these nations. It has taken a vast amount of money and nearly 60 years to clean-up the United States in large part. A comment made to me years ago during one of my Russian conferences on "The Environment" by a conference participant when he said, "Cleaning up the environment is only for rich countries. Russia is a poor country and we cannot afford to clean up the environment." This has haunted my thinking on the subject of environmental management for many years because in that statement is a certain truth. I know that there are mornings when I could not land in Delhi because the smog was so dense, planes had to be diverted to other locations. The smog was blamed on many Indians cooking over wood fires in the urban settings. In Russia, the Don River water was so polluted that cancer was a major health issue if you were drinking groundwater miles from the river itself found in the typical river sediments.  

In a certain respect my Russian colleague is correct that funds diverted to environmental clean up in the short term show little reward and progress. On a global scale, we have become oriented to "fast results" as a general population. The age of computers has in my opinion has been one of the drivers behind this impatience. The general population has relied too heavily upon science as the solution. Earlier I said in one of my comments that science follows its own trajectory. This can be a costly and time consuming process and one that is becoming a bit more comlpex due to climate change influences. Higher sea levels are evident today. Increased fesh water flowing into our oceans changing the marine environment is notable and worrying. So, in response to the question above regarding whether the world can ever be free of pollution, I am afraid not because pollution is a moving target as is the economics of nations, the science of effort to understand before we can resolve and the nature of pollution changes from time to time. BUT, we can improve our human plight and that of the earth by making an effort to identify the most viable and important environmental assets at stake and focus on securing them into the future. In my world as a geologist/hydrogeologist/economist, I believe we are securing our global water resources and trying to provide for future generations through science, technology and regulation. This has been a completely facinating series of discussions on the original question and so many have joined into provide their insights. Thank you all. This is "important stuff."

After the relocation of Industries from the erstwhile Industrial nations to locations which have poor environmental regulations, the pollution is counted on the HEADS of poor Indians, Chinese and so on. However, the fact remain the global capital and industrial activities are getting concentrated in fewer hands (ISSC Report 2016) and by that logic those generating pollution are less in number but their geographical control and capacity to produce environmental externalities has grown many fold. If we are serious to contain pollution, we have to pledge for a slow economic growth and lowering consumption. Production of Consumption will not help.