Allow me to add something in the spirit of tipping points:

Besides a focus on "basins of attraction" and moving from one state to another, the larger concept of resilience also tells us that systems are never in equilibrium. At least in the Dutch nature conservation debate, the position that there even is such a thing as a "native" or "original" or "natural" state is all but abandoned. So to directly answer your question: No, you cannot bring back native conditions simply because they do not exist. What you CAN do is to pick a desirable ecosystem and attempt to bring that back, but in my view this is land use planning, not nature conservation or ecosystem restauration.

I think reversing climate change shouldn't even be considered until we can at least slow it down or stop it where it is (which are both daunting tasks in themselves). The major concern at this point (at least from my perspective) is whether or not we've already surpassed the tipping point of reversing the negative impacts of climate change - and I think we have. I think that the major consequences of climate change that have already happened over such a rapid period of time have already put us into the unknown;. That is, I feel we are now in a process of a rapidly and unpredictably changing climate that is only going to accelerate in its progression. Coupled with the hesitancy and unwillingness to act on climate change, I really can't see a reversal of climate change anytime in the near future.

I think it is very hard to bring the native conditions back, but we can do two things:

1- trying to reduce the negative conditions in the urban areas (the areas we use or live in)

2- Attempting to shift far away from the affected areas to some areas with low impact like rural areas especially in middle Africa and similar native areas.

Good point Albert! I agree that although one tipping point will (is) assuredly be passed, it is even more critical to tackle the next challenge on the ladder with even more diligence and ambition.

One thing we must be clear that bringing back to the 'native' condition or at the stage of creation of our planet is not at all possible. We can decelerate the rate of climate change by not emission of the green house gas, preserving the water, harvesting the rain water, afforestation, etc.

So we can reduce the rate of climate change occurrence.

In the mean time we have to find out the strategies to combat the change..

Allow me to add something in the spirit of tipping points:

Besides a focus on "basins of attraction" and moving from one state to another, the larger concept of resilience also tells us that systems are never in equilibrium. At least in the Dutch nature conservation debate, the position that there even is such a thing as a "native" or "original" or "natural" state is all but abandoned. So to directly answer your question: No, you cannot bring back native conditions simply because they do not exist. What you CAN do is to pick a desirable ecosystem and attempt to bring that back, but in my view this is land use planning, not nature conservation or ecosystem restauration.

I thought Kasper's answer was great. In Scotland we're just starting to look more critically at concepts like 'native' or 'natural' in terms at least of our trees and forests, particularly driven by the serious tree health threats we face. Essentially I believe we face the choice of adopting at least some non-native tree species or seeing major breakdowns in the ecosystems we have at present. Our Caledonian pinewood ecosystem is dominated by Scots pine, juniper and birch. The first two are faced with real health threats - and so without finding alternative conifers, the whole structure of the pinewood systemis in peril.

But (and I'd be interested in Kasper's views on this) this then takes us to a different question - who gets to decide? If we don't have 'natural' as the ultimate arbiter, how do we decide what it is we want? You used the phrase 'desirable ecosystem' - desired by who?