杏吧原创

IN A parallel universe, I have just returned from a gathering in Salt Lake City, Utah. The Ecological Society of America鈥檚 annual meeting was a hive of activity: 4000 delegates, talks on cutting-edge research, press conferences, social gatherings and ample opportunities to mingle, make contacts and pick up ideas.

In the real world, the meeting was and I watched it at home on my computer. I take my hat off to the organisers and speakers; in the circumstances, it was amazing. But it wasn鈥檛 the same as the real thing. I wonder what chilling effect it might have had on that precious currency of scientific progress, the exchange of ideas over a couple of drinks.

Much has been made of the fact that, before the pandemic, we massively overestimated the need to be physically present to get things done. I have been working productively from home and have burned a lot less oil going to international gatherings, while actually attending more than usual. I have repeatedly heard people extol the virtues of these virtual meetings, and I agree there is a lot to be said for them: people from all over the world can get together at the click of a mouse. Teleworking has contributed to the decline in emissions during the pandemic.

But let鈥檚 not get carried away. Another meeting was a with Fatih Birol, the executive director of the International Energy Agency. Organised by University College London, it was a great example of the use of technology to keep international scholarship alive. Birol鈥檚 theme was a now-familiar one: how to leverage the anthropause 鈥� the lull in human activity under covid-19 鈥� to bring about a decisive shift in the world鈥檚 energy economy. A lot of ink has already been spilled enthusing about this idea. Birol is optimistic that we can solve our environmental problems, but he is a hard-headed, data-driven realist.

He made it clear that work-related lifestyle changes are just a smidgen of what we need. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think through webinars and through Zoom meetings we can solve the world鈥檚 energy and climate problems,鈥� Birol said. 鈥淭oday, according to our numbers, only 10 per cent, maximum, of the labour force can work from home. Aviation is only 7 per cent of global oil consumption.鈥�

For now, meetings like the Ecological Society of America have to be virtual to keep everybody safe, but for the sake of scientific progress I think they will eventually revert back to the old face-to-face normal. That isn鈥檛 to say that the meeting was a write-off. Far from it. In fact, a lecture by another international mover and shaker, ecologist Rob Jackson of Stanford University in California, was one of the most inspirational I have sort-of attended since I began working from home in March.

鈥淲e shouldn鈥檛 merely aim to halt the atmosphere鈥檚 destruction, but to nurse it back to full, pristine health鈥�

Jackson鈥檚 theme was restoring the atmosphere, by which he means returning it to its pre-industrial state. Jackson said he was no longer satisfied with goals to keep warming to 1.5掳C or some other arbitrary value, but longed to return the atmosphere to how it was before we started dumping carbon dioxide, methane and other pollutants into it.

Taking inspiration from the growing field of ecological restoration 鈥� intervening to help degraded ecosystems recover 鈥� he argued that we should treat the atmosphere as we do wetlands, forests or endangered species. We don鈥檛 merely aim to halt their destruction, but to nurse them back to full, pristine health. The atmosphere deserves no less. Think of it as rewilding the sky.

Yes, he admitted, it seems a 鈥減reposterous idea鈥�. We can鈥檛 even stabilise levels of greenhouse gases, let alone reverse them. But, he said, with so much bad news we need a new narrative of hope. Temperature thresholds are abstract; normal people don鈥檛 relate to them. 鈥淭hey don鈥檛 provide a narrative that has, or will, lead to action.鈥�

The roadmap to atmospheric restoration is largely familiar: renewable energy, a trillion trees, carbon capture and storage and negative emissions technology. But one step is something I鈥檇 never heard of before: sucking methane directly out of the atmosphere.

The to do this is in development, and compared with CO₂ removal it should be easy. The thermodynamics are favourable, as methane is more energy-rich than CO₂ . There is less methane to get rid of, but it has an outsized effect: about a third of warming so far is attributable to it. Removing 3.2 billion of the 5.6 billion tonnes of this gas would restore methane levels to pre-industrial levels and it would have knock-on benefits as methane plays a role in ozone pollution in towns and cities.

When Jackson first mentioned atmospheric restoration, I thought it was pie in the sky. Now I鈥檓 warming to it and can鈥檛 wait to fly to the US to hear about progress at the next annual meeting in Long Beach, California, in August 2021. I promise to offset my emissions.