The Umbrella Pines of Rome

 The Triumphal way, at the end of which stands the Arch of Constantine. 

These iconic Umbrella Pine trees are everywhere in Rome. 

Apparently Mussolini planted many. 

But now these trees are mortally threatened by a pest that got into Italy from the USA. 

Neighbourhood Associations are releasing large numbers of ladybirds in an effort to combat that pest. 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/
File:Triumphbogen_fexx.jpg

Most monuments in Rome are framed by these trees, as this image from Wikimedia shows. 

Six countries now generate 70-100 % of their energy from renewables !

A recent study by Stanford University researchers predicted that the world could be powered entirely by renewable energy in just 20 to 40 years from now.

Iceland generates the most clean electricity per person on earth, with 100% of its energy coming from renewable sources.

Costa Rica is among the top renewable energy users, with 99% of its electricity needs coming from hydroelectric, geothermal, and wind. 

Close behind is Norway, with 98% of electricity coming from renewable resources, mostly hydropower.

Thanks to a supportive regulatory environment and a strong partnership between the public and private sector, Uruguay has invested heavily in wind and solar power, without using subsidies or increasing consumer costs. And as a result, it now boasts a national energy supply that’s 95% renewables-powered, achieved in less than 10 years.

Thanks to government investment in wind, solar, and geothermal energy, Nicaragua's aim of being 90% renewables-powered by the year 2020 appears to be an achievable goal.

Kenya has invested heavily in geothermal energy production, which accounted for more than half their energy mix in 2015. They also have Africa’s largest wind farm, providing another 20% of their installed electricity generating capacity.

In 2015, Sweden threw down the gauntlet with an ambitious goal: eliminating fossil fuel usage within its borders. They’ve increased their investment in solar power, wind power, energy storage, smart grids, and clean transport.

Denmark aims to be 100% fossil-fuel-free by 2050 and it plans to use wind power to achieve that goal. They already set a world record in 2014, producing almost 40% of their overall electricity needs from wind power and the latest figures put them firmly on track to meet their first goal of obtaining 50% of their electricity from renewables by the year 2020.

Using a combination of grid-connected wind farms and standalone turbines, the United Kingdom now generates more electricity from wind farms than from coal power plants. 

The United States of America has one of the world’s largest installed solar photo-voltaic capacities and an installed wind energy capacity second only to China. But it is also one of the world’s biggest energy consumers, which tends to cancel out much of its renewable capacity. Nevertheless, if more attention was paid to renewables over fossil fuels, it has been estimated that the U.S. could reduce its emissions by almost 80% in only 15 years, without impacting on consumer electricity costs.

Acknowledgement : The above post has been reworked from information given on this page.

The insurance industry and fossil fuels..

The increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events across the globe has been noted by studies. The specific types of weather events include hurricanes, extreme precipitation, tornadoes, landslides, mudflows, drought, wild fires, heat waves, flash floods and rising sea levels.

It is sobering to realize that only a little over a fourth of the losses due to natural disasters In 2016 were covered by insurance. That is, over a 100 billion pounds worth of losses in 2016, were not covered by insurance and the owners of the assets or services affected, had to bear those losses.

The increasing severity of weather events has been linked to continued fossil fuel use, dumping more and more CO2 every day in the earth's atmosphere, increasing its 'blanket' such that the heat from the sun cannot fully be released back into space.

The insurance industry is one of the world’s biggest institutional investors in fossil fuels.

In the United States, the city of San Francisco has potentially become the first US municipal body to try to force insurance companies to stop insuring and investing in fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels were long considered a ‘safe bet’ until climate scientists declared that the bulk of all known reserves had to stay in the ground if humanity is to limit global warming to 1.5ºC. The risk lies in these fossil fuel investments becoming what is known as stranded assets, which essentially means investments in coal, oil and gas could potentially suffer from a sudden and unexpected drop in value as society puts measures in place to prevent their use.

Whether it’s a drop in demand, new legislation or the threat of legal action, the sheer speed and unanticipated manner in which these factors could take hold could, at some point in the not to distant future, render the bulk of the insurance industry’s fossil fuel investments worthless.

There is also the question of what the insurance industry chooses to insure, or rather, not insure. Fossil fuel companies can’t operate their facilities or build new power plants without insurance coverage. They depend on insurers to cover the legal, financial and natural risks of their projects. Coal has been highlighted as the most carbon heavy of all fossil fuels generating not only nearly half of the world’s CO2, but also creating the most atmospheric pollution.

Researchers have concluded that we cannot afford to build any new coal power plants and have to retire existing plants early in order to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement and avoid the worst impacts of runaway climate change. Yet there are currently 1,600 new coal plants planned globally. If the insurance industry was to cease underwriting such intensive fossil fuel production sites it is likely that many of these projects would never go ahead.

However, in spite of their rhetoric, insurers continue to enable climate-destroying coal projects. They offer insurance coverage without which these projects could not go forward, and have invested more than 500 billion dollars in fossil fuel companies.

An increasing number of insurance companies have divested from providing insurance coverage and investment funds to new coal projects, they are selling holdings in coal companies and refuse to underwrite their operations.

Fifteen insurance compaies have fully or partially halted financial relations with coal companies, representing $4 trillion in global assets. The first-movers, including Allianz, Aviva, AXA and SCOR, are almost exclusively located in Europe and represent 13 percent of all global insurance assets. 

Allianz recently pledged to immediately withdraw from insuring single coal-fired power plants and coal mines, either in operation or planning. Zurich insurance Group announced in nov 2017 that it will stop providing insurance or risk management services for new thermal coal mines or for potential new clients that derive more than half their revenue from mining thermal coal. It will also stop supporting utility companies that generate more than 50 percent of their electricity from coal. Swiss Re and Lloyd’s will also be announcing plans to divest from coal in the coming months. AXA and Swiss Re have also limited their underwriting of tar sands projects

Unfortunately when it comes to the climate change time horizon, the very industry which could have more impact than any other is clearly not taking action quickly enough. Even the bold pledge by Allianz has significant limitations, as the company also stated it will continue to insure businesses that generate power though multiple fossil fuel sources, including coal, until 2040.

The eight top US insurance companies that do not consider climate change in their investments are State Farm, Allstate, Liberty Mutual, Berkshire Hathaway/Geico, Travelers, Nationwide, Progressive and USAA. Only one US insurance company, Lemonade, has pledged not to support fossil fuels.

The Story of Oil...

A fourth of the world's oil is produced in Africa, South America and the Asia-Pacific put together. 20 % of the world's oil is produced in Europe and Eurasia and another 20 % in North America. The remaining 35 % of the world's oil is produced in the Middle East.

The US is the largest producer of oil in the world, accounting for 20 %, followed by Saudi Arabia and Russia.

The Asia-Pacific Region consumed 35 % of the world's oil in 2016. North America consumed nearly 25 % and Europe / Eurasia, 20 %. South America and Africa together consumed 12 % and the Middle East 10 % of the world's oil consumption for 2016.

The single largest oil consumer is the United States, with over 10,000 TWh per year. The USA is followed by China (at 7000-8000 TWh), and India at just under 2500 TWh.

Fossil Fuel Production - and Consumption climbed dramatically - but some countries reduced their consumption !

The 20th century saw a large diversification of fossil energy consumption, with coal declining from 96 percent of total production in 1900 to less than 30 percent in 2000. Today, crude oil is the largest energy source, accounting for around 39 percent of fossil energy, followed by coal and natural gas at 33 and 28 percent, respectively.

The world's total production of fossil fuels grew from 54,000 Terrawatt Hours (TWh) in 1970 to 130,000 TWh in 2014 : 

• India's production of fossil fuels climbed in the same period from 600 to 3900 TWh. 
• Australia has a similar trajectory of 500 TWh in 1970 to 3900 TWh in 2014.
• Indonesia's production went up from 500 to 4700 TWh in 2014. 
• Iran's production went up from 2400 to 3900 TWh in 2014.
• And that of the US from 16000 TWh in 1970 to 21,000 TWh in 2014. 
• Russia moved from 9800 TWh in 1970 to 14800 in 2014. 
• China moved from 2400 TWh in 1970 to 22900 TWh in 2014. 
• Saudi Arabia was a real surprise - its production in 2014 was about double that of India at 8000 TWh, up from 2200 TWh in 1970.
• Canada from 1600 TWh in 1970 to 4600 TWh in 2014.  
• Qatar went from 200 TWh to 3000 TWh in 2014.
• UAE went from less than 500 TWh in 1970 to 2700 TWh in 2014.

Total consumption levels of fossil fuels in higher-income countries have typically peaked, and are now declining as they transition towards lower-carbon energy sources. For example, the United Kingdom's total fossil fuel consumption is at its lowest level in the last 50 years. In many lower-income countries, total consumption of fossil fuels continues to increase as a result of both population growth and rising incomes (resulting in higher per capita energy demands). Global fossil fuel consumption crossed 1.3 lakh TWh in 2014 :

• China's consumption of fossil fuels grew from 2900 TWh in 1970 to 30,900 TWh in 2014.
• India's fossil fuel consumption climbed from 670 TWh to 7120 in 2014.
• Iran's consumption grew from 161 to 3,000 TWh in 2014.
• USA's grew from 18,200 in 1970 to 23,000 TWh in 2014.
• Australia's consumption grew from 500 to 1500 TWh in 2014.
• Brazil increased its fossil fuel consumption from 320 to 2400 TWh in 2014.

European Countries that REDUCED their consumption from 1970 to 2014 (!) :

• Sweden reduced its fossil fuel consumption from 362 in 1970 to 202 TWh in 2014, thus down by 44 %.
• Denmark reduced its consumption from 240 to 154 TWh in 2014, a decline of 36 % !
• Romania reduced its fossil fuel consumption from 430 to 280 TW in 2014, a decline of 35 %. 
• The Czech Republic reduced its fossil fuel consumption from 521 to 364 TWh in 2014 (a reduction of 30 % !).
• Bulgaria reduced its fossil fuel consumption from 202 to 147 TWh in 2014 - thus down by 27 %.
• UK's fossil fuel consumption declined from 2400 to 1900 TWh in 2014, a decline of 21 %.
• Germany's fossil fuel consumption declined from 3500 to 2900 TWh in 2014, a reduction of 17 %.
• Hungary reduced its fossil fuel consumption from 213 in 1970 to 184 TWh in 2104, thus by 14 %.
• France's consumption declined from 1600 to 1400 TWh in 2014, thus lower by 13 %. 
• Belgium reduced its fossil fuel consumption from 534 TWh in 1970 to 529 TWh in 2014 (but in another dataset from 1965 to 2015, it increased its fossil fuel consumption by 25 % in that period).
• Slovakia reduced its consumption from 135 TWh to 123 TWh in 2014. 
• Switzerland reduced its dependence on fossil fuels from 154 to 153 TWh in 2014.

The former Soviet countries reduced even more in 28 years from 1988 to 2014 -  64 % for Ukraine, 39 % for Belarus and 24 % for Russia :

• Ukraine reduced its fossil fuel consumption by 64 % from 2590 TWh in 1988 to 920 TWh in 2014.
• Belarus reduced its consumption from 488 TWh in 1988 to 296 TWh in 2014, a decline of 39 %.
• Azerbaijan reduced their fossil fuel consumption from 248 in 1988 to 163 TWh in 2014, a decline of 34 %.
• Russia reduced its fossil fuel consumption from 9400 TWh in 1988 to 7100 TWh in 2014, a decline of 24 %.
• Kazakhastan reduced its fossil fuel consumption from 830 TWh in 1988 to 750 TWh in 2014, a decline of 10 %.

The European Union as a whole reduced its fossil fuel consumption from 14200 TWh in 1970 to 14000 TWh in 2014. 

The relative mix of coal, oil and gas in total consumption also varies by country. China, for example, sources more than 70 percent of fossil fuel consumption from coal. In contrast, Argentina sources less than two percent from coal, with gas accounting for nearly 60 percent.

Trees, Roof top gardens and Ventilation Corridors...

A large city’s built-up environment can make it nearly 3 C warmer than the surrounding countryside during the day and up to 11 C warmer at night.

In Dallas, where a persistent heat dome in the 2018 summer has sent temperatures soaring past 40 C, volunteers have fanned out around the low-income neighborhood of Oak Cliff, working with residents to plant 1,000 new trees around schools and homes.

Trees don’t just provide much-needed shade for a sweaty city. The water evaporating from their leaves can cool a neighborhood by a few degrees during the hottest periods. Tree leaves also absorb and filter local air pollution — a crucial benefit, since heat waves can worsen urban smog, sending people to the hospital with asthma and other illnesses.

Other cities have their own ideas for promoting urban vegetation: Seattle now encourages developers to add rooftop gardens or even walls covered by vegetation to new building projects. London recently conducted an audit of its central business districts and identified over 10 million square feet of space that could be converted to rain gardens, green roofs and green walls.

In the industrial city of Stuttgart, Germany, refreshing breezes are both scarce and valuable. The city sits in a river valley basin, surrounded by steep hills that can trap both heat and polluted air over the region. It’s a potentially lethal combination during the hotter months.

In response, Stuttgart has created a number of ventilation corridors throughout the city: wide, tree-flanked arterial roads that help clean air flow down from the hills at night to cool the city. Officials have also restricted new buildings from going up on certain hillsides in order to keep the air moving.

Some experts are skeptical that this strategy will work for every city because a lot depends on local weather patterns and geography. But China is becoming interested. Beijing and Xian are looking to create their own ventilation corridors, studying local wind patterns and strategically placing parks or lakes instead of buildings along key pathways so that the cooler breezes can flow freely.

Indian agriculture faces threats from irresponsible shrimp (& prawn) farming..

I am beginning to catch up with photos and videos sent me by friends in India on whatsapp while I was away.

Saw a terrible news item sent by a friend – in a large no. of villages, shrimp farms near chennai have turned barren the agriculture lands surrounding them. The untreated effluent from shrimp farms, full of toxic chemicals, is let out into lakes, rivulets and surrounding lands. It has ruined all groundwater sources and is destroying Kaliveli lake that hosts vast numbers of migratory birds and is a spawning ground for many fish varieties. Worse, the shrimp farmers, politically connected and rich, have broken the nearby dam which housed fresh water, which otherwise could have supplied fresh water to Chennai. Farmers are ruined and migrating as labourers.

Giant Tiger Prawn / CC-By-SA 3.0

I read more widely and found a large no. of news items that report on the devastation in Tamil Nadu. This is the story too in Andhra Pradesh (see here too), Orissa (also see here, here and here) and Gujarat (also see here and here). This has gone on for decades.

The shrimp farms are not registered or monitored by the authorities despite persistent protests by those surrounding them. Sometimes after largescale protests some shrimp farms are closed down, only to re-open again shortly. The shrimp farms are so toxic that they can use a particular piece of land only for a few years and then abandon it to move to new pieces of land. This degraded land cannot be turned back to farming for another 30 years as it is full of salinity and chemicals. The rich in our lawless land can monopolise environmental resources for great profits while more and more farmers and fish workers leave their generations old vocations to become labourers in cities.

The Indian governments, past and present have done nothing – even as other governments have recognized the dangers and have more effectively regulated shrimp farming. Most countries completely ban inland shrimp farming. Mexico runs the industry via highly regulated cooperatives. America has pioneered closed loop shrimp farming where the waste products are eaten by other acquatic animals. The value of protecting mangroves is being recognized even by shrimp farmers as the mangroves filter out toxic chemicals and restore water quality. But Indian governments are not bothered as they only seek to make more money to win the next election.

I can see news of only one large scale action - but we will have to see if it lasts.. in the Chilika Lake of Odisha.