Peak Oil “Powerdown” – A Conversation With Richard Heinberg

Interview conducted by Vermont Commons editor Rob Williams

Q. You've just written a new book called “The Oil Depletion Protocol.” How does it differ from your previous two books about global Peak Oil?

A. In THE PARTY'S OVER, I outlined the problem (Peak Oil); in POWERDOWN, I explored our options and concluded that our best course of action would be a combination of two strategies--Powerdown (cooperative voluntary reduction in resource consumption) and Building Lifeboats (preservationist communities to weather the storm ahead). In THE OIL DEPLETION PROTOCOL, I outline the most basic agreement or accord that will be needed in order to implement a global Powerdown. The Protocol is very simple: it is a pledge to reduce oil consumption by about 2.6 percent per year. If implemented at the global level, it will stabilize oil prices, giving nations the opportunity to plan their energy future and invest in efficiency and alternative energy technologies; it will also reduce international competition for remaining oil supplies and thus avert conflict.

If only one nation adopts it (as Sweden is, in effect, doing), the benefit will be a planned energy transition, which will mitigate the worst impacts of global Peak Oil. But the Protocol can also be implemented at the local level, by cities or towns, and by individuals who pledge to reduce their oil consumption. There are benefits at every stage along the way. As I'm writing, the book isn't out yet (it will be available by the end of August), and already San Francisco, California and Bloomington, Indiana have passed Peak Oil resolutions endorsing the Protocol. Folks can go to the www.oildepletionprotocol.org website to find out more.

Q. Can you explain this concept known as "Peak Oil," and how long have you been aware of it?

A. The phenomenon of oil extraction reaching a maximum and starting to decline (Peak Oil) has been observed in individual oil fields, in the US as a whole (1970), and in many other nations (roughly 30 out of 45 producing countries). Nearly everyone with any knowledge of the petroleum industry agrees that global oil production will peak at some point in the next couple of decades, but there is some controversy over whether that will happen sooner (before 2010) or later (after 2020).

There is also controversy over whether resulting high oil prices will simply encourage conservation and the development of alternatives, resulting in a gentle and painless transition to a different energy regime, or instead cause worldwide economic chaos. I have been studying the matter closely for seven years, and have concluded that a near-term peak is far more likely than a later one, and that a smooth transition is extremely unlikely because price signals will arrive at least a decade too late to be of any use. Most of the available strategies to spur conservation and to develop alternative energy sources will require heavy investment and a lead time of ten to twenty years. I think the Hirsch Report - “Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management” - which was prepared for the US Department of Energy this year, gets it just right when it says that this is a problem that is unprecedented in scope and one that will pose an enormous challenge for modern industrial societies.

Download the Hirsch Report at www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/the_hirsch_report.pdf

Q. Some suggest that far from being a reality, "Peak Oil" is simply a manipulative global elitist corporate conspiracy to drive fossil fuel energy prices up through creating "artificial scarcity," while others such as Thomas Gold (via his book "Deep Hot Biosphere") suggest that oil is created a-biotically, meaning we've got a lot more oil in the ground than we realize. Others, like Counterpunch/The Nation's Alexander Cockburn, suggest both theories are linked. What's your take on these two theories?

A. I spent a month researching abiotic theory and wrote an essay about it (MuseLetter #150, www.museletter.com). Briefly, there is intriguing evidence that some hydrocarbons may indeed be formed in the mantle of the Earth. But the relevance of that possibility for the nations of the world as they struggle to deal with the problem of Peak Oil is nil. The global oil industry didn't pursue exploration on the basis of biotic theory; they started out looking just about everywhere, and they found oil almost exclusively in sedimentary basins—exactly where biotic theory says it should be. I can't really discuss all of the evidence and arguments here—even my 4,000-word essay is just a very brief overview. Suffice it to say that, if Peak Oil were a conspiracy, it would have to involve countries that don't like even to talk to one another (like the US, Iran, Venezuela, China, Russia, and on and on); untold numbers of retired and independent petroleum engineers, geologists, and analysts, as well as ones currently employed by government and industry; and people from all segments of the political spectrum. Data would have to be fabricated and agreed upon by parties that have no apparent interests in common. I don't think so.

Q. Assuming that global "Peak Oil" is an unfortunate reality, how best might individuals and communities take concrete steps to prepare for the inevitable dwindling of our oil and natural gas supplies?

A. First, communities need to quickly study where and how they are vulnerable to energy shortages, and what opportunities they have to re-localize their economies and develop alternatives. Food and water systems have to be assessed first. This requires involvement from local government, businesses, and citizens. Then a step-by-step plan can be drawn up and implemented. Towns and cities should take this very seriously: we are likely facing a challenge much more severe than the Depression of the 1930s. High unemployment and civil unrest are very likely.

Q. Can you provide us with any success stories - communities within the United States or globally - which have figured out how to "power down," as you suggest in your book?

A. A number of communities have begun the process. Kinsale, Ireland has been studying the problem longest; Willits, California has been at it for over a year now; and Sebastopol, California, and Denver, Colorado are just getting started. But these are only studies. Some communities, like Portland, Oregon, have already done some good things like building more mass transit and encouraging walk-able neighborhoods. Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, and Japan are working hard on renewable energy. But Cuba has done more than any other nation, and that as a result of an energy famine that gripped the country throughout the 1990s. The Cubans really deserve some study, because they managed to avoid full-scale collapse even though the energy to fuel their economy declined substantially in a short time. In brief, they encouraged organic and urban food production, began using oxen again, and improvised methods of cheap public transportation.

Q. How do you feel about some Vermonters' notion that peaceable secession from the United States Empire is a viable policy option to be seriously considered?

A. I think that for the time being this is a fringe idea. However, once we're past the global oil peak it may be an idea whose time has come. With much less energy available for transportation, economic re-localization will be necessary for survival, and political devolution will naturally follow.

Q. Are you hopeful about our future?

A. We humans are amazingly resourceful and adaptive. The coming century will be by far the most challenging that any generation has ever had to live through. But if we make good choices now, the long-range future could actually be quite bright.