Richard Heinberg is one of America’s foremost experts on peak oil, the anticipated
peak and decline of the global oil supply. Heinberg teaches courses on energy and
sustainability at the New College of California, and is the author of The Party’s
Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies and Power Down: Options and
Actions for a Post-Carbon World. He will present “Peak Oil: Challenges and
Opportunities at the End of Cheap Petroleum” at 7 pm Tuesday, Jan. 10. at the
Eugene Hilton downtown. Mayor Kitty Piercy will introduce Heinberg. The event is
sponsored by EWEB and LTD and costs $5 at the door.
What’s new in the peak oil conversation?
There’s a discussion going on about whether the global oil production peak might have
happened in the fourth quarter of 2005. There is more production capacity that will be
coming online in the next few years, but will that be enough to offset declines from exist-
ing fields? We’re seeing some of the world’s largest oil fields going into decline, and if
those decline rates are substantial, we can say that the world’s oil is at peak right now.
What do you want the public to understand about peak oil?
This is a huge turning point for humanity. We need a real group effort to turn away
from fossil fuels deliberately, collectively and in a coordinated way. Right now I’m
working on the Oil Depletion Protocol, which was proposed by Colin Campbell, the
founder of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil. The essence of it is, the oil-
importing countries would agree to reduce their oil imports each year by the world
depletion rate, which is about 2.6 percent.
How does climate change relate to peak oil?
Both oil depletion and climate change are consequences of our dependence on fossil
fuels. So far, most [international] agreements have been to reduce the amount of car-
bon dioxide emissions. The Oil Depletion Protocol starts from a different premise: that
we will have to reduce our oil usage simply because there isn’t enough of the stuff. So
it’s not a question of whether we’re going to do it; it’s how we are going to do it. Are
we going to do it in a cooperative way, or are we just going to let the market take care
of it? The former strategy will result in the most survivable outcome. The conse-
quences of the latter would be catastrophic. We’d see extreme competition for remain-
ing oil supplies that would probably turn very ugly — oil wars, terrorism and global
economic collapse.
Is it effective to examine one issue, climate change or peak oil,
without the other?
In my view, climate change is the trump issue because we’re not talking about the
global economy; we’re talking about the survival of millions of species. But climate
change is theoretical and vague, and I think the problem of peak oil gets people’s atten-
tion because it hits them in their pocketbooks. The Oil Depletion Protocol has some-
thing to offer the Kyoto Protocol, because it’s a way of getting both the heavy users
and the producing nations on board under the same terms. And Kyoto has something to
offer the Oil Depletion Protocol, because if we all reduce our oil usage cooperatively
and simultaneously, the temptation of many nations will be to substitute coal for oil,
which would have a disastrous effect on the global climate. We need to have both pro-
tocols in place at the same time: the Oil Depletion Protocol and a strengthened version
of Kyoto.
Can alternative auto fuels like biodiesel help wean us off oil?
They could be helpful on a small scale, but we have to understand that biofuels require
agricultural production, and so ultimately they’re going to be competing for land with
food production. I think that for emergency vehicles and farm equipment, on a small
scale, it’s a good idea. But I see a real danger here: If transportation fuels become so
expensive that it’s a better money-maker for farmers to grow fuel than it is to grow
food, then we could have millions of people starving so that a few thousand people can
drive their SUVs.
Would the U.S. be able to maintain its superpower status if we
decreased our oil use?
I don’t think so, ultimately, but should one nation in the world be setting the terms of
negotiation for everyone else? Of course, that’s a different kind of discussion. That’s
not just physics; that’s politics.
Can we talk about peak oil without getting political?
Ultimately, no. And that’s what the Oil Depletion Protocol does: It puts all nations on
the same footing by asking all nations to reduce their fossil fuel consumption by the
same percentage. Over time, that reduces the inequality between nations. Because right
now, America’s economic and military prowess is really based upon the fact that we
are able to use vastly more fossil fuels than any other country. If you take away that
fossil fuel subsidy gradually, over time you end up with a very different world.
Can a globalized economy operate without fossil fuels?
I think the answer is probably no, but if the answer is yes, then not to the same degree
that we see globalization occurring today. Transportation will become more expensive
as fossil fuels become more scarce, so we’ll have to look at re-localizing economic
activity wherever we can. The main focus of our strategy should be reducing demand.
That means re-designing our cities so that people can use public transportation, bicy-
cles and other human-powered vehicles. And it means re-shaping our food systems so
that there’s less reliance on fossil fuels. Just about every aspect of modern life needs to
be re-thought so that we use less. But realistically, even the cities that are furthest
ahead on this are just starting.
Do you think that the Bush administration understands
the concept of peak oil?
Absolutely. There’s no doubt about that. When Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton,
he made a speech to the Petroleum Institute back in 1999, and he said that the world
would have a very difficult time supplying enough petroleum to meet demand by the
year 2010. So it’s clear that he understands the situation. The CIA has been studying
peak oil since the 1970s, and we have clear documentary evidence about that.
Has peak oil driven the U.S.’s involvement in the Middle East?
Unquestionably. As soon as the U.S.’s oil production peaked in 1970, it was clear that
this country would become more and more dependent on oil imports, or we would
have to wean ourselves off oil. President Jimmy Carter advised us to reduce our
dependence on oil, but we chose the other path, and we’ve increased our dependency
on oil imports ever since then. That carries a geo-political cost; it means that we have
to ensure the availability of those supplies. And so since 1970, the U.S. has shown
greater and greater interest in the political affairs of the Middle East.
How do you respond to people who don’t take peak oil seriously?
I think we need to focus primarily on policy-makers, and not try to get all of the folks
who are at home watching television, eating pizza and drinking beer to sit up and start
talking about peak oil. We need to get city councils, county boards of supervisors, peo-
ple at the state level, and also prime ministers and presidents to look at this situation
seriously, because they’re responsible for other people’s lives. We could see Hurricane
Katrina coming for days and hundreds of miles away. Peak oil is the same thing; we
can see it coming. The question is, are we going to do anything about it?
What kinds of questions should the leaders of Eugene
be asking about peak oil?
Where does your water come from? Where does your food come from? How reliant on
fossil fuels are you? All of the basic services that are provided for us by municipalities
are energy-dependent. How do you keep emergency vehicles running if you can’t
afford fuel? You folks in Eugene should be working with your local power utility to
start making some good choices about where your energy is going to come from.
There’s no free lunch here. Every energy source has economic and environmental
implications. We have to study those and find our way through the thicket of tradeoffs
as best we can.
JANUARY 5. 2006 9