This is the first article in a three-part series featuring an interview with Richard Heinberg by Manuel Casal Lodeiro of Instituto Resiliencia, originally published in the Spanish magazine 15/15\15 and reproduced here with permission.
This year marks the 20th anniversary of the publication of Richard Heinberg’s The Oil Depletion Protocol: A Plan to Avert Wars, Terrorism and Economic Collapse (2006). This book was based on the protocol designed by geologist Colin Campbell and later improved by Kjell Aleklett, also known as the Uppsala or Rimini Protocol. The protocol aimed to design a system to reduce oil extraction rates in oil-producing nations to match the global oil depletion rate, which was roughly 3 percent per year at that time.
We wanted to talk with Heinberg about the current state of oil geopolitics from a protocol point of view and the protocol’s present-day validity.
15/15\15: Twenty years have passed since the publication of your book, Richard. It’s obvious that wars and other kinds of conflicts over oil and energy, far from being avoided, are accelerating. Sometimes they may have more explicit energy motivations, but Ukraine, Greenland, Venezuela, Iran… it seems like instead of implementing a plan to avoid resource wars, somebody has made plans to promote those wars, of course, for self-interest. Do you share this view and agree that heed hasn’t been taken of your book?
Richard Heinberg: Of course! I was not surprised that the protocol was not adopted. It was a plan that could be implemented only by nations that prioritized long-term sustainability above short-term profit. And today we have political and economic systems that pursue short-term gain in almost every instance.
15/15\15: So, long-term political vision is the key. Without it, can nothing be done? Without it we are doomed?
R.H.: “Doomed” is a strong word. I think it’s safe to say that the path ahead will be strewn with more casualties—human and non-human.
15/15\15: While it is still in the increase phase of any non-renewable resource’s extraction (that is, while in the left or ascending side of Hubbert’s curve), the free market seems to have no problem. But during the decline phase, capitalism is of no use, and there must be regulation and plans to manage this decline to avoid serious problems. Is this idea the background of the protocol?
R.H.: Yes, you put that very well. However, even in the decline phase of resource extraction, capitalism has ways of finding a profit for the few, even if that means the immiseration of the many.
The best solution for the decline phase of the fossil fuel era is to ration what’s left. That way, we avoid fighting, unfairness, and life-threatening fuel shortages. The best energy rationing scheme I’ve seen is Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs), which I discussed in the book.
Israel refinery at Haifa was struck by an Iranian retaliation missile on March 19th. Source: Wikimedia Commons.
15/15\15: As far as we know, there is only one country, Portugal, which, at least at the parliamentary level (without executive power), has passed the protocol which your work proposed, but with no effects in practice. Do you know of any other State or private entity which has adopted it? One that has put it into practice?
R.H.: Oakland, California and a few other municipalities in the U.S. and elsewhere passed resolutions endorsing it in principle but made no practical effort to implement it. That’s understandable: the protocol is intended for implementation at the national scale.
15/15\15: I guess it’s easier for the local scale to plan for resilience. Can you mention some examples of cities you know of that have resilience plans in place?
R.H.: There are many cities with resilience plans, including Manchester, UK; Rotterdam, Netherlands; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; and Singapore, as well as New York, San Francisco, and New Orleans in the U.S. However, it could be argued that many of these resilience plans focus on just one or two potential threats, such as sea-level rise, and fail to account for the multidimensional polycrisis. These plans are better than nothing, though. You have to start somewhere.
15/15\15: A very noteworthy characteristic of the plan was that there was no absolute need for an international agreement: a single actor who signed it and applied it would immediately have benefited. Can you explain this, and why do you think Portugal didn’t put it into practice? I don’t know if you were in direct contact with the Portuguese political forces which put it forward.
R.H.: For oil-producing nations, implementing the protocol would ensure the continued reliable availability of oil resources, though at continually reduced rates. This would make long-range planning possible. Otherwise, the tendency is to plan for the future as though the economic benefits of oil are permanent, so falling production comes as a surprise, without preparation. In fact, of course, oil is a depleting resource, and its economic benefits are temporary.
For oil-importing nations, the protocol again offers a roadmap for planning. Importing nations would be wise to start rationing fuel, as several countries are already doing in response to fuel shortages resulting from the U.S./Israel/Iran war and the closing of the Strait of Hormuz.
As to Portugal’s reluctance to implement the plan, it probably stemmed from a desire to compete economically with other countries and achieve growth by burning more oil.
15/15\15: Is it too late now for this protocol, or do you think instead that it’s more urgent than ever? Do you think it should be updated in some respects? Campbell left us a few years ago, but I don’t know if Aleklett or anyone else, activists or academic institutions, have been working to improve it.
R.H.: I’m not aware of any ongoing efforts to improve the protocol, though I’m sure improvements are possible. One criticism I’ve heard is that if the protocol were adopted, the rate of decline in oil use would not be sufficient to prevent catastrophic climate change. I agree with that criticism. However, the protocol’s decline rate would be a significant improvement over the current global trend of rising oil consumption.
There is an ongoing effort to secure international support for a Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative that addresses carbon emissions, equity, and renewable energy. However, I’m unsure whether the proposed treaty includes a clear, simple framework for a staged reduction in fossil fuel extraction and for rationing of the amounts still produced. The organization’s website is vague on that point. But that’s the point on which clarity is most needed. I believe the Treaty would be greatly strengthened if the Oil Depletion Protocol were included in its terms.
15/15\15: Which actions have you taken personally to promote its signing and implementation during these twenty years?
R.H.: I must admit that my efforts along those lines stalled around 2010. I continue to refer to the protocol in my writings, but I am not a successful political activist.
15/15\15: Should the protocol be widened to include other energy commodities or minerals critical for the so-called Energy Transition?
R.H.: Yes, the protocol should be seen as a template that can be applied to all non-renewable resources—even sand, which is essential for concrete and semiconductors. Certain grades of sand are becoming depleted and should be rationed. The protocol suggests a policy mechanism for that.
15/15\15: Regarding this, the International Energy Agency has been recommending for some time that the OECD hoards those minerals. This is just the opposite to what your book advocates for, isn’t it? That kind of attitude, in the end, is the same as that we are witnessing now with Trump’s imperialistic policy, don’t you think? And the EU seems to be heading the same way, militarizing with the excuse of Russia, but with its greedy eyes on Africa’s resources: uranium and other minerals, hydrogen production, etc. That’s to say, international institutions are just doing the opposite of what should be done to avoid wars, and thus making them unavoidable?
R.H.: Yes, and again it’s our economic and political systems that are at fault. The people making decisions, whether in the corporate or the political sphere, pursue current growth but place little or no value on humanity’s long-term well-being. The decision makers assume that by getting richer now, we will create opportunities for our descendants—primarily in the form of new technologies. But if resource depletion, pollution, and destruction of nature continue on their current track, our descendants face a grim future even if they have access to wondrous technologies. In fact, most of the technologies we are developing will fail under the circumstances that are unfolding.
When the “get rich now” strategy meets limits, the tendency of leaders is to hoard, which creates more inequality and shortages. The solution is to share equitably via rationing while reducing population and overall consumption.
