To: Permaculture ibiblio <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>, openpermaculture <permaculture@openpermaculture.org>
Subject: [permaculture] The Oil Depletion Protocol by Richard Heinberg (a summary)
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:06:52 -0400
How to Manage A Global Energy Crisis: The Oil Depletion Protocol by
Richard Heinberg
Adopting the Protocol Planning for the Post-Carbon World [We've
got to get Heinberg and Darley, et. al. to stop using that phrase.]
"The overwhelming thing we need is a national plan to deal with oil
depletion." -- Christine Milne, member of the Australian Senate
The Oil Depletion Protocol is a historically significant agreement that
promises to set a global precedent for dealing with resource scarcity
through cooperation and voluntary moderation rather than competition and
conflict. It is inherently simple, calling for a gradual reduction in
petroleum consumption according to a transparent formula. And it can be
implemented at any level -- internationally, as well as by individual
countries, municipalities, businesses, and individuals. The need for
such a protocol is becoming increasingly plain.
Petroleum is a non-renewable, polluting, and depleting resource on which
the world has become dangerously dependent. This in itself should be
cause for nations to find ways to reduce their consumption and thus
their dependency. However, there is also the problem of uncertain future
supply. Long before the last drop of petroleum has been recovered from
any given reservoir the possible rate of extraction tends to peak and
then fall off for purely physical, geological reasons. Today, most
oil-producing countries have already reached and passed their national
production peaks and are in steady decline. There is universal agreement
that the world as a whole will reach its peak rate of production at some
point in the next few decades -- but there is controversy as to when,
exactly, the peak will come.
While some analysts forecast the maximum flow rate as occurring later
than 2030, others say it will be achieved within the next four or five
years. Once the peak has passed, global rates of oil extraction will
gradually wane, even if demand for oil continues to grow. Unless
societies prepare for the event by substantially reducing demand ahead
of the event, this will be an oil crisis like no previous one, because
it will continue inexorably for decades until rates of extraction have
become trivially small. The problem will arise not at the point when oil
actually runs out (that moment, everyone agrees, is in the distant
future), but at the point when the rate of delivery can no longer match
the expectations of consumers.
The technical literature on the subject of Peak Oil is robust; for more
information please see the "Get Informed" section at
http://www.oildepletionprotocol.org, Chart based on data from Exxon-Mobil
There is growing evidence that the rate of world oil production has
already entered a plateau, indicating the approaching peak. Yet even if
the forecasts that place the peak two decades ahead are correct, there
is still cause for immediate concern, as analysis undertaken on behalf
of the US Department of Energy indicates that twenty years at a "crash
program" scale of effort will be needed prior to the peak to prepare
societies adequately. This is because most of the mitigation strategies
that are possible (developing supplies of alternative fuels or changing
transport infrastructure to use fuel more efficiently) will require
enormous amounts of investment and many years of hard effort.
The world is currently unprepared for a sustained decline in oil
availability. Indeed, in nearly every recent year the world has
increased its demand for oil by over a million barrels per day. An
extended and gradually worsening supply shortfall would lead to economic
turmoil. Transportation of people, food, and other goods would be
impacted, as would agriculture and the chemicals and plastics
industries. Because each of these economic sectors is basic to modern
societies, all industries and all segments of the population would feel
the effects. High transportation costs would fuel inflation and reduce
demand for products while undermining tourism, the automobile industry,
and the airline industry. High fuel costs would bankrupt millions of
farmers worldwide, leading to an agricultural crisis, while high food
transport costs would also conspire to drive up food prices for
consumers. While high oil prices would be challenge enough, volatile
prices would make matters much worse.
Huge levels of investment in new transportation and energy-efficient
manufacturing infrastructure will be required over the next few decades,
but unpredictable swings in the price of petroleum would discourage both
government and the private sector from taking the necessary investment
risks. At the same time, oil supply problems are likely to lead to
political instability and international conflict.
Oil has been a primary strategic resource for decades -- the object of
wars, coups, and intrigues. As petroleum becomes more scarce and
expensive, competition for supplies will grow and economic turmoil could
create conditions for armed struggles, perhaps on a massive scale. Civil
or international conflict could in turn exacerbate shortages and
undermine investment in new energy sources and technologies and the
accompanying processes of transition and adaptation.
On top of all this there is the fact that burning oil or releasing it
into the environment in the form of petrochemicals produces a range of
pollutants. Carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides from
oil combustion contribute to lung cancer, asthma, and cardiovascular
problems. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides contribute to acid rain,
damaging the plant life that would otherwise help to clean pollutants
from the air. Pesticides, plastics, and chemical components of plastics
also make their way into many parts of the natural and built landscapes,
causing damage as they go. Some of best-known pollutants, DDT and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), are endocrine-disrupting
petrochemicals that affect reproduction and development. Other
petrochemicals in common use today also display endocrine disruption
effects; for example, bisphenol A (BPA), used to make polycarbonate
plastics, is an estrogen imitator and can disrupt the balance of sex
hormones in living things that come in contact with it, including
humans. Some scientists have linked amphibian population crashes to the
presence of BPA.
However, of all chemical pollutants issuing from the use of oil and
other fossil fuels, perhaps none has more worrisome potential
consequences than the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2). Burning
fossil fuels releases CO2, which traps heat from the Sun, gradually
warming the oceans, the atmosphere, and the Earth's surface. The
consequences of this warming effect are likely to be a less stable
climate, worse storms, the disruption of agriculture, rising sea levels,
and pressure on species to adapt to changing habitats. Carbon dioxide is
naturally present in the atmosphere in such small quantities (0.036%)
that the massive amounts released through the burning of fossil fuels
have already measurably altered the Earth's climate.
Recent studies have shown that global climate impacts are appearing more
quickly and severely than was predicted only a few years ago. A
five-year European study of Antarctic ice cores found that current CO2
levels are 30 percent higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years.
Moreover, the rates of increase are also extremely high -- 200 times
faster than anything seen in the ancient past. The study, released in
November 2005, also found a "very tight" correlation between CO2 levels
and global temperatures. Meanwhile Greenland's glaciers, once stable,
are now retreating rapidly. Ohio State University's Byrd Polar Research
Center has found that the Jakobshavn glacier, one of the major drainage
outlets of Greenland's interior ice sheet, is thinning over four times
faster than was the case during most of the 20th Century; at the same
time, the rate at which the ice moves is accelerating. When the
Greenland ice sheet melts entirely, as it is projected to do perhaps
before the end of the century, the world's oceans will rise by 20 feet,
drowning coastal cities such as London and New York.
In short, our current reliance on oil is unhealthy and unsustainable. It
is imperative, for a variety of compelling reasons, that societies find
ways to wean themselves from petroleum dependency as quickly as possible.
The Protocol "The proposal to cut oil imports to match depletion rate
seems to be simple common sense." -- The Right Honourable Michael
Meacher, Member of Parliament, UK
The Oil Depletion Protocol is perhaps the simplest and most
straightforward agreement imaginable to help nations, and the world as
whole, reduce oil dependency. It calls for a reduction in both
extraction and imports of oil, with the rate of reduction tied to the
rate of depletion. The world depletion rate for conventional oil is
currently approximately 2.6 percent per year (this is simply the amount
being extracted yearly divided into the amount left to extract). The
Protocol essentially calls upon signatory nations to reduce their
petroleum consumption by that amount annually. This would provide a
target, a gauge of progress, and a cooperative framework for a task that
will require many years of sustained effort.
The Protocol itself need not specify how nations would make the
transition away from oil. Presumably they would rely on some combination
of two strategies -- developing supplies of alternative fuels, and
conservation in their use of petroleum and its products. But because
each nation has a unique pattern of consumption and a unique
alternative-energy resource base, it would not be helpful to mandate a
single set of practices or priorities to be implemented universally.
The terms of a draft Oil Depletion Protocol were initially suggested by
petroleum geologist Dr. Colin Campbell, founder of the Association for
the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO), in 1996. They include,
principally: * Reduction in extraction by each producing country
according to its depletion rate; * Reduction in imports by each
importing country according to the world depletion rate; * The creation
of a Secretariat to monitor reserves, production, and imports, and to
calculate depletion rates.
Under the terms of this draft Protocol, production and import
restrictions would apply only to regular conventional oil, a category
that excludes deepwater oil (defined as greater than 500 meters depth);
heavy oil (with a cutoff of 17.5 API); natural gas liquids; synthetic
oils from tar sands, oil shale, coal, and natural gas; and biofuels such
as ethanol and biodiesel. Oil-producing nations would agree, upon
adoption of the Protocol, to submit to an independent audit of their
reserves and an ongoing monitoring of production. Importing nations
would submit to an ongoing monitoring of imports. Some of the terms of
this draft agreement are debatable (it may be preferable, for example,
to include deepwater oil in the definition of "conventional" oil, rather
than excluding it). And further terms may be necessary, for instance, to
specify economic penalties for cheating on production or imports.
However, the essence of the draft agreement is clear, simple, and
non-arbitrary, and is thus likely to be preserved in any accord actually
implemented.
Why Is It In Any Nation's Interest to Adopt the Protocol?
"Peace and prosperity for your children and grandchildren may be ensured
or squandered depending upon whether world leaders commit to work
together to overcome the challenges of global peak oil. The Oil
Depletion Protocol provides leaders and citizens a model for discussion
and implementation of cooperative steps to reverse the unsustainable
trend of increased depletion of the world is rapidly shrinking oil
reserves." -- Roscoe G. Bartlett, Member of US Congress
At first thought, it may seem that the adoption of the Oil Depletion
Protocol would run strongly counter to most nation's economic interests.
It is true that a voluntary reduction in oil extraction and imports will
impose challenges to nations that choose to abide by these terms.
However, it must be emphasized that a reduction in the global
availability of oil is inevitable in any case, and that if nations
simply wait for the peak in production to occur before engaging in
mitigation efforts, the negative social, economic, and political
consequences are likely to be "unprecedented" in scope (this according
to the US government-sponsored Hirsch Report).
Three nations have already embarked on a transition away from oil even
before being presented with the opportunity to adopt the Oil Depletion
Protocol.
Sweden: In December 2005, Swedish Prime Minister Gran Persson
acknowledged that the global oil peak is a problem that needs to be
addressed now, and announced the appointment of a National Commission on
Oil Independence with the objective of making Sweden oil-independent by
2020.
Iceland: With its enormous geothermal energy resources, Iceland in 2001
officially adopted the goal of making the country oil-free by 2050. This
small nation of about 270,000 people has a high per-capita rate of
greenhouse gas emissions -- despite the fact that about 70 percent of
its energy needs, from home heating to electricity for aluminum
smelters, are met by abundant geothermal or hydroelectric power. Only
Iceland's transport sector is still reliant primarily on oil and gas.
The nation's leaders plan to run its cars, buses, trucks, and ships on
hydrogen produced from electrolysis of water.
Cuba: The Cuban parliament has passed a measure declaring 2006 to be the
year of the Energy Revolution. President Fidel Castro, in a speech
delivered November 17, 2005, discussed the goal of reducing all energy
use in the country by two-thirds. That nation has already dealt
successfully with a dramatic forced reduction in oil consumption,
consequent upon the collapse of the USSR in the late 1980s. Kuwait, a
major exporting nation, is contemplating a voluntary reduction in
extraction rates.
Questions have arisen regarding the size of the country's actual oil
reserves, and the opposition party in the Kuwaiti parliament has called
for production to be cut to a percentage of actual reserves so as to
preserve some of the resource and its economic benefits for future
generations. This is essentially what is proposed for signatory
producing nations under the terms of the Protocol.
Some other countries are already in compliance with the Oil Depletion
Protocol, or nearly so, and could therefore adopt and implement the
agreement with little effort. For example, nations already experiencing
steeply declining production are, in that respect, in compliance with
the terms of the Protocol, whether they wish it or not. Much the same
could be said for poor importing nations that cannot afford to purchase
oil at current high market prices. By adopting the Protocol, these
nations could make a virtue out of necessity and pave the way toward the
global adoption of a policy that would work to the advantage of all
nations by stabilizing prices and reducing competition.
Other countries, while not on track to implement the terms of the
Protocol, are at least beginning to contemplate ways to reduce oil
dependency. In the United States, for example, there is widespread and
growing concern over increasing dependence on oil imports. The US House
of Representatives has asked its Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
to investigate a motion proposed by Representative Roscoe Bartlett of
Maryland: that the United States, in collaboration with other
international allies, should establish an energy project with the
magnitude, creativity, and sense of urgency that was incorporated in the
"Man on the Moon" project to address the inevitable challenges of Peak Oil.
In Ireland, the national board responsible for providing policy advice
to the government on enterprise, trade, science, technology and
innovation, has released a report titled "A Baseline Assessment of
Ireland's Oil Dependence: Key Policy Considerations. This report
examines the extent to which the Irish economy is vulnerable to oil
production peaking, as well as the policies required for preparing for
the event.
Other countries such as Germany, Japan, Spain, and the Netherlands have
made important strides in implementing renewable energy technologies
(primarily solar and wind). China and India are also investing heavily
in renewables, though their consumption of fossil fuels is also growing.
Depletion-based and Emissions-based Agreements
"The very idea of accepting oil depletion protocols and treaties to
guard against irresponsible levels of emissions may not be popular or
easily endorsable. Yet, in the annals of history it is clear that
epochal crises must be faced. The question is whether they are met with
intelligence, resolve, and sacrifice or whether decision makers
procrastinate to everyone's eventual peril and suffering." The Rt. Hon.
Edward Schreyer, former Premier of Manitoba,Governor General of Canada,
and High Commissioner to Australia and the South Western Pacific
As noted above, scarcity is not the only reason for voluntarily reducing
oil consumption; the environmental impacts of emissions from petroleum
use are arguably far more important motivators. An emissions-based
treaty (Kyoto) already exists. How is the Oil Depletion Protocol
different, and why is it needed in addition to the Kyoto accord?
The Oil Depletion Protocol differs from emissions-based protocols (e.g.,
Kyoto) in emphasis and method. Emissions protocols focus on end-of-pipe
outcomes from fossil fuel usage, while depletion protocols focus on the
supply of those fuels. For both, the goal is a transition away from the
use of fossil fuels. Emissions-based protocols require us to change our
consumption of energy resources in order to avert environmental harms,
which will in turn impact human society. Depletion-based agreements
require us to change our consumption of energy resources in order to
adjust to the geological reality of declining extraction rates.
Emissions-based protocols begin by creating emissions rights and then
ration those rights.
The Oil Depletion Protocol more simply rations supplies, starting at the
wellhead. Throughout much of the world the general public finds it
difficult to understand the science of global warming; therefore, even
though there is a general, vague understanding that dangerous climate
change is somehow related to human activity, there may be insufficient
motivation among the general populace in many countries to endure
sacrifice, change habits, or support bold energy policies. Oil depletion
is inherently easy to understand.
Oil is not a renewable resource; only so much exists, and we began
depleting the supply when the first barrel was extracted from the
ground. We are at the point now, globally, where the cheap, "easy" oil
is gone, and what is left will be more expensive to produce and probably
cannot continue to be produced at rates that would match demand under --
business-as-usual -- growth scenarios. With emissions-based agreements
there is little advantage to any given individual nation in adoption if
other nations that are major emitters do not likewise sign on: the
climate for the one nation adopting the agreement won't be improved
much, because climate change is a global phenomenon. The real advantage
only comes if all nations that are major emitters join the accord. This
is not as much the case with the Oil Depletion Protocol.
While this plan will yield its greatest benefits (in terms of
stabilizing oil prices and reducing competition for supplies) if all
nations sign on, any single nation will be much better off adapting
proactively to the new regime of scarce oil and higher prices than it
would be if it simply continued attempting to use petroleum at existing
or increasing rates. And the Oil Depletion Protocol will help
significantly with that proactive process of adaptation. However,
depletion-based transition plans do not do away with the requirement for
emissions-based agreements: the latter will be needed to ensure that
nations do not substitute low-grade hydrocarbon resources for oil as
they reduce their reliance on the latter, thus worsening the global
climate crisis. Depletion-based agreements will help create an economic
environment in which emissions-based accords can function.
If the world approaches and passes the point of peak oil production
without having a proactive depletion-based transition plan in place, the
resulting economic and political turmoil will reduce societies' ability
to respond to environmental problems resulting from global warming.
To summarize: Both emissions-based and depletion-based agreements are
necessary, and they will work well together. The next few years may
offer humankind its last, best opportunity to avert resource wars,
terrorism, and economic collapse as it enters the second half of the Age
of Oil. If we grasp that opportunity and succeed, we could set a
precedent for cooperative, peaceful approaches to all of the resource
problems we are likely to encounter during the coming century. The
choice we face is between competition and conflict on one hand, and
voluntary moderation and mutual assistance on the other. The first steps
toward the latter can be readily taken by endorsing and adopting this
simple agreement.
--
Keith Johnson
Permaculture Activist Magazine
PO Box 5516
Bloomington, IN 47408
(812) 335-0383 http://www.permacultureactivist.net
also Patterns for Abundance Design & Consulting
also Association for Regenerative Culture
also APPLE-Bloomington (Alliance for a Post-Petroleum Local Economy) It's a
small world after oil.
also Bloomington Permaculture Guild
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.4/476 - Release Date: 10/14/2006
[permaculture] The Oil Depletion Protocol by Richard Heinberg (a summary),
Keith Johnson, 10/15/2006