An interview with Richard Heinberg
Aric McBay: How do you expect to
see industrial collapse play out? That is, do you expect to see
a gradual, although necessarily swift transition to near-universal
organic agriculture and drastically reduced energy consumption?
Or do you expect to see a more rapid collapse? Do you want to
speculate here on what sort of time frame do you expect to see
in terms of collapse?
Richard Heinberg: There are too many variables
to enable a clear prediction. I would say that the most likely
scenario would commence with an international crisis brought on
by a meltdown of the US economy, beginning perhaps next year.
This would result from unsustainable levels of debt, plus pressure
from skyrocketing natural gas prices. Oil prices are likely to
stay high, too. However, it is likely that petroleum will remain
available at current rates of production for another three or
four years before the oil downturn begins as a result of depletion.
Geopolitical instability will increase at this time, and that
is the real wild card. I would like to see international cooperation
to solve the world's energy problems, but the overwhelming likelihood
is for resource wars to become more common and intense. The Middle
East is likely to be a locus for such conflicts, but others could
occur in Central Asia, Africa, and South America. Oil-producing
nations will wish to control their resources, while importing
nations will demand more. Meanwhile, importing nations will be
vying with one another for whatever is available.
Things could drag on like this for a decade or two, or there
could be a quick and nasty showdown. If major powers are drawn
in and the conflict goes nuclear, all bets are off. That is not
a distant possibility. It is truly frightening to see the sorts
of weapons that are being developed these days--tactical nukes,
genetic bioweapons, space-based weapons, and on and on. The generals
and the arms manufacturers are preparing for one hell of a last
act.
AM: How do you think that those
in power will respond to attempts for communities to become more
industrially independent, and so, more autonomous and detached
from the goals and propagation of the power complex? It's fairly
clear that shifting to a more sustainable economic system means
bleeding power away from those in power, and having a less centralized
system. Historically, those in power have used force and violence
to suppress the development of alternatives like that. What can
communities do about this?
RH: After a certain point, it will become almost
impossible for central powers to offer much in the way of services
for local communities; if the latter are able to fend for themselves,
they may have a relatively free hand to do so. Look to the Great
Depression for precedents: some communities developed their own
currencies as a strategy to keep their economies alive. I don't
think it would be advisable for communities to aggressively provoke
central authorities, but the latter will be overwhelmed with other
matters.
AM: Historically, the majority
of energy and manufacturing in industrial society has been directly
or indirectly contributing to or resulting from war. The military
uses about a third of the US oil supply. Once available energy
supplies are drastically reduced, do you think that the military
will attempt to monopolize the output of sustainable power facilities,
using “national security” or other excuses? For example,
I have visions of a biodiesel powered Abrams tank(1),
and electric windmills spinning atop the Pentagon(2).
What are appropriate responses to this, and how should it influence
our approach in implementing new sources of energy? Are some sources
of energy less vulnerable to military co-option than others?
RH: Renewable energy sources will, for the most
part, be ineffective at powering the war machine. I would expect
efforts to manufacture synfuels from coal, and perhaps some experiments
with biofueled military vehicles. You're correct in assuming that
whatever is available—electricity, food, water, machinery—will
be commandeered by the military officers, but they will go after
the materials and supplies they are most familiar with first.
I can't think of any way to defend against this. These people
are highly trained specialists in violence.
AM: How would you like see things
pan out in the generations after collapse? Would you like to see
a "Future Primitive" and a gradual shift away from civilization?
RH: Yes, of course. If we can salvage some of
our humanity and most of nature, I can imagine future generations
living in small, technologically modest communities. They would
have memories of the events of the 21st century to serve as a
cautionary tale embedded, no doubt, in new myths), so they would
be highly motivated to keep population levels low--perhaps a few
tens of millions of humans total, globally. Of course, life would
go on, and there would be the inevitable mistakes and conflicts.
But once the oil is gone I doubt if another generation will ever
be capable of the exuberance and arrogance of ours.
AM: The longer industrial civilization
persists, the more ecological destruction it will cause. And yet,
non- (or post-) industrial peoples are especially in need of healthy
bioregions to surive and thrive. Also, ecological "systems"
have their own inherent worth. How do you address the conflict
between the need for a gradual shift away from industrial civilization
to save human lives in the short term, and the need to protect
the biosphere, and hence the survivors of the collapse, in the
long term?
RH: This is indeed a serious problem. As fossil
fuels are depleted, humans will do what they can to survive--and
that may include cutting down virtually every tree on Earth for
firewood, destroying soils, draining aquifers, and so on.
How to stop this? One can only propose theoretical solutions,
but these would require some forms of rational national and international
authority. There would need to be cooperative agreements between
nations, so that rich nations would cede wealth to poor nations.
Governments would have to ration resources and manage reproduction
rates. There are no doubt ways to do all of this, but the political
will and courage required would be unprecedented. And it is difficult
to reconcile the process with democratic ideals and notions of
human rights (especially the right to reproduce).
Ultimately, however, the central authorities would have to self-destruct
in favor of local autonomy, because the energy base would no longer
be present to support long-distance systems of command and control.
AM: What do you think is the most
important message that we should pass down to our descendants,
to those who go after the collapse, about industrial civilization?
RH: My reflex is to say, "Don't try THAT
again! See what happens?" I think they'll get the message
on their own, though. On the other hand, I would like to see some
things preserved. Even if the past 200 years were a ghastly ecological
and demographic error on the part of our species, we did produce
some great music and art, as well as a lot of neat scientific
knowledge. I hope there are communities that devote themselves
to conserving as much of that as possible.
Footnotes:
(1) Six months after I wrote this, the United States Marine Corps
publicized their creation of a diesel-electrical hybrid Humvee
for “reconnaissance, surveillance, and targeting.”
One news
report suggested that “its diesel-electric hybrid powertrain
could make environment-friendly [sic] fast attack vehicles the
norm.”
(2) One year after I wrote this, four 260-foot wind
turbines were installed at Guantanamo Bay where "enemy
combatants" are kept in Camp
X-Ray by the US Military.
|
Previous:
Editorial Structure
Return
to top