e Humane Future ManifestoA hot spring is a place where the life-sustaining chemistry of

nature is concentrated and gives generously enough to yield

new variety, new color and the hot interplay of competing

approaches to living and thriving. The Hot Spring Network

seeks to be that kind of place, where people committed to a

more generous, humane and imaginative future gather to help

make it real.

Human beings do not have to be rapacious, faction-focused

scavengers, fighting to take what little is available to those

around them, serving a logic of fear and exclusion. The world’s

great religions all recognize this, and yet history shows us that

narrowness of focus, dehumanization of the other, greed and

failure of imagination, routinely conspire to make individuals,

institutions, even whole societies, impediments to imaginative

problem solving and mutual thriving.

Most people have no genuine desire to be anything so

negative toward the rest of humanity, yet the momentum of

history pushes people to fight over that all-important

“spoonful” everyone is chasing.

What makes the difference is whether we have real faith that

better is possible.

The Hot Spring Network is an act of faith in support of the

idea that we are built to overcome greed, collapse and scarcity.

Our project is a commitment to building a more vibrant, more

humane, more sustainable, more democratic and just future

for all people, in harmony with the Earth’s natural life-support

systems.

We can achieve this through science, technology, art, culture,

innovation and public policy.

We have a moral obligation to do so.

To add your name or to share with friends, go to: http://bit.ly/humanefuture

Welcome to the inaugural edition of The Hot Spring

Quarterly. This publication represents the work of a

community of thinkers, researchers, reporters, educators,

innovators and committed change-makers, focused on

cultivating a broader and deeper awareness of the types

of crisis that face humanity. Our purpose is to share

ideas to bring solutions into being that are better, more

effective and more conducive to mutual thriving, than

anything within the prevailing paradigm.

We take as our thematic focus, for this inaugural edition,

the Hot Spring Network's slogan "hunting the paradigm

shift", because in all of the pieces we have collected in

these pages, that spirit of thoughtful, humane, fairness-

expanding change is at work. This project will also be the

guiding philosophy of this publication, whatever thematic

or disciplinary focus there may be in future editions.

Visit TheHotSpring.net for more information regarding

generative economics, clean energy and fuel free

transport, people-focused innovations in public policy,

including education, energy, media and finance, and for a

leading-edge exploration of the accelerating technological

phenomenon of hyper-convergence, in which media

devices are integrating more and more seamlessly into

our psychological, political and material lives.

We are working to build a global community of interested,

imaginative collaborators, hopeful about the future and

committed to contributing their voice, their energy, their

creativity and their leadership, to building better

outcomes into the fabric of choices and influences that

define our experience and determine conditions at the

human scale.

We hope to bring you the information you need to be part

of that process.

Joseph Robertson

Creator / Director, The Hot Spring Network

First EditionSeptember 2012

Copyright © 2012The Hot Spring Network

All collaborators, including publications sharing

previously published work in these pages, retain

copyright protections pertaining to those works.

Read & share online The Hot Spring Quarterly is

available online, at: http://bit.ly/hotspring-q

ContactIf you are interested in

contributing to the Hot Spring Quarterly, joining the

Hot Spring Network or organizing an event with

featured authors on or these subjects, please direct all

correspondence to the editors, via email, at:

hsq@thehotspring.net

Join the Network

Visit www.TheHotSpring.net to join the network and start

building a more vibrant human future, today.

e Hot Spring Network is founded on the view that genuinely revolutionary ideas for solving the most intractable crises come more easily when open and imaginative minds collaborate, without prejudice. e poet Linda Hogan wrote, in her book Dwellings: “What we are really searching for is a language that heals [our] relationship [with the rest of the natural order], one that takes the side of the amazing and fragile life on our life-giving earth…” Today’s human population faces emerging crises of a complexity and a scale never before confronted by humanity. Our intention is to develop the vocabulary for over-the-horizon thinking, as rich in detail as the broad fabric of humanity, so we are fit and able to deal with the complexities we face.

The Hot Spring Network is committed to the idea that

optimism is not a project of hoping against all

probability, but rather one of accurately judging that

better is possible, then striving for the optimal outcome,

in any given circumstance. To spread awareness, we

highlight on TheHotSpring.net specific projects,

individuals, organizations and ventures that help to

illustrate this principle and to carry out this project.

The following articles are representative of the spirit that

holds that BETTER is possible. For more information,

please visit: http://bit.ly/betterispossible

Why Everyone Should Be a Futuristby William S. Becker

This article first appeared in the May 2012 edition of the Solutions journal.

In hearing rooms, hallways, and conferences

where the world’s policymakers are wrestling

with the big issues of our day, something

important is missing: Vision.

By vision, I don’t mean those forward-

looking policy papers that tell us how we

might shape the future with a global Green

New Deal, or the Millennium Development

Goals, or a Copenhagen Accord. Those

intellectual constructs are critical, but they

are not enough.

We’re missing visions of the right-brain

variety—immersive, lifelike visual images of

the future we want, conveyed with the same

powerful technologies that moviemakers use

to entertain us and the advertising industry

uses to sell us things. Think about it.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if we mobilized our

visual arts and tools to change sustainable

development from an abstraction into

something we all can see?

In the brutal battles over public policy

these days, visions of the kind I’m describing

seem fluffy, as though we’re entering the

arena with swords made of cotton instead of

steel. However, as the late Donella Meadows

put it, “Vision is the most vital step in the

policy process. If we don’t know where we

want to go, it makes little difference that we

make great progress.”1

This is not to say our communications

industries don’t show us anything about the

future. But they focus on the future we must

avoid rather than the future we must create.

It’s likely that the apocalypse is coming right

now to a theater near you. Think of The Day

After Tomorrow, The Road, An Inconvenient

Truth, The 11th Hour, or 2012, to name a few

movies in recent years. We’ve seen endless

te lev is ion shows on the f r ightening

prophecies of Nostradamus and the Mayan

calendar. The Discovery Channel has shown

us in nightmarish detail Ten Ways the World

Will End. Apparently thinking it’s a public

service to help us prepare, the channel is

airing a series called Doomsday Shelters in

which families who call themselves “preppers”

are building underground shelters stocked

with food, weapons, and ammunition. News

media are governed by the “if it bleeds, it

leads” rule, showing us economic collapse,

homelessness, war, terrorism, natural

disasters, and other symptoms of social

collapse every evening at dinnertime. We revel

in our fears but do not reveal our dreams.

For what would seem to be sound tactical

reasons, environmental advocates also focus

on fear as a motivator. The “fight or flight”

reaction seems to be a more powerful force

for change than happy visions of security and

abundance . The p r ominen t B r i t i sh

environmentalist Jonathon Porritt notes that

there is a

continuing lack of any compelling

narrative focusing on the upside of living

within environmental limits rather than

on the multiple downsides of exceeding

those limits. Many more people count

themselves as environmentalists out of a

desire to avoid a potential ecological

apocalypse rather than out of a belief in

7

some “Promised Land” flowing with

organic milk and rainforest honey.

He continues:

This lack of a compelling upside narrative

exposes environmentalists to the rabble-

rousing charge of being anti-progress and

anti-aspiration—a charge that sounds

more and more convincing as more and

more environmentalists let it be known

that they believe it is either “already too

late” to do anything about the gathering

apocalypse, or, in order to avoid it being

too late, that we need to go onto an

instantaneous “war footing” to combat

accelerating climate change—whatever

the consequences for democracy. For

wholly understandable historical and

intellectual reasons, today’s environ-

mental discourse is still shaped far more

powerfully by the language of “scarcity”

and “limits” than it is by any compelling

upside narrative. But fear of the future

does not empower people; it debilitates

and disempowers.2

We can find a corollary in international

negotiations, where the conversation is about

which nations will sacrifice growth to cut

carbon emissions, rather than who will be the

first to seize the enormous opportunities in a

global transition to sustainability.

The resulting stalemate makes us

pessimistic that our international institutions

can deal with this century’s global problems.

That pessimism can easily become a self-

fulfilling prophecy. Paul Ray and Sherry Ruth

Anderson, authors of The Cultural Creatives:

How 50 Million People Are Changing the

World, write, “Today as we are besieged by

planetary problems, the risk is that we will

deal with them in a pessimistic and

unproductive style. Transfixed by an image of

our own future decline, we could actually

bring it about.”3

In the best case, problems push us to

action. But to find its sense of direction, the

“push” needs help from the “pull” of positive

vision. The Transition Town movement, a

grassroots network that began in the United

Kingdom, helps communities become more

resilient against threats such as peak oil,

climate change, and economic instability.

That’s a response to “push.” But the

movement’s founder, permaculture expert

Rob Hopkins, also understands the power of

“pull”:

It is one thing to campaign against

climate change and quite another to

paint a compelling and engaging vision

of a post-carbon world in such a way as

to enthuse others to embark on a

journey toward it. We are only just

beginning to scratch the surface of the

power of a positive vision of an

abundant future.4

Business has long understood the power of

vision in attracting customers. General

Motors illustrated it more than 70 years ago

at the New York World’s Fair. In the hangover

of the Great Depression, GM commissioned

theatrical designer Norman Bel Geddes to

create Futurama, a pavilion in which an

estimated 20 million visitors were conveyed

through models of life 20 years in the future.

At its core, GM’s vision was a dynamic, highly

mobile, car-centered society—an appealing

alternative to the life many of the visitors

were experiencing. A case can be made that

GM’s vision built public support for the way

we’ve designed cities and transportation

systems ever since.

8

But the 1930s GM model doesn’t work

anymore. We need a new vision.

The Future We Want

In 2009, Michael Northrop, the director of the

Rockefeller Brothers Fund’s sustainable

development program, convened 30 sustain-

ability and communications experts to

explore why the public was not more engaged

in fighting for a more sustainable world. We

who participated talked about “apocalypse

fatigue”—the tendency for people to withdraw

from solving problems that seem over-

whelming and unsolvable. We also observed

that today’s social media and the Internet

make it possible to have a global conversation

about “push” and “pull.” We decided that we

need to help the broad and largely disengaged

public understand the future we can build,

based on visions that are realistic, achiev-

able, and positive.

That was the inception of a project now

called The Future We Want. We are inviting

people around the world to share their ideas

about what they want their communities and

lives to be like 20 years from now. We are

mobil iz ing world-class technologists,

designers, planners, and artists to show us

what life would be like if we confronted

today’s challenges head-on and built a world

that reflected people’s hopes.

In 2011, we took the project to the United

Nations, which was planning Rio+20—its

Conference on Sustainable Development in

June 2012 on the 20th anniversary of the

first Earth Summit. With agility uncharac-

teristic for such a large institution, the United

Nations’ entire chain of command adopted

“The Future We Want” as the official tagline

for Rio+20. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

announced it on November 22, 2011; a few

months later, he embraced it as the theme for

his next five-year agenda at the United

Nations.

As the project progressed, we found we

weren’t the only organization engaged in

exploring vision. My Green Dream, led by

May East from the Findhorn community in

Scotland, has deployed “dream catchers”

around the world to collect short videos of

people describing their aspirations for the

future. Sustainia, a project of the Danish

think tank Monday Morning, has organized a

competition to identify the 100 best ideas to

achieve sustainable societies by 2020. Rather

than awarding its annual cash prize to an

individual in 2012, TED launched City 2.0,

calling for concepts on the city of the future.

The Institute for Transportation and Policy

Development in New York commissioned

architects in ten cities around the world to

draw what sustainable development would

look like at specific blighted locations in each

place.

Corporations, who see the future in terms

of markets, are entering the dialogue too.

Siemens has its own exhibit of the cities of

tomorrow, as does its competitor, General

Electric. Corning has produced a video on a

futuristic “day made of glass.”

Some of the leaders in the world’s

principal oil patch also are thinking about the

future—in their case, the post-petroleum

world. Years ago, a Saudi Arabian oil minister

warned that oil reserves would not be

depleted before renewable energy takes over

the world’s energy markets. (In a quote for

the ages, the minister, Sheikh Zaki Yamani,

observed that the Stone Age didn’t end

9

because we ran out of stones.) Today, the

royal family in Abu Dhabi is positioning the

United Arab Emirates as a global thought

leader on sustainable energy, sponsoring an

annual World Energy Futures Conference and

working on the world’s first carbon-neutral

city.

The contributions of these change agents

and visionaries haven’t yet penetrated the

world’s policy circles. We remain in a rut of

oil and coal, flirting with even worse forms of

fossil energy and with technologies we don’t

know how to control, like nuclear energy,

geoengineering and carbon sequestration.

The entrenched and well-financed fossil

energy industries are so far more interested

in finding ways to extend the oil age than

they are in helping us achieve a new energy

economy—an economy that would sustain

them, too, if they made the transition with

the rest of us. Lacking a better vision, the

developing world still considers the Western

model of consumption and car-dependent

cities the highest expressions of progress.

But in this time in which our old

institutions and systems are failing us; in

which powerful and entrenched vested

interests are fighting to maintain a status quo

that cannot be maintained; in which the

impacts of climate change are becoming more

frequent, severe, and undeniable; and in

which our confidence in the old economic

order has been shaken, we have reached a

teachable moment not unlike the one that

General Motors seized in 1939.

It is time to envision the future we want,

to get the global community talking about it,

and to insist on the public policies that will

allow us to achieve it. Given the finality of

problems such as species loss, peak oil, and

climate change, every day we delay makes the

“upside narrative” less credible. But if we

decide to grasp it, a future we want is still

within reach. Buckminster Fuller had it right:

“We are called to be architects of the future,

not its victims.”

References

1. Meadows, D in Getting Down to Earth,

Practical Applications of Ecological (Costanza,

R, Segura, O & Martinez-Alier, J, eds)

Envisioning a sustainable world (Island Press,

Washington, DC, 1996).

2. Porritt, J. Scarcity and Sustainability in

Utopia. Insights Paper 4(4) (Durham

University and the Institute of Advanced

Study, 2011).

3. Ray, P & Anderson, SR. The Cultural

Creatives: How 50 Million People Are

Changing the World (Three Rivers Press, New

York, 2000).

4. Hopkins, R. The Transition Handbook: From

oil dependency to local resilience (Green

Books, 2008).

Today’s Visionaries

Nongovernmental Organizations

2020: Shaping the Future, a series of videos

from Ericsson Worldwide with thought

leaders offering their ideas for the future.

(www.ericsson.com/campaign/20about2020).

Adaptive Edge, specializing in futures

thinking, strategy, and innovation. It

describes itself as “pathfinders for leaders on

10

the brink of change” (www.adaptive-

edge.com).

America 2050: Journey to Detroit, a video

visualization of transportation options of the

future (www.america2050.org/2010/02/

journey-to-detriot.html). Produced by the

America 2050 program at the Regional Plan

Association, New York.

Collective Invention, which develops

experiential future scenarios to help leaders

innovate for the common good

(www.theworldcafecommunity.org).

Monday Morning, whose Project Green Light

has published The Guidebook to Sustainia,

the vision of a sustainable future (http://

greengrowthleaders.org/project-green-light).

My Green Dream, a project of the UN

Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)

and the CIFAL Network. It has deployed

“dream catchers” to 15 countries (at last

count), taping short video interviews in which

people state their aspirations for the future

(http://green-dream.co.uk/dreams).

One Earth Initiative, whose objective is to

“rethink the Good Life” and to transform

unsustainable consumption and production

(http://oneearthweb.org).

Our Cities/Our Selves: The Future of Transportation in Urban Life, a project of

the Institute for Transportation and Policy

Planning (www.ourcitiesourselves.org).

The World Café, a place where visitors

gather to share experiences and explore

collective action

(www.theworldcafecommunity.org).

U.S. PIRG: Transportation of the Future, a

video produced by a nine-year-old, one of the

entries in a U.S. Public Interest Research

Group’s video contest. (www.youtube.com/

watch?v=sbX38qeVCqo).

Corporate Visualizations

Arnold Imaging, a Kansas City company that

facilitates green development with videos and

animations showing how sustainable design

and technologies benefit the built

environment and quality of life

(www.arnoldimaging.com).

Corning’s A Day Made of Glass

(www.youtube.com/watch_popup?

v=6Cf7IL_eZ38&vq=medium).

Enel on imagining the smart grid

(www.youtube.com/watch?

v=sV6o3t_bNN4&feature=related).

General Motors’ Dreams of Flight, imagining

the future of air transportation (www.ge.com/

thegeshow/future-flight). Also, GM’s electric

networked vehicles

(www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?

id=electric-networked-vehicle-gm).

Kjellgren Kaminsky Architecture’s video,

Super Sustainable City—Gothenburg

(www.youtube.com/watch?

v=aMFnmpNsaqg&feature=related).

Microsoft’s vision of the future videos

(www.singularityweblog.com/microsofts-

vision-for-the-future-videos).

Siemens’ sustainable cities vision,

including Changing Your City for the Better, a

video competition to show how people are

using technology to overcome humanity’s

11

challenges (http://zooppa.com/contests/

changing-your-city-for-the-better). Also, the

company’s video on how to make sustainable

cities (www.usa.siemens.com/sustainable-

cities/?stc=usccc025107).

Solutions

Design with the Other 90%: Cities, the

latest in a series of exhibits featuring design

solutions that address the 90 percent of the

world’s population not traditionally served by

professional designers

(www.designother90.org/cities/home).

Young Voices for the Planet, a film series

featuring young people working on reducing

the carbon footprint of their schools, homes

and communities (http://

youngvoicesonclimatechange.com/climate-

change-videos.php).

Inspiration

Apple’s Here’s to the Crazy Ones

(www.youtube.com/watch?

v=4oAB83Z1ydE&feature=related).

Make Your Own Visions

Make a comic strip about sustainability in

your community (www.pixton.com/

overview#video and www.pixton.com/ca).

The Author

William S. Becker is Executive Director of the

National Sustainable Communities Coalition.

He serves as a senior associate at two

sustainable development think tanks: Third

Generation Environmentalism in London and

Natural Capitalism Solutions in Colorado. He

spent 15 years as a senior official in the U.S.

Department of Energy. At DOE, he founded

the Center of Excellence for Sustainable

Development, organized expert teams to

provide technical assistance to more than

130 U.S. communities on sustainable

development, including “green recovery” for

communities rebuilding after natural

disasters. Starting in 2007, he served as

Executive Director of the Presidential Climate

Action Project, a four-year initiative that

produced nearly 200 recommendations on

national climate and energy policies for the

2008 presidential candidates, the Obama

Administration, and Congress. He is a

frequent contributor to Huffington Post,

Think Climate, and several other environ-

mental blogs. Mr. Becker is a veteran of the

Vietnam War, where he won the Bronze Star

medal as a combat correspondent. His latest

book, The 100 Day Action Plan to Save the

Planet, was published by St. Martin’s Press in

New York.

12

VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY’S ANNUAL DAY

OF SERVICE: MORE THAN 2/3 OF THE

STUDENT BODY VOLUNTEER THEIR

TIME TO HELP IMPROVE CONDITIONS

IN SOME SMALL WAY, AT THE HUMAN

SCALE, IN COMMUNITIES ACROSS

PHILADELPHIA & THE SURROUNDING

REGION. THE DAY IS TREATED LIKE A

CELEBRATION & STUDENTS VALUE THE

OPPORTUNITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO

THE LIVES OF OTHERS.

bit.ly/vuserves

Up to Something Big: Stories that Inspire Changeby Davia Rivka

The following texts are both excerpts from the

book Up to Something Big: Stories That

Inspire Change. Visit daviarivka.com to learn

more about the book.

Keeping Big Company

People want their lives to matter. They are

hungry to leave the world a better place than

they found it. They passionately want to

make a difference but don’t always know

where to begin, how to stay focused or what

to do when challenges seem insurmountable.

It is not easy. Stretching into challenging

places takes consistent commitment. Left to

ourselves we too often slip, forget, back away.

But when we surround ourselves with others

up to something big, we can keep each other

on track, remind each other of who we are at

our best.

Margaret Mead, the noted anthropologist,

said, “Never doubt that a small group of

thoughtful, committed citizens can change

the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever

has.”

Whether “the world” we focus on is the

planet or our own backyard, it is our

community of “thoughtful, committed

citizens” who hold us to account. They are

our witnesses, reflecting back to us our

highest dreams, encouraging us to step

forward with the best we have to offer. And in

turn, we are their witnesses, encouraging

them to step forward with the best they have

to offer.

Be up to something big. We’re in this

together.

How We Live Matters

A woman climbs down a steep, craggy

mountain, tethered to a woman above her

and a man below. Pressed against the hard

rock face, several hundred feet from solid

ground, all three are alert and vigilant. They

are acutely aware of the rope tension, the

crevices, their grip. Details are critical,

attention crucial, integrity essential. Her life

is in their hands.

Their lives are in hers.

The whole world is like that now, in this

age of global interconnectedness. We are all

tethered. We can pull one another up or we

can weigh one another down. We are in it

together, like it or not.

How we live matters.

Here is my invitation to you. Look beyond

your personal life. Know that your move-

ments matter, that your actions rever-berate,

that your words ripple across the globe. Be

up to something big—by tending not just to

your wildest visions but to your everyday

actions. Call forth the best in yourself, and in

others. Massage the fate of the world as it

passes through your hands. Live as though

we are counting on you to hold the rope taut.

We are.

14

The Author

Davia specializes in working with leaders

committed to social change. She has been

exploring the intersection of personal growth

and social change for over forty years. After

receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree with

honors from the University of California,

Berkeley, a Master of Science degree in health

sciences from the University of Utah, and a

Master of Arts degree in clinical psychology

from Antioch University, she earned her

coaching certification from Coach Training

Institute and opened her coaching practice in

2001. In addition to her academic back-

ground, her approach has been informed by

years of service work. For two decades she

worked as a volunteer with RESULTS, an

advocacy organization committed to ending

poverty, where she trained volunteers to step

outside their comfort zones in the name of a

larger commitment. She has been trained in

the Native American Way of Council; a

process of sitting in a circle, inviting deep

listening and personal story to build

community, explore challenging issues and

facilitate movement.

Davia was inspired to write her recently

published book, Up to Something Big: Stories

That Inspire Change, while listening to her

clients’ stories, and the commitment they

made to working with the challenges that

come from living a life that matters. 

Explore her projects online, at:

www.daviarivka.com

Citizens Climate Lobby: Participatory Democracy Resurgentby Joseph Robertson

Citizens Climate Lobby volunteers from across

North America gather outside US Capitol,

holding signs that say “I am a carbon tax”.

July 24, 2012.

“If you want to join the fight to save the planet,

to save creation for your grand-children, there

is no more effective step you could take than

becoming an active member of this group.” 

—Dr. James Hansen: physicist, member of the

National Academy of Sciences, grandpa,

director of the Goddard Institute for Space

Studies, NASA

In order to ensure that our economic and

environmental policies harmonize with the

life-as-lived interests of ordinary human

beings, at the human scale, a grassroots

movement of citizens has begun working to

steer the US Congress away from corporate

backers and toward people-centered solu-

tions. The American economy’s dependence

on fossil fuels carries an incredible burden of

hidden costs, and the American people are

15

increasingly aware that clean energy will

make the nation more prosperous, more

environmentally stable and more democratic.

Citizens Climate Lobby is a non-partisan,

non-profit volunteer organization, with over

60 local chapters in 26 states, and more in

Canada. Founded in late 2007, by the anti-

poverty crusader and microfinance hero

Marshall Saunders, its first national “con-

ference”, in Washington, DC, in 2009,

brought Marshall, along with organizing

wizard Mark Reynolds and scientist Danny

Richter, to Capitol Hill to press Congress to

end the nation’s addiction to carbon-based

fuels.

In June 2010, CCL’s first true volunteer

conference brought 25 volunteers from across

the United States together for informational

seminars, lobby training and Capitol Hill

visits. That small group met with 52

Congressional offices and several more from

the executive branch. In 2011, it was 80

volunteers, making 144 visits to Con-

gressional offices. Since then, CCL has begun

participating in the World Bank Civil Society

Forum, to urge representatives from the

World Bank, IMF, OECD and other inter-

national development organizations to lead in

the push for a price on carbon-based fuels.

For the first time, in 2012, the legislative

solution CCL supports has already been

introduced into the Ways and Means

Committee of the House of Representatives,

and members of Congress can sit with

citizens to hear them call for sponsorship of

pending legislation.

In 2012, 175 volunteers attended, from

across the United States and Canada, making

more than 300 visits to Congressional offices,

in just 4 days of lobbying, while personally

delivering materials to the rest of the House

and Senate—a feat made possible by the

scheduling acrobatics of Amy Bennet and a

dedicated team of interns.

By early 2010, the organization had

foreseen that the highly complicated

regulatory strategy known as Cap and Trade

—with its trading scheme ripe for derivative

finance shenanigans—would not become law.

So, by June of that year, CCL was working to

get the word out about a proposal called

Carbon Fee and Dividend. The strategy is

simple, streamlined, revenue-neutral, con-

sumer friendly, requires no new bureaucracy,

is easy to harmonize internationally and will

do more to reduce carbon dioxide emissions

and speed the arrival of a true clean-energy

economy. The plan:

• a steadily escalating fee on carbon-based

fuels, at the source (mine, well, port of entry

to the United States);

• a dividend (or monthly “bonus check”) to

households equivalent to 100% of the

revenue from the fee;

• a border adjustment (WTO-compliant) to

en-sure foreign businesses don’t get away

without paying the fee...

The 100% dividend ensures that more than

2/3 of all households will receive more in

their bonus check than all collateral price

increases resulting from the fee. As the fee

escalates, so does the dividend. This clear

price signal allows the true marketplace—

Main Street, USA, together with cutting edge

innovation and entrepreneurship—to take

over, giving renewables an edge, even without

subsidies, and releasing hundreds of billions

of dollars in private capital to go to work

building a fuel free all-clean-energy economy,

16

suited to the global challenges of the 21st

century.

The CCL approach allows ordinary citizens

to gather together, to better reach local and

national media, build support among voters

and raise the level of debate in the halls of

Congress. In 2010, it was Cap and Trade or

bust on the Hill; in 2011, Fee and Dividend

was intriguing to both liberals and con-

servatives on the Hill, but too new to catch

fire and lead the debate; in late 2011, how-

ever, the Save Our Climate Act (SOCA) was

intro-duced in the House Committee on Ways

and Means, and was built on the Fee and

Dividend model, though it devotes a portion

of revenue to debt reduction.

From July 2011 through July 2012, CCL’s

volunteers and staff have published three

hundred articles in local and national

newspapers and on major blog sites like the

Huffington Post. Thanks to the tireless efforts

of media director Steve Valk, and volunteers

like Ellie Whitney and Mike Morton, CCL was

able to release a 382-page 12-month Press

File1, in July 2012, compiling these letters

and op-eds.

In 2012, every office on Capitol Hill has

been made aware of Fee and Dividend, of its

Main-Street-focused approach, and SOCA is

likely to go to a 100% dividend in the new

year, increasing the monthly bonus paid to

households and making the bill’s economic

impact into more of a virtuous feedback loop

capable of building a thriving 21st century

clean-energy economy.

The strategy is supported by mainstream

economists, social and fiscal conservatives,

by Reagan advisors and progressive members

of the House of Representatives, and by the

world’s top climate scientist, James Hansen

of NASA. Reagan chief economist Art Laffer

and former House Republican Bob Inglis, a

social conservative, are now calling for a

revenue neutral carbon tax to break the

nation’s dependence on costly fossil fuels and

speed the transition to a clean economy.

CCL’s successes constitute a regeneration

of participatory democracy, with a focus on

the nation’s climate and energy policy. The

same model has been used with astonishing

success by RESULTS to win Congressional

support for action to eliminate poverty, treat

and eradicate disease, and overcome social

exclusion, around the world. Tens of millions

of people have been lifted out of poverty by

the work of RESULTS volunteers over the last

three decades.

This year’s conference recognized the

importance of the Quechua-language phrase

“Kachkaniraqmi”—“I am here; I still exist.”

Vibrant, constructive participatory democracy

requires that people dwell in this world in a

conscious way, and show up where decisions

are made, to be citizens and to remind elected

officials that we are here; we exist… and that,

above all other considerations, that matters.

NOTE: The author is a volunteer for Citizens

Climate Lobby, and author of the report

Building a Green Economy: On the Economics

of Carbon Pricing and the Transition to Clean,

Renewable Fuels, for the Hot Spring Network

and CCL. (See pg. 25 for more detail.)

17

1 You can read the CCL Press File online for free at: www.issuu.com/hotspring/docs/ccl-press_file-120728

Deep green economics entails a focus on full-spectrum

sustainability—sustainability in all aspects of our

relationship to the universe: the natural environment,

human neighbors, even our conscious envisioning of

what exists and/or is possible. Two foundational

principles underly this way of thinking green:

1.G.O.O.D.-based economic reasoning and analysis

(addressing the generative organic optimization

demand not previously addressed in the conventional

economic and political dynamics we think of as

business-as-usual);

2. Impact at the human scale (genuine inquiry into what

happens to individual, family and community-level

lived experience, as the result of policies that foster

development, investment distribution, innovation or

technological enhancement).

This section explores aspects of the deep green economic

revolution, already ongoing, and suggests solutions that

can help point the way toward a future in which no one

is disadvantaged by resource scarcity, the manipulation

of commodities markets, or lethal forms of industrial-

scale contamination. Deep green means conducive to

sustainable mutual thriving across the full spectrum of

human relationships, to the advantage of human liberty.

GOOD-based Economics:To Restore Main Street & the Middle Classby Joseph Robertson

A version of the following article first appeared

on The Hot Spring Network, on September 10,

2012. The central ideas will also be the focus

of a roundtable event, at Villanova University,

in Pennsylvania, on November 1, 2012.

Generative economic activity is activity

which yields a greater range and volume of

resources than it consumes. For example,

investment in solar energy technology is

generative, because the more invested, the

more resources available; investment in fossil

fuels is not generative, because the more

invested, the more rapidly the finite amount

of resources are depleted.

Organic economic activity is activity that is

woven into the fabric of what is being done

throughout the marketplace in question.

Organic activity is not necessarily imposed

from above, but rather emerges into the

currents of energy and wealth exchange that

comprise the overall marketplace. This can

include, but is not limited to, activity that

emerges from intelligent regulation, incen-

tives and government investment. Organic

activity tends to become visible at the

community level, at the human scale, and

ultimately, it is the province of everyone who

operates predominantly at that level.

Optimization refers to a specific way of

imagining the value of economic activity. This

is not the old optimist/pessimist opposition,

but rather a practical differentiation between

the analysis of self-appointed “realists”, who

shy away from market-redefining innovations

dependent on imagination and quality, and

fact-based optimists, who look to achieve the

best possible outcome, given what is, and

who are not averse to  imagining past the

paradigm shift.

Demand is the primordial driver of

economic activity. People need food and water

to live, so there is demand for supermarkets,

and for the entire fabric of agricultural and

industrial activity that supports them. The

demand for generative organic optimization of

our economic environment is rooted in the

very logic of human civilization: we devote our

intelligence, our collaborative capacity, our

resources—natural, synthetic and intellectual

—to always doing better than what would

naturally fall to us.

19

Why a GOOD-based framework for economic analysis?

Status quo is rooted in standardized

thinking; GOOD-based thinking is how we get

better. Conventional economics looks at

“demand” as the extant sum total of need and

want for specific items, services, etc. If X

number of Hummers are sold in a given year,

while a few sit unsold, then the supply,

filtered by distribution and pricing, is meeting

the demand, but overestimating by those few

that remain unsold. Some economists think

pricing determines demand, and others view

pricing as less important in the final analysis.

Analysis of past demand is supposed to

predict future demand, and so supplies are

adjusted to fit such predictions, as are

values, prices, investment patterns, etc. But

what is not accounted for is whether the

same people who generate the apparent

“demand” for Hummers might be happier

with equally muscular fuel free alternatives—

which bad economic think-ing has kept us

from building—at lower prices, and where the

air, water and food consumed by their family

would be safer.

Conventional analyses of demand do not

adequately account for the intangible, the

human element involved in assessing both

need and want, that drives the actual

decision-making of actual people.

People tend to look for opportunities to

make life more interesting, more comfortable

and more worthy of respect, on some level.

How those intangibles are calculated depends

in large part on the character of individuals,

so a real assessment of what might be

missing in a given market, the extant

demand, needs to look at how well that

market provides opportunities for the exercise

of personal character and imagination.

Generative Organic Optimization Demand

(GOOD) is a way of looking at the economic

landscape to determine how effective  our

overall strategies—our leading business

interests, our laws, our system of education

and our fabric of community, those things we

do every day—are to achieving what people

expect, what in fact is demanded by the ever-

increasing population  of human beings on

planet Earth: better outcomes.

For a century, Gross Domestic Product

(GDP) has served as a proxy for more precise

but elusive measures of progress toward

better outcomes. GDP totals all exchange

activity within a given set of political

boundaries, so it is easy to measure whether

the average exchange capacity per capita

(GDP per person) is increasing or decreasing.

But this does not tell us whether most people

are making progress toward a better

existence, in terms of personal liberty,

economic security and socio-political

empowerment.

If we transition to a way of thinking that

allows for GOOD-based economic analysis,

we will be better equipped to discuss in real

terms how people are living, what they are

striving for, and how we can envision and

collaborate to achieve better outcomes. So,

first things first...

What are the primordial GOOD considerations for individuals

and families?

Economic cycles as they relate to resources

are most often self-reinforcing: a fabric of

20

economic activity reliant on resource-

corrosive practices and depletion of generally

available stores (or potential output) of goods

and services will reinforce the cycle of

depletion as it expands; a fabric of economic

activity which generates added basic

resources for generalized consumption will

r e in f o r ce the cyc l e o f cons t ruc t i v e

collaborative improvement as it expands.

So, a GOOD-based economic improvement

strategy needs to cultivate and propagate

reinforcements of the following kinds:

• Biological: First of all are the life-sustaining

compounds without which human life is not

possible: clean air,  clean water  and food-

borne solid nutrients.

• Structural: Next are those structural

comforts of the built environment, without

which human beings are less able to achieve

long life expectancy and educational and

professional excellence: shelter, plumbing

and heat and electricity.

• Intellectual: Then come the intellectual

commodities: information, education,

technology sufficient for erasing the digital

divide.

• Political: The hope, then, would be that

with these come political liberties: freedom

of thought, freedom of assembly, freedom of

worship, freedom of the press, freedom from

all forms of discrimination, and an

enforceable guarantee of voting rights and

the right to petition the government for

redress of grievances.

• Community: Individuals and families tend

to be, as economic actors, expressions of

Generative Organic Optimization Demand,

specifically over and above the four

preceding categories of primordial GOOD

economic requirements : b io log ica l ,

structural, intellectual, political. Individuals

and families are best able to participate in

the economic , soc ia l and po l i t i ca l

constellation of influences, when there is

community infrastructure allowing for

substantive, character-driven interaction at

the human scale.

This means opportunities for children to

gather, play and compete, safely and without

undue ideological pressures or quality-of-life

dictation from budget processes, violent

crime, resource scarcity or contamination of

the environment. Some of these community

assets would be: art and music in school,

school sports, community-level recreational

activities, extracurricular educational

opportunities, and clinics, hospitals and

other services that guarantee quality

affordable on-time medical attention.

Measuring the quality, affordability (as

against individual, household and community

income) and accessibility of biological,

structural, intellectual, polit ical and

community infrastructure reinforcements is

then necessary to understanding what is

actually happening at the human scale, and

what innovations, incentives and/or

collaborative initiatives would build resiliency

and mutual thriving into the human

experience of a given community.

The Human Development Index (HDI)  is an

attempt to look at the status of people,

families and communities, in relation to the

above-listed reinforcements, focusing on

health, education and living standards. The

benefit of GOOD-based human development

analysis would be to assess and determine to

what degree activities related to human

development are also generative, thus

21

meeting the GOOD requirements of a given

town, region or people.

What is GOOD for Main Street?

Once again:

• “generative” means resource-reinforcing;

• “organic” means generalized collaborative

spontaneous economic activity;

• “optimization” means improving conditions;

• “demand” refers to the real-world need for

such reinforcements that improve quality of

life at the human scale (individual, family

and community).

The Main Street economy is the heart of

GOOD economic analysis.

The five categories of GOOD-relative

reinforcements listed above can serve as a

guide for what to look for in the GOOD status

of the Main Street economy. The financial

collapse of 2008 was calamitous by any

application of GOOD-based economic

analysis: after a decade of declining

affordability of political and community

reinforcements, biological reinforcements,

and then structural, became so cost-

intensive, more than 1/6 of the total

population of the United States was living in

poverty.

Community banks, reliant on vibrant local

GOOD-relative economic activity, began to

collapse, and larger banks, reliant on vibrant

GOOD-relative financial activity more

broadly, also found themselves on the brink.

Intellectual reinforcements for the GOOD-

relative economic standing of Main Street

interests declined in every area except online

information. (Education, as well as access to

reliable real-time information about the

f inancial and legal framework of an

individual’s life landscape, was becoming ever

more expensive, just as people were losing

what wealth they had.)

Coming out of the 2008-2010 financial

sector collapse and restructuring, what the

Main Street economy most required was a

deliberate conscious focus on the part of

f inancia l inst i tut ions on the GOOD

requirements of individuals, families and the

fabric of  surrounding  community in which

they live day to day. That did not happen, so

lending has lagged, recovery in the housing

market is indecisive at best, and the rate of

new hiring is, accordingly, slow.

The expansion of GOOD-relative economic

reinforcements for Main Street requires a

comprehensive  decentralization of private-

sector economic power. Oversized financial

institutions run up against an arithmetical

limit in their capacity for genuinely sustain-

able steadily increasing regular asset growth.

Eventually, there are no longer enough

resources outside their grasp to feed the

expansion of the value of what is within their

grasp.

There are specific activities financial

institutions can favor that will allow for a

momentum shift, toward the decentralizing of

economic power, effectively devolving power

to consumers, and freeing corporate interests

from the requirement to measure success

exclusively by raw numerical growth. The

leading consideration for the value of an

enterprise should then shift toward how it is

tied into achieving GOOD-relative reinforce-

ments for quality of life at the human scale.

22

Organic optimizing activities conducive to GOOD economic

status improvement

The organic optimizing activities required to

respond to GOOD should include:

• health-reinforcing food production;

• affordable health quality-enhancing goods

and services;

• intellectual agility-expanding goods and

services (educational and informational

liberation);

• community-level quality-of-life enterprises;

• human-scale banking initiatives aimed at

building GOOD-relative reinforcements into

local economic landscapes;

• crowd-funding for job creation, in mode of

the Opportunity Finance Network;

• a revenue-neutral fee on carbon emitting

fuels, with 100% dividend to households;

• d i s t r i b u t e d 1 0 0 % c l e a n - e n e r g y

infrastructure, training and services;

• cost-effective mass-market quick-charge

electric vehicles;

• municipal, state and federal policy

pr ior i t i es , rooted in fu l l -spectrum

sustainability;

• urban development innovations that provide

for pol lut ion-free af fordable public

transport...

Extreme examples might include:

• business solutions like crowd-funding of

foreclosure avoidance plans;

• 100% transparency in major conglomerate

banking or transnational financial enter-

prise;

• chartered partnerships between munici-

palities and local businesses, aimed at

hiring, educational opportunity, re-

creational quality of life and health funding;

• transitioning most business tax credits to

reward innovation, hiring, clean energy,

energy efficiency and health funding

initiatives;

• public-private partnerships in owning,

drawing revenue from 100% clean public

transit;

• direct investment in “breathable air”

initiatives;

• deliberate focus on  tree planting, park

greening, throughout urban and exurban

areas;

• explicit plans to halve the number of

combustible fuel vehicles on a city or

region’s roads within 10 years...

In each case, these organic optimizing

activities optimize the GOOD economic status

of a city or region by incentivizing investment,

hiring and direct funding of improvements to

quality of life and to resource-generative

activities. They become organic by feeding

directly into the fabric of generalized everyday

economic activity. By becoming an organic

part of the wider fabric of economic activity,

everyone across the economic landscape is

empowered to contribute to the improvement

of their own circumstances, simply by

participating in generalized everyday eco-

nomic activity.

Where GOOD is missing from our economic calculus

Travel from Bayside, Queens, to Long Island

City, or to the Brooklyn Navy Yard,  using

100% electric green tramways, and/or a

gleaming new monorail system, and you are

23

helping to pay for new employment, new

construction, immediate palpable improve-

ments to the aesthetics of the built environ-

ment, and for enhanced mobility and

economic opportunity across at least two

counties.

Build such a system into the wider fabric of

New York City and the region, and the benefit

to commuters, to commuter-dependent

enterprises, to the housing market, and to

the funding of schools, community re-

creational activities, public safety and health

treatment options supported by the public or

private sector, is still more noticeable. The

same sort of organic optimization can

generate new resources and better quality of

life in non-urban settings as well, as small

communities become 100% energy in-

dependent, and build in smart, innovative

enterprises, better quality of life, more

efficient transport and educational options,

each of these inducing new hiring and new

investment, at the local level.

In a city like Barcelona, Spain, refurbishing

central markets in every barrio of the city,

and adding 100% clean-energy-based new

construction and training programs, would

vastly enhance the amount of GOOD-relative

investment, cycling new wealth through the

generalized economy of middle class and

working families. It would also afford young

people with new routes into the labor market,

something Spain desperately needs.

In cities like Jakarta, Indonesia, Maputo,

Mozambique, or Mokha, Yemen, doing three

things would vastly improve the GOOD-

relative standing of millions of people:

• Incentivize investment by businesses and

municipalities in more permanent struc-

tural reinforcements, allowing people to

participate in and profit from the building in

their own communities;

• Put at the center of this new human-scale

construction initiative new schools and

health clinics;

• Build into the new structural reinforce-

ments 100% smart-grid-based clean energy

technologies, which would generate jobs

and new wealth in the communities

themselves...

These are examples, and enacting such

policies will require significant changes in the

way funds are disbursed. The World Bank

and IMF could be what they are supposed to

be—forces for good—by being forces for

GOOD-based generative reinforcements of an

economic sea change motivated by an

awareness of the benefits of real mutual

thriving. Without an aim to build GOOD-

based thinking into wider economic planning,

we will not overcome the corrosive tendencies

of exploitative hyper-consumption, and so we

will not do enough to eliminate poverty and

build a permanent democratically empowered

middle class.

GOOD-based economics is just a start, but

it is integral to understanding how we, as a

civilization, move forward in this increasingly

connected, personality-driven 21st century 

where we hope that all people everywhere will

be free to live, work, dream and achieve, with

dignity, security and socio-political empower-

ment to back them up and to reinforce and

propagate the best outcomes of their best

intentions, talents and relationships.

24

Note on related topics

There is mounting evidence, as the fallout

from the Great Recession runs its course,

that the real-world value of what we call

economic activity can be best identified and

discussed as relating to an economic eco-

system’s ability to provide the intangible

values we tend to associate with “quality of

life”, with unique personal tastes and talents,

or with recognition of basic human dignity: in

early education, in higher education, in the

opportunities available for employment, and

in the manner in which life-support services

of the built environment—such as life-saving

health treatments, clean drinking water—are

provided. Detailing the manner in which

policy affects the availability of intangible and

transcendent value, at the human scale, is

and will be one of the main areas of focus of

the entire Hot Spring Network project.

Future issues of The HotSpring Quarterly

will examine issues of education, economic

development, food supply security, energy

acquisition and distribution, environmental

sustainability, health services, community life

and market fairness, through the lens of

GOOD-based economic analysis.

Learn More

Learn more about Generative Economics and

follow the Hot Spring Network’s ongoing

process of formulating measurements and

analyses rooted in GOOD-based economic

thinking, at: bit.ly/goodecon-ideas

The Author

Joseph Robertson is the creator and director

of the Hot Spring Network, and the editor-in-

chief of the Hot Spring Quarterly. He is a

volunteer for the non-partisan, non-profit

organization Citizens Climate Lobby, and is

the author of the Sept. 2010 report Building a

Green Economy: on the Economics of Carbon

Pricing and the Transition to Clean, Renewable

Fuels, which is distributed free of charge to

elected officials on Capitol Hill. He directs the

publications ProjectQuipu.net, FuelFree.me,

Protect El Yunque and Futurismo Verde. He

is a visiting instructor at Villanova University,

where he now serves as chair of the

Environmental Sustainability Committee’s

subcommittee on Operations and Energy Use,

directs the ClimateTalks.info series of inter-

disciplinary roundtables and lectures, and

leads the GreenNOVA.org community for

coordinating sustainability activities and

information on campus and beyond. All of his

projects can be found through the website

PoetEconomist.com

25

Saturation vs. Scalability: Old & Costly vs. Clean & Efficientby Joseph Robertson

A version of the following article first appeared

on The Hot Spring Network, on September 13,

2011.

Saturation means more of a given ingredient

cannot be added to a given volume or fabric

of activity, without spilling over, and being

wasted. The fossil fuels market is saturated,

in the sense that it cannot effectively

capitalize on major new production invest-

ment without major new construction of

productive facilities. The industry has

effectively pushed prices higher and cannot

reduce them without seeing a dropoff in

profits. Most people can no longer afford the

fuel they used to consume.

This raises the question of scalability.

Scalability refers to the notion that as activity

of a given kind expands, as the benefits and

efficiencies of size, reinforced by growing

market share, which means a greater ability

to determine outcomes, an economy of scale

arises: a thing begins to cost less per unit or

per usage, because a scalable activity has

made the unit or the usage cost less without

reducing overall revenues.

Scalability depends on many other features

of the marketplace, however. One of these is

the value of investment. Another is the avail-

ability of that investment. When a market has

already gone global, and is controlled by a

handful of mega-conglomerates and govern-

ments, and is saturated, and is pricing reliant

consumers out, investment slows down. In a

credit-scarce economy where no one is as

rich as the oil interests, even moreso.

The ability to rapidly scale up production,

and to create a potent and escalating visible

return on investment for consumers, is

hampered by justifiable skepticism about

where this globalized, saturated and en-

trenched market sector can hope to go. Add

to that this problem of a business model

whereby one consumes a finite fossil resource

that cannot be reproduced, burning one’s

assets as one goes, and you have a model

that does not shape up favorably for the 21st

century.

The S&P 500 are now sitting on over $1

trillion in accumulated cash reserves. This

money could, and normally would, be

invested in future economic development. But

sclerosis in the top-heavy oil sector, a serious

lack of capital in the hands of consumers,

and the real vulnerability of banks and even

governments, are all conspiring to hold that

money back. Wise investors understand that

when the marketplace for risk and in-

vestment fails, a rainy-day fund is the best

option.

In stark contrast to the fossil fuels sector,

the clean renewables sector:

• is far from saturated,

• produces an ever-increasing rate of return

for investors,

• is primed to produce economies of scale,

• can offer more jobs at better wages over a

longer term, and

• lends itself to accelerating efficiency gains.

So, why are so many smart people still

saying they favor the economics of oil? Two

reasons:

26

1. They are invested in the fossil-burning-

for-profits model and so don’t accurately

perceive the saturation problem;

2. They don’t understand the paradigm shift

and so view clean energy not as a rapidly

expanding market but as a feeble one.

It’s not presumptuous to make these

assertions about the anti-clean-energy crowd;

it’s giving the benefit of the doubt to people

who are not seeing the lay of the land as it is,

but rather as they are accustomed to hoping

it is. It is wishful thinking to hold that oil will

always be king and no better option will

replace it, wishful, that is, if you profit from

oil’s dominance. The same with coal.

We are running out of ways to extract coal

cheaply without literally blowing mountains

apart, wiping them off them map, which

carries very significant costs. Coal is an 18th-

century technology not optimized for our 21st

century needs. While employment from coal

steadily declines, the risks and costs of its

production mount, and coal-rich com-

munities continue to experience chronic

endemic poverty which the industry has been

unable to solve.

We are running out of easy access to oil; the

remaining reserves are trapped in un-

developed remote wilderness, behind high-

risk, low-yield extraction processes that

require major new dirty energy infrastructure

to be built. Their development will impede

investment in and development of better,

cleaner, more efficient alternatives. We can do

much better.

The fossil fuel saturation problem, known to

states like Texas as an ongoing “energy

emergency”, means we need to be actively

searching not only for alternative fuels, but

also for investment opportunities where we

can build in drivers of more generalized

prosperity, i.e. a restored and strengthened

middle class, and accelerating returns in

productive capacity.

The only way to achieve that is by building

a smart-grid-based distributed clean renew-

able-energy market.

27

"e Case for a Carbon Tax:Ge#ing Past Our Hang-ups to Effective Climate Policyby Shi-Ling Hsu

The following is an author’s précis for the

book, The Case for a Carbon Tax: Getting Past

Our Hang-ups to Effective Climate Policy,

published by Island Press.

The Case for a Carbon Tax sets out ten

reasons to favor a carbon tax over the

alternative policies of (1) government

subsidies, (2) "command-and-control" style

environmental regulation under the older

parts of the Clean Air Act, and (3) cap-and-

trade.

One: "Government is bad at picking win-

ners, and losers are good at picking govern-

ments." The source of this famous saying is

surprisingly hard to pinpoint. Its relevance to

climate policy is hard to miss. When faced

with a problem as large and daunting as

climate change, there is a temptation to

expect too much from governments. We

demand that governments actually solve the

problem, rather than create the conditions

under which a solution is found. In an era of

endless political campaigns and promises,

voters in democratic countries have gotten

accustomed to the idea that government

should play the role of "fixer." This is

mistaken thinking. Innovation in technology

to reduce green-house gas emissions is going

to have to come from the private sector. Above

all, innovation requires a price signal. The

whole point of a price signal is that it does

not pick a winner; it lets markets do that. An

appropriate price signal on the emissions of

greenhouse gases will unleash a competition

among innovators to come up with the best

and cheapest technologies to reduce

emissions.

Two: Economic efficiency. Not only do we

want a competition among innovators and

entrepreneurs finding ways to reduce

emissions, economic efficiency demands that

there be a fair competition. Without a "fair"

competition, it is not assured that the lowest

cost reductions will prevail. For example,

regulating under the Clean Air Act does not

set up a fair competition because in general,

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

has been politically forced to regulate under

the Clean Air Act mostly by making

industries just do their best to reduce

pollution. There is nothing fair about letting

coal-fired power plants pollute just because

they tried their putative “best” to reduce their

pollution. For years, the default regulatory

option was to require that coal-fired power

plants install scrubbers to reduce sulfur

dioxide emissions. Alternative means of

reducing emissions have emerged that

suggest scrubbers are not particularly cost-

effective. Economic efficiency demands that

the ultimate arbiter of environmental

performance be the market, and not the

E.P.A.

Fundamentally, an economy facing 21st

century challenges must sort industries, top

to bottom, by carbon dioxide emissions. A

carbon tax does this. Especially in an era of

falling natural gas prices, many older, less

efficient coal-fired power plants cannot

survive a competition in which carbon dioxide

emissions are priced. This is precisely the

kind of sorting that cannot be done efficiently

by the Clean Air Act which, by commanding

28

and controlling, basically asks each industry

to try its best, with EPA's lenience and

attentiveness doled out in rough proportion to

each industry's political power. The simple

genius of a carbon tax is that it aggregates

disparate pieces of information throughout

the economy, transmitting a price signal at

every stage in which there is fossil fuel usage,

and transmitting it in proportion to the

carbon emissions of the production process.

Three: broader incentives to innovate. The

Canadian province of British Columbia has in

place a carbon tax of $30 per ton of carbon

dioxide. I was a resident of British Columbia

during the five-year phase-in period for the

B.C. carbon tax. In 2009, with the B.C.

carbon tax barely a year old, I undertook a

large home renovation to increase living

space. What surprised me was that my

contractor was very aware of the carbon tax,

and was able to tell me in very specific dollar

terms what the carbon tax meant for my

renovation project. He was thus able to

explain how much shorter the payback

periods were for energy-efficient options such

as high-efficiency furnaces and windows and

doors, solar water heating, and combined

water and space heating equipment. How did

a construction contractor become such an

expert on the effects of the carbon tax? He

had become an expert on the carbon tax was

that he already had clients like me who had

inquired and demanded that he do the

analysis. This would have been unlikely

under other systems with a less clear price

signal.

Incentivizing innovation will require a

broad price signal that ripples throughout the

economy in order to take advantage of as

many greenhouse gas reduction opportunities

as possible. The strength of a carbon tax is it

creates a broad, economy-wide price signal.

Greenhouse gas reduction opportunities are

diverse, and the only way to tap into all of

them is to have a broad price signal. Pricing

greenhouse gas emissions into energy prices

sends a price signal that ripples throughout

the entire economy, scrambling every single

business in a search for a lower carbon

footprint in the hopes that it can gain a price

advantage over competitors.

Furthermore, because of the nature of

regulating point sources of emissions,

regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under

the Clean Air Act can only be applied to a

handful of facilities. Although this handful of

facilities accounts for most of the greenhouse

gas emissions, they are a small fraction of the

number of facilities that emit. By regulating

under the Clean Air Act, we miss the

opportunity to tap into the entrepreneurial

energies of that vast majority of emitting

facilities.

Four: Deeper and steadier incentives to

innovate. Many have already made the

argument that command-and-control regula-

tion is inefficient and ineffective. The most

fundamental flaw of regulating greenhouse

gas emissions command-and-control style

under the Clean Air Act is that the price

signal favoring low-carbon or non-carbon

alternatives is one generated by an ad-

ministrative process, rather than a market

process. I do not revisit those arguments. The

economists have won the debate, and almost

everyone accepts that a price on carbon

dioxide emissions is needed.

While very limited government subsid-

ization of some research and development of

renewable and alternative technologies may

be warranted. But the most relevant choice is

29

between cap-and-trade and a carbon tax.

Cap-and-trade is an instrument whereby an

overall limit, or "cap," is set on total national

emissions, and emitters can trade amongst

themselves in mostly un-regulated market

transactions to allocate those emissions.

Although cap-and-trade and carbon taxes

both encourage innovation to reduce

emissions, the two are not equal in their

ability to induce innovation. There are at

least three ways in which a carbon tax will

better encourage innovation than a cap-and-

trade program. First, a carbon tax introduces

a steadier price signal than cap-and-trade.

Cap-and-trade sets the quantity of emissions,

but lets the price fluctuate according to

market demand. Investors interested in

lower-carbon or non-carbon alternatives

would rather not have price volatility. Second,

if a cap-and-trade program is successful in

encouraging innovation in greenhouse gas-

reducing technologies, the ironic effect is that

this innovation will reduce the price of

emissions permits and thereby reduce the

price incentive to innovate. A carbon tax, by

contrast, represents a continuing price signal

to find lower-carbon alternatives. Finally, if a

cap-and-trade program gives away emissions

permits instead of auctioning them—which

history suggests politicians would much

prefer—then emitters with these free permits

will have less incentive to innovate because

in-novation would reduce the value of those

emission permits. The free allocation of

allowances creates an asset in the hands of

emitters, something that does not happen

under a tax regime. The fact that innovation

could reduce the value of that asset is a

disincentive for those emitters to find cost-

saving innovations.

Five: carbon taxes do not subsidize the

formation of capital. People seem to think

that capital in the form of buildings, facilities,

and structures is an unambiguously good

thing. Most economists believe that capital

accounts for the difference in wealth between

developed countries and under-developed

countries. But capital has a downside: when

we discover that there is something harmful

or inefficient about the expensive capital we

have acquired, it can be very difficult to get

rid of that capital.

The whole problem of climate change

should have clued us in to this problem with

capital. One reason that addressing climate

change is so difficult is because the world has

trillions of dollars' worth of coal-fired power

plants that cannot be simply unplugged

overnight and replaced with other energy

sources. How did this happen? The line of

thinking that led to the accumulation of

excess capital went something like this:

cheap electricity is an unambiguously good

thing, because it lowers production costs and

generally makes life better for the general

populace. But cheap electricity requires

expensive capital, and so government as-

sistance to help form this capital must be a

good thing, too. Coal for electricity generation

has thus always been heavily subsidized,

enjoying numerous tax benefits. The sale of

coal itself can be eligible for taxation at a

lower rate or may be deducted from income

under a favorable "percentage depletion"

method, which allows a deduction that

exceeds the value of the coal itself. This has

all been in the name of cheap electricity, but

now we are stuck with all of this capital, and

the owners of this capital will vigorously

resist change that devalues their capital.

30

This specious line of thinking continues to

haunt energy policy today, as we dream up

even more ways to help the "right" tech-

nologies flourish, even those that maintain

our coal-related physical capital. Un-

believably, the Internal Revenue Code even

considers "refined coal"—coal that is treated

to have lower emissions—eligible for the

renewable energy production tax credit! Only

a lawyer could find such an audacious

interpretation of "renewable energy" plaus-

ible. A carbon tax is the only climate policy

that does not subsidize the formation of

capital.

Six: Respect for federalism. A carbon tax

is the one climate instrument that allows

individual states to truly pursue climate

policy without interference from the federal

government. There was a time when both

Congress and a handful of Western states—

those that were part of the "Western Climate

Initiative"—were pursuing cap-and-trade

programs in parallel. Cap-and-trade legis-

lation died on Capitol Hill, and all of the

states except California dropped out of the

Western Climate Initiative. But for a time,

there was some talk of how the two cap-and-

trade programs were going to be reconciled.

Why bother? Why not let states determine

for themselves if and how zealously they wish

to pursue climate policy? A carbon tax is the

one instrument that can be applied at the

state or federal level, or at both levels.

Furthermore, a properly-designed carbon tax

is compatible with other methods of green-

house gas control.

Seven: Carbon taxes are administratively

simpler. We have already dismissed Clean Air

Act regulation as poor climate policy.

Command-and-control regulation is ad-

ministratively difficult. It turns out that cap-

and-trade is also a headache. Whereas a

carbon tax draws on existing tax collection

procedures – such as those that already exist

at the gasoline pump – cap-and-trade will

require the development of a new agency

group to monitor emissions permit trades. In

the United States, which has already enjoyed,

at least by Washington standards, a fairly

smooth set-up and execution of the sulfur

dioxide cap-and-trade program, the costs of

setting up a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade

program would be manageable, but non-

trivial. A Congressional Budget Office report

estimated that a 2007 cap-and-trade bill that

passed the Senate Committee on Environ-

ment and Public Works would cost about

$1.7 billion from 2009 to 2013 to implement,

including the cost of hiring up to 400 new

employees. This is not a lot of money for the

federal government, but the United States is a

wealthy country with an agency with

experience in conducting cap-and-trade

programs. Not only would some countries

find a billion-dollar-plus price tag more

challenging, some would find the set-up

considerably more complicated. Several cases

of online thievery have cast some doubt on

the ability of even developed countries to

maintain market integrity for emissions

permits. By contrast, a carbon tax looks

administratively very much like the kinds of

sales taxes that even under-developed

countries are able to implement. A program

which has fewer administrative problems can

be implemented more quickly, thereby

addressing the problem of climate change

sooner.

Eight: revenue raising. Even small-

government libertarians would have to

concede that if the revenues from a carbon

31

tax were truly returned to taxpayers, taxing

greenhouse gas emissions is better than

taxing labor. In the United States, a carbon

tax of $30 per ton would generate $145

billion in annual revenue, which could

finance a ten percent cut in personal and

corporate income taxes, and then some. How

does an income tax cut sound to con-

servatives? Even if this is not pursued, cash-

strapped governments at many levels could

no doubt usefully restore funding to primary

education, health care, policing, infra-

structure, and other pressing needs that have

been deferred, or redistribute carbon tax

revenues only to the poorest individuals and

households, thereby preventing the carbon

tax from being regressive.

Nine: international coordination. Almost

every international treaty has sought to oblige

signatories to abide in a certain common code

of behavior. The Kyoto Protocol is an

exception. By acknowledging "common but

differentiated responsibilities," the Kyoto

Protocol sets out a schedule by which

developed countries must reduce their

emissions but developing countries do not.

The hope was that if the developed countries

took the first step, developing countries

would follow. This hope has failed spec-

tacularly.

The plain reality is that China and India

will not, in any time frame that could avoid

climate change, consider quantitative limits

on emissions as required by the cap-and-

trade programs that the Kyoto Protocol

seemed to contemplate. China and India are

likely to be more open, however, to a global

carbon tax. For one thing, governments get to

keep the proceeds from a carbon tax, so that

it does not smack of an externally imposed

mandate that intrudes onto sovereignty. Also,

a global carbon tax, insofar as it really looks

more like international treaties that have

been successfully negotiated in the past—in

which signatories all agree to do the same

thing—is a policy that is more likely than

Kyoto to gain the kind of international

agreement that will be needed to actually

solve the climate policy problem. No one

disputes that in order for greenhouse gas

emissions to be reduced, global cooperation is

required. A carbon tax stands a better chance

of achieving this than the alternatives.

Ten: Economic efficiency, again. The

world's most vibrant economies are fossil

fuel-powered. So fundamental is fossil fuel

combustion to economic health that it will

take a long time, and much willpower, to

sufficiently wean economies off of fossil fuels.

A widespread and sustained effort to ac-

complish this is like dieting: as anyone who

has ever been on a diet could tell you, it will

take long-term resolution and commitment.

Dieters will also be able to tell you that some

days are better than others, but long-term

habits are more important. A consistent

carbon tax, annually adjusted for inflation,

represents a long-term commitment. It is

superior to cap-and-trade because a cap

remains fixed no matter what happens in a

given year (cap-and-trade programs may

allow permit "banking" and "borrowing"

across years, but that would only imperfectly

simulate the flexibility offered by a carbon

tax). In economic downtimes, carbon dioxide

emissions fall; in those years having a "loose"

cap is a missed opportunity to reduce

emissions even more, and perhaps develop

some lower-carbon "habits." Carbon dioxide

emissions in Europe and in the United States

dropped precipitously in 2009, enough to

push these Kyoto signatories startlingly far

32

towards meeting their Kyoto commitments.

Such a time of depressed asset prices would

have been an excellent time to invest in

emissions reductions, but only a carbon tax

would have incentivized those investments,

not cap-and-trade.

What a carbon tax does, which cap-and-

trade and other alternatives do not, is to keep

up a consistent and persistent price signal. In

a year like 2009, the economic slowdown

would have destroyed all price incentives to

reduce carbon dioxide emissions. That would

have been a year of missed opportunities to

lock in some progress. Economic efficiency

demands that the opportunities to reduce

emissions be taken not just at the places

where emissions reductions are the cheapest,

but also when they are cheapest. A carbon

tax allows that to happen, whereas a cap-

and-trade program robotically demands the

same amount of emissions reduction, year

after year, no matter what the economic

circumstances. This is not economically

efficient.

Those are ten reasons for conservatives to

favor a carbon tax.

So why are carbon taxes so politically

unpopular? One reason is that we seem to

have a political allergy to anything with the

word "tax" in it. In fact, some research

suggests that if we were to label this policy a

"fee," people might be less likely to oppose it.

But euphemizing is not the answer. The

answer is to persist in making the plain-

spoken argument that if emissions reductions

are required, it will cost money. Carbon taxes

are the least costly way of achieving

emissions reductions. Politicians talking

down to the electorate only reinforce dumb

conventional "wisdoms." The dumb con-

ventional wisdom we must debunk is that we

can get something for nothing. This is the

hidden strategy for politicians that advocate

for broad government subsidies, command-

and-control regulation ("punishing the pol-

luter," eliding the fact that energy costs often

get passed on to consumers), and to some

extent cap-and-trade. There must be honest

and realistic talk about the increased energy

prices that everyone must pay, as well as the

economic and social consequences of failure

to act. The case must be also laid out for how

a carbon tax is the instrument that minimizes

that cost and minimizes governmental

interference.

Some are also concerned that carbon

taxes are regressive, because raising energy

and transportation costs would dispro-

portionately hurt poorer households, for

whom energy and transportation costs are a

larger fraction of their budget. But recycling

the revenues from a carbon tax can fix this. A

redistribution of just a fraction of carbon tax

revenues can make poor households whole.

Moreover, even without such a revenue

distribution targeting poor households, a

carbon tax would be, on the grand scale of

things, one of the smallest insults visited

upon the poorest Americans.

Reducing greenhouse gases will require

significant changes in the way that we

generate and consume electricity. Govern-

ments are not very good at orchestrating

these kinds of changes. Private enterprises

like Microsoft, Google, and Apple Computer

are very good at changing large-scale

behavior very quickly. Given that some very

quick and large-scale ramp-up in renewable

energy technologies is needed, the way to

support renewable energy is to tax all things

carbon, not try to subsidize things non-

33

carbon. Ultimately, trying to subsidize,

mandate, or otherwise prop up all things

non-carbon has this pushing-on-a-string

futility.

Fortunately, opposition to carbon taxes is

a mile wide but an inch deep. Resistance to

carbon taxes are based on broad but

superficial misperceptions which can be

broken down with persistent, simple, plain-

spoken messaging. The message that needs

to be conveyed is that all plans for reducing

emissions will cost money. Even if some

policies to reduce emissions do not obviously

cost money, ultimately people pay, be it as

taxpayer, automobile owner, electricity user,

or just a consumer of goods in a fossil-fuel-

powered economy. A "tax" only sounds worse

than everything else. In reality, a carbon tax

is the least costly way of reducing emissions,

especially when the revenues are recycled

back into the economy. A carbon tax offers

the most opportunities to reduce emissions,

giving society the chance to choose from the

widest variety of ways to reduce emissions,

and to choose the least costly ones. Finally, a

carbon tax is something that can be easily

and quickly deployed, because it can be

implemented much like a sales tax, making it

feasible for almost any country or any state or

province. A carbon tax is the best option for

reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The Author

Shi-Ling Hsu is Professor at the University of

British Columbia Faculty of Law. He has

served as Associate Professor at the George

Washington University Law School, Senior

Attorney and Economist for the Environ-

mental Law Institute and Deputy City

Attorney for the City and County of San

Francisco.

34

How Driving an Electric Car Freed Meby Ellie Whitney

Electric cars have changed radically since

1995, when I began driving my “E-car.” This

article is not intended to show the features of

electric cars today, but to illustrate the

attitudes of mind and spirit that lead people to

make major lifestyle changes for the benefit of

the environment. - E.W.

During the decade prior to the year 2000, I

became eager to change my way of life. I had

been a typical American consumer, with all

the luxuries that middle-class citizens

enjoyed. A single, working mom, I hadn’t

taken time to learn much about the effects

my purchasing, using, and disposal habits

might be exerting on the world around me.

My three children and full-time job teaching

at Florida State had occupied all of my

attention.

Power for the car came from 24 deep-cycle batteries: 8 under the hood, 8 under the rear seat, 8 under the trunk.

I had lived in cities for most of my life—

New York, Boston, Tokyo, St. Louis—and

when in 1974 I moved to a suburb outside

Tallahassee, Florida, I thought of it as “the

country.” My grassy lawn with well-attended

bird-feeders seemed a wilderness, and an

unimproved lot next door, overgrown with

pine trees, looked like a virgin forest.

Not until I was 50, with my children

launched on their own lives, did I take a real

vacation: I made a trip to a Costa Rican

rainforest with a team of adventurous

biologists. For two weeks we spent our days

out-of-doors, walking steep trails among

towering, vine-clad trees amongst the sounds

and signs of thousands of species of plants

and animals. By the time we returned to the

United States after only a little more than two

weeks, I had a new, deep appreciation of the

truly natural world and a desire to help

preserve it.

The awareness that arose from that trip

has never left me.

Later, I attended an international

conference on rainforest ecosystems and had

the opportunity to put my question to an

expert. “I’m just a mom, not an expert,” I told

him. What can I do to help preserve the

world’s rainforests?”

My disappointment in his response was

almost comical. Hoping to be told I should

live in a tent in a beautiful wilderness, and

follow some exotic bird around to learn its

habits, I was thrown on my heels when he

replied, “Help teach American consumers to

change their lifestyles.” But I could see his

point. We Americans are the most gobbly

consumers in the world: we use so much

energy and emit such volumes of heat-

trapping gases that we are accelerating the

disruption of the climate and inflicting

consequences on all civilizations and

ecosystems of the world. That needs to

change.

35

So I resolved to help in the way this expert

recommended, whatever it might cost me in

effort and personal energy. I decided to leap

into the 21st century as an all-green citizen,

with a solar home, an electric car, and zero

trash, only recycling.

To this end, I began conducting a sort of

lifestyle experiment. My object was twofold: to

see how lightly I could live on the earth, and

to try to attract other consumers into the

same ways of life by showing that they were

not burdensome but exciting and fun. I asked

for the privilege of writing weekly columns in

the local newspaper, the Tallahassee

Democrat. The paper was happy to take me

on, and promptly named me “The Everyday

Environmentalist.”

My columns began to appear on the 20th

birthday of Earth Day, in April, 1994 and ran

for six years. From the start, I promised

readers that I would try to make changes in

every aspect of my life from the ways I bought

things to the ways I used and disposed of

them. I pledged that I would report only on

changes I, myself, had made—a project in

which my bemused husband cooperated fully.

It did turn out to be fun, doing all this.

And nothing was more exciting than my

purchase and use of an electric car.

I did some research to find a car that

would be affordable, practical and safe. It had

to be reliable and repairable by ordinary

nearby garages at a reasonable price and I

had to be comfortable and confident driving

it. In return for those features, I vowed I

would be willing to face some obstacles, if

necessary. My reward would be the privilege

of driving more freely while producing less

global-warming gas than I had ever done

before. (Our city electricity was generated

from natural gas, which is less polluting than

coal, but it still emits carbon dioxide when

burned.) I intended to demonstrate, if true,

that the time for this kind of change had

arrived—that ordinary people like me could

make this choice without paying too high a

price.

I found such a car, custom-made, through

my friend Al Simpler, of Shelby Motors in

Tallahassee. The maker, Wilde EVolutions of

Arizona, bought a Taurus body, installed the

necessary electric innards, and delivered it to

me within eight weeks.

The E-car looked like any other car.

The price was higher that I’d ever paid for a

car—$25,000, but there was no 7-percent

sales tax on the car and I got a 10-percent

rebate on my income tax. The net price of the

car, then, was $25,000 minus $1,750 minus

$2,500, or $20,250 total, plus $1,000

shipping. I thought such a price might be

acceptable to other drivers who, like me,

wanted to make their life choices more green.

Tongue in cheek, I told readers:

I stopped for gas last week for the last time. Nostalgically, I bent over the gas cap and inhaled deeply.

“I’ll miss this,” I thought wistfully. “No more stops at gas stations. No more exhaust fumes. No more rumbling engine, no spark plugs, no muffler, no carburetor—how will I live without these things?”

Nonsense. I thought nothing of the kind.

36

My friend Al delivered the car on July 7. It

looked like a big monster to me after the little

Geo I’ve been driving for five years. I told

readers:

It’s a four-door, gleaming white Taurus with air conditioning, power steering, power brakes, electric windows—the works.

This car is serious. It wants to stand shoulder to shoulder with the standard Detroit cars. It wants to take its place in the Big Time.

“Do I really need all this?” I wondered. Vice Pres ident A l Gore ’ s comment echoed somewhere inside me, “Isn’t it ridiculous that each person must go from place to place surrounded by 3,000 pounds of steel?”

Another voice answered, “Yes, but that’s what our society demands we do. We have to travel major roads, even to get to our food.” Given that reality, maybe this was a good thing.

The E-car was powered by a small, very efficient and powerful airplane engine.

My first drive, taken with Al, was a surprise:

Al instructed me, “Just turn the key, as in a regular car.”

I did. Nothing happened. “It’s on,” he said.

I found it unnerving, not to know when the car was “on.”

“Now turn on the air conditioner,” said Simpler. I did, and cool air flowed over me immediately, together with the sound of the fan. That was nice.

Then we glided away, shifting gears, accelerating and braking as in a “regular” car.

Soon Al pronounced me fit to drive and left me with my new vehicle plugged in and charging in the carport.

The change already felt momentous. I had

both large thoughts (“Is this the beginning of

a new millennium for everyone?”) and small

ones (“I wonder how fast it will charge?”).

Change, even beneficial change, is stressful.

I told readers:

In the morning, the meter on the dashboard reported that the battery was full. Still, I hesitated long before heading for the store. I feared that something wouldn’t work, and that I wouldn’t know what to do about it.

Finally I told myself, “Well, you can always get it towed. You’ve done that with gas-powered cars, remember?” I desperately wanted nothing to go wrong.

Nothing did. I drove to the store and parked as I always have. Then as I walked the aisles picking out cereals, breads and juices, I found myself holding my breath. “Nobody’s looking at me!” I thought. “You’d think they’d notice this creature from another planet (century?) shopping in this store.” But what was there to see?

Nor did the bagger notice when he put the bags in the truck. I breathed a little easier.

I’m home again. The car is charging again. I can do this. It isn’t all that different. Yet something big has happened and my world is not the same.

I drove the E-car exclusively for more than

five years. I learned that its range on a full

charge was about 50 miles, exactly the

distance to a house at the coast where I

stayed on weekends. To make sure not to run

out of “juice,” I stopped halfway there at

Posey’s Restaurant to eat. They freely let me

use their outside outlet so that I could gain

10 extra amp-hours in case of need. I paid 25

cents for this, which more than covered their

cost.

37

Elsewhere, if I was running low on energy,

I asked grocery stores or convenience stores

to let me plug in for a while. Everyone was delighted to help me, and fascinated by the

car. The only place I was ever refused a charge was at a gas station. “We don’t do

that,” they said.

But I seldom ran low enough on power to need a charge away from home. And since I

charged the car at night when electricity rates were lowest, I figured that I was paying an

amazingly low rate for my “gas”—about 3

cents a mile for city driving; 2 cents for driving on the highway.

Five years after I bought the E-car, many changes took place in my personal life. First

my parents, then my husband died, and I no

longer wanted to live in solitude in a country home. I took a small apartment in the city

where I could not house the car, so I donated it to a department at Florida A&M University

where students were studying alternative

transportation. I resumed driving a gas-powered, fuel-efficient car, a Toyota Camry.

What a come-down. Within two weeks after buying the Camry, I ran out of gas on the

road. I’d forgotten about having to refill the

tank. Later, in gas stations, I had to learn to operate the fuel pumps, which were equipped

with charge-card slots I had never seen before.

Later still, I retired. I have moved to New

Jersey to be near my daughter’s family, and I drive a Toyota Prius, which averages 50 miles

to the gallon of gas. But I still dream of having an all-electric car in a world where

there will be charging meters everywhere—in

supermarkets, malls, restaurants and work-places will have charging meters.

I also hope that gasoline prices will rise steeply—in concert with a rapid decline in the

prices of clean energy resources. Such a

change can take place without hurting

American wallets if Congress puts in place a

carbon fee-and-dividend system such as the “Save Our Climate Act,” H.R. 3242, which is

now awaiting action in the U.S. House of Representatives. We would benefit militarily,

economically, environmentally, and especially

because we would have a planetary future to look forward to.

On finding the electrical outlet under the gas cap, admirers would almost invariably say,

“Cool!”

The Author

Ellie Whitney grew up in New York City and earned her bachelor’s degree at Harvard University and her doctorate in biology at Washington University, St. Louis. She lived in Tallahassee, Florida for 35 years until retirement, living in a solar home and driving  an all-electric car. Besides writing many college textbooks on nutrition, health, and the environment, she wrote weekly columns  as the Tallahassee Democrat’s “Everyday Environmentalist,” helping citizens learn to live lightly on the Earth. She has  followed climate change trends for more than 30 years and now volunteers for the Citizens Climate Lobby.

38

It is not the policy of the Hot Spring Network or the Hot Spring uarterly to endorse political candidates. Neither project has a partisan or ideological bias. But we would like to highlight the following message, by the following independent candidate for US Senate, because his project is so much like ours: he not only seeks to promote significant change, through the legislation and the public service he commits himself to; he seeks to promote change through citizenship and personal engagement. ese are part of what it means to be involved in Deep Green economics: promoting mutual thriving sustainably, through all of our actions, policies and pursuits.

A MESSAGE FROM INDEPENDENT SENATE CANDIDATE BILL BARRON

My name is Bill Barron. I am an unaffiliated candidate seeking to represent Utah in the United States Senate. I am focused on the most urgent issue of our time, human-caused climate change. We face a critical moment in our history, where our action or inaction will dictate what our children and future generations a"er them will face. It is time to unite as human beings and acknowledge the implications on our natural world if we continue burning fossil fuels at the rate we are today.

#ere is a direct and transparent solution to this issue, which would provide bene$ts to our air and water quality, human health, our economy and the creation of much needed jobs. It is called carbon fee and dividend. #is legislative proposal would place a steadily increasing fee on carbon emissions at the source -at the mine, well or port of entry - with 100% of the revenue returned to households. #is fee on carbon would account for the externalized costs of burning fossil fuels, with the revenue returned equitably to American households as a dividend check. #is type of legislation would drive a smooth, nationwide transition to clean and renewable energy. It would: accelerate our transition away from fossil fuels, improve our air and water quality, while reducing health care costs, provide the incentive for our economy to grow toward innovation, ingenuity, and efficiency, and would not increase the size of the government.

I am compelled to run for US Senate because the time to be effective is now! Climate change is happening and scientists con$rm that we are a major cause. We can address this issue with a federal legislative solution that matches the scale of the problem. I ask you to engage in the political process as individuals and let’s create the political will for a future that affirms the best interests of our children and coming generations. #is is a moral and ethical issue, not a political one.

Our country is facing many challenges, but when it comes right down to it, if we don’t address human-caused climate change, all other issues will pale in comparison.

Bill Barron is running as an independent for U.S. Senate in 2012. Bill is forty-!ve years old and proud father of a 9 year old daughter; a carpenter and ski patroller at Alta who believes that there needs to be a political revolution dedicated to the urgency to address climate change on behalf of the earth and for the sake of future generations.

To learn more about Bill Barron, visit BarronforUSSenate.com

A paradigm is the predominant way of dealing with the

shape and the nature of reality, and represents the

consensus of human consciousness within a given scope

of thought, skill or inquiry. A paradigm shift is a

moment in which the entire edifice of presumed

meaning is altered, simultaneously, because the shape

of the universe itself, with respect to the point in

question, has been discovered to be different. New

insights flow from a paradigm shift instantaneously, and

what was previously not understood to be possible

becomes not only possible, but the focus of inquiry. The

Internet constitutes a paradigm-shift in human

communication, for instance. How we envision our

relationship to people around the world is, with the

Internet, fundamentally altered. The paradigm shift

allows us to solve problems we could not otherwise

envision a way to solve. The Hot Spring Network is

committed to “hunting the paradigm shift” through

collaborative inquiry, creative critical thinking and

technological invention.

Cnut the Great & a Vision for Mitigating Climate Change: What About Tomorrow?by Jan Dash, PhD

This essay was originally prepared as a talk to be given by Dr. Dash, in an effort to educate the public and policy-makers about the truth, regarding the ongoing process of global climate destabilization, and how our use of energy relates to the crisis, and to the solutions. This version was produced by the author in August, 2012.

Here are two contrasting future climate

visions. Imagine this. In Positive Vision #1 we

act vigorously to mitigate climate change. Our

country is thriving on renewable, clean

energy while everyone’s life and health is

improved in a sustainable economy. On the

other hand, in Business as Usual Vision #2

we do not act vigorously to mitigate climate

change. We are dependent on fossil fuels

increasing global warming, and which are

moreover increasingly difficult to extract,

blowing up mountaintops and building

dangerous pipelines. What are the con-

sequences of these two visions for climate

and why should we care? I like to use this

metaphor: The world is like a car stalled on

the train track, and the climate train is

barreling down on us. It is close and it is fast.

Business As Usual Vision #2 says let’s deny

there is a problem at all. Let’s just sit there.

Instead, I say: let’s follow Positive Vision #1

and move the car.

Cnut the Great was once king of

Denmark, England, Norway, and parts of

Sweden. Cnut was reported “to have set his

throne by the sea shore and commanded the

tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes.

Yet continuing to rise as usual [the tide]

dashed over his feet and legs without respect

to his royal person. Then the king leapt

backwards, saying: 'Let all men know how

empty and worthless is the power of kings,

for there is none worthy of the name, but He

whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal

laws.' “ If Cnut were alive today I believe that

he would be working to achieve Positive

Vision #1.

One thousand years later in 2012, ignoring

Cnut and the laws of climate science physics,

the legislature of North Carolina passed a law

forbidding consideration of scientifically

projected sea level rise. In contrast, the U.S.

Navy runs scenarios for a rise of 3 to 6 feet in

sea level by 2100. If future higher sea levels

accompanied by extreme weather events

devastate the North Carolina coast, the folly

of its legislators will be apparent.

But North Carolina is just the tip of the

iceberg. Most of the Republican Party, in

lockstep, now ignores the best mainstream

scientific evidence on climate. This includes

John McCain, who once sponsored climate

legislation. Fox News, the Wall Street

Journal, right-wing commentators and

politicians bark an incessant and un-

precedented attack on climate science,

distorting or denying the science and

misinforming the public. Consumers of this

disinformation can repeat fal lacious

contrarian talking points without even being

aware of the facts of mainstream climate

science. Even some brilliant people are

misled.

42

Some climate scientists are attacked by the

right wing and subjected to investigations.

Some scientists have received emails from

people inflamed by right wing disinformation

containing thinly veiled death threats.

Efforts to deal with the risks of climate

change, from renewable energy to con-

servation efforts, are also attacked by the

right wing. Subsidies for fossil fuels are

welcomed. While direct and indirect subsidies

for fossil fuels (including public roads) are

huge, any subsidies for renewable energy are

attacked.

These attacks are backed by the fossil fuel

industry, whose profits are threatened and

who I believe are afraid of being accused of

climate change liability, plus libertarian think

tanks that dislike government action. One of

the worst of these is the Heartland Institute,

which defends smoking. This is actually not

surprising, since the same tactics and some

of the same people railing against climate

science previously tried to cast doubt on the

science that exposed harmful effects of

smoking.

These people oppose Positive Vision #1.

They deny the climate problem exists. They

deny the findings of mainstream climate

science. They cling to Vision #2, Business as

Usual.

Five years ago the International Panel on

Climate Change or IPCC and Al Gore shared

a Nobel Prize for work on climate change. The

discussion then was on action—attempts to

mitigate and when necessary adapt to climate

change. That is where the discussion should

be now. We cannot allow the disinformation

campaign to derail us.

We need Positive Vision #1, acting to

mitigate the climate problem.

So what is the climate problem?

It is scientifically clear that the global

warming trend of climate change since 1975

exists. It is scientifically clear that this global

warming is mostly due to humans consuming

fossil fuels. It is scientifically clear that the

impacts of global warming and climate

change are starting to be observed now, will

be increasingly serious if we do not act

sufficiently, and will be overwhelmingly

negative.

Climate change is the biggest ethical and

moral problem of our times. It is also the

biggest survivability problem of our times.

The climate problem is humanity's problem.

Let’s start with the Business as Usual

Vision #2, where we do not take action. In the

metaphor, these people deny the climate train

even exists. Their denial and hostility leaves

the car on the train tracks. What are the

consequences as described by mainstream

research?

The poorest and weakest, those who did

the least to cause the climate problem, will be

those who will suffer the most. However we

all will be severely affected, including right

here in the United States. There will be no

safe haven and no place to hide.

Our grandchildren and other future

generations not yet born, who did nothing to

cause the climate problem, will be those who

will suffer the most.

Is saying this, as the right wing puts it,

being alarmist? I certainly hope so. I want

people to be alarmed. There is good reason to

43

be alarmed. As a former physics professor

and a current risk manager, I feel responsible

for telling as many people who will listen

about the dangers and risks of climate

change, and urge people to stand up and act

on climate change.

The U.S. Defense Department certainly

seems alarmed, deeming climate change a US

national security threat in its 2010

Quadrennial Defense Review. Reports from

reputable sources—laboratories and uni-

versities—come in every week regarding some

alarming aspect of the impacts of climate

change that will increasingly affect us and

our children and our grandchildren.

In fact I am here speaking to you today

because of my grandson. What will climate

change bring for him and for his children and

grandchildren who will see the year 2100, if

not enough mitigation action occurs? What

about children you know and their children?

I am alarmed at the prospects. Will they be

hungry? Thirsty? Safe? Will unmitigated

climate change bring disasters that will hurt

them?

Of course there have always been disasters

due to natural causes. But global warming

and climate change make natural problems

worse. The effects of global warming and

climate change are being observed now.

However, today’s impacts due to climate

change are only a faint rumbling of the

alarming impacts expected in the future.

Climate disinformers minimize or ignore

climate risk. But here is what reliable sources

say that climate change will increasingly do if

we do not mitigate sufficiently:

• Crops will increasingly wither and die under

the expected increasing drought and heat,

plus insects—responding to warmer tem-

peratures—invading from the south. Ocean

acidification resulting from absorbed carbon

dioxide will increasingly threaten the ocean

food chain from algae to fish. Food

shortages will become common worldwide.

• Most glaciers and snow packs, along with

many aquifers and fresh water sources, on

which billions depend, will decrease,

implying massive water shortages.

• Wars over food and water will increase,

threatening peace.

• From the medical journal Lancet: "Climate

change is the biggest global health threat of

the 21st century. Effects of climate change

on health will affect most populations in the

next decades and put the lives and

wellbeing of billions of people at increased

risk."

• Most cities near the sea will suffer

infrastructure damage, and mass climate

migrations in the millions are expected to

occur from those displaced, destabilizing

societies.

• Animal and plant extinctions will be

unprecedented since the asteroid killed off

the dinosaurs, threatening the balance of

nature and the interdependent web, on

which we all depend.

• Extreme weather events will increase in

impact. Hurricanes will become more

intense. Extreme fires will become more

common. Extreme heat waves will become

more common. Extreme droughts will

become more common. Today’s extreme

44

weather event will be tomorrow’s average

weather event.

• Some governments will face destabilization

with likely losses of civil liberties. Terrorism

will increase.

• One more thing. I have been doing finance

risk management professionally for 25

years. It is my opinion that the inherent

fragility of economic and financial systems

with the added pressure from impacts of

climate change may collapse these systems

worldwide and completely.

What about Positive Vision #1, where we act

vigorously to mitigate climate change and

adapt to it when necessary? In this vision we

move the car out of the way of the speeding

climate train. In Positive Vision #1 the worst

dangers of climate change are alleviated. In

this vision the goals we care about and the

principles we have become possible to

achieve. This is the vision we want.

The best framework for acting on climate

change is risk management. We deal with a

variety of risks every day and we hedge

against risk, using insurance for example.

Positive Vision #1 is a risk management

vision. The Business as Usual Vision #2 does

not want to understand climate risk

management.

As a finance risk manager, I am very

familiar with people who follow Business as

Usual Vision #2. These include shortsighted

traders who scorn serious risk management

and who regularly blow up. The last one to

receive notoriety was the London Whale at JP

Morgan who recently lost billions of dollars;

the exact amount is not known.

The consequences of not performing

robust risk management are much more

serious for climate than for finance, but the

basic idea is the same.

Dealing with risk, the analog of buying

insurance, costs money. Not dealing with risk

but being hit with the consequences is short

sighted and can cost much more money.

Ignoring the eventual costs of climate change

is unwise. Not dealing with risk will increase

human suffering.

It is important to know that there is no

silver bullet to resolve the climate problem.

We will need a portfolio of risk management

actions in mitigation and adaptation. Climate

deniers maximize climate mitigation cost

estimates. However a lot of ef fective

mitigation can be done without much

economic hardship, and opportunities will

abound for new paradigms in energy and

efficiency, provided we start seriously doing

mitigation now. Action to develop renewable

energy provides jobs and could help improve

the economy besides eventually replace fossil

fuels, providing a power ful force for

mitigating global warming. Some positive

action is now underway. This is good. It is not

enough.

What part can we play to help achieve

Positive Vision #1? Many of us are concerned

with social justice issues. But no issue can

have a long-term solution without parallel

consideration of a solution to climate change.

• Consider immigration. Studies show that

Mexico and South America wil l be

devastatingly impacted by climate change,

implying millions more immigrants coming

into the US.

45

• If your issue is water rights, think of the

effect of a bad drought, prolonged by

climate change, on thirsty people, on a

thirsty child.

• If you are working on women's rights,

consider that climate change is expected to

impact women and children the hardest.

• If you are working with hungry people,

imagine the increase in distress when food

prices go through the roof as climate-

change-enhanced drought decimates crops

in the US Midwest.

Climate change should be on everybody’s

front page.

Here are some concrete suggestions from

w h i c h t o c h o o s e t o i n c r e a s e y o u r

participation. Form Climate Action Teams.

Plan climate related events. Leverage from a

letter to the editor on climate is large. Join

with other groups active in climate, whether

religious or social or political.

For example, the Citizen’s Climate Lobby is

a focused group that is actively promoting a

revenue-neutral carbon tax with refunds or

dividends paid back to people, who come out

ahead if they use less energy.

Scientists (and there are many of you

already informed) can become better informed on climate science and the

distracting pseudo-science disinformation

campaign (for more details, see the appendix).

You could be leaders in helping others to

understand the climate issues.

Here are more suggestions. Some cities

have Green Teams; sign up. Support renew-

able energy projects. Support conservation

projects. Support energy efficiency projects.

Support research on new energies, including

advanced biofuels (not ethanol), and

including fusion energy. Support the

Environmental Protection Agency EPA in its

carbon regulation efforts under the Clean Air

Act. Support politicians who act on climate.

Support the Regional Greenhouse Gas

Initiative, or RGGI. Support technology

transfer to other countries for renewable

energy so all can develop in a sustainable

fashion. Support the process to develop and

rat i fy a long-term fa ir and b inding

international climate treaty. Help create the

political will for a livable climate.

Financial support of institutions active in

mitigating climate and financial support of

climate action projects would be a powerful

statement.

For those doing good work on other issues,

think of integrating climate change into that

work. Look through a c l imate lens.

Understand how climate change affects your

issue.

Some information sources are the UU-UNO

Cl imate Porta l (see f l ier ) , Skept ica l

Science.com (with one-liner responses to

contrarian fallacies), and the Citizen’s

Climate Lobby; the web addresses are in the

hard copy of this talk, along with an appendix

with information about contrarians. Prof.

Michael Mann's great new book “The Hockey

Stick and the Climate Wars” has details.

An excellent resource is the Climate

Science Rapid Response Team that has

contacts with over 100 real climate scientists

to provide reliable scientific information to

media inquiries by journalists.

46

What’s the bottom line? The dangers of

global warming and climate change are

becoming more visible. We need to act on

climate now with Positive Vision #1. It is late

but it’s not too late. We need to be optimistic.

There is no alternative. In acting to mitigate

climate change, we can make the world a

better and safer place for us, for our fellow

human beings, and for our descendants. We

all can help.

YOU can help.

Thank you.

Appendix

The climate contrarians / deniers / faux skeptics: What you need to know

A few maverick climatologists, some scientists

speaking out of their fields of expertise, and

others with no credentials have politicized

climate science, providing fodder for the

climate disinformation media machine. The

fossil fuel industry, right-wing media, and

libertarian think tanks often pay these

people. One of the most color ful is

Christopher Monckton, who has a British

accent but no scientific credentials at all, who

gives talks for right-wing groups grotesquely

distorting climate science, and who was an

"expert witness" on climate for Congressional

Republicans. Usually contrarian papers are

low quality and are not published, or are

published in obscure journals. Some

published contrarian papers left a trail

littered with abuse of peer review, editor

resignations, and even plagiarism.

With few exceptions, climate deniers and

right-wing denier media use pseudo scientific

tricks, rather like prosecuting attorneys,

grasping at straws. Many deniers practice the

pseudoscience of scientific form without real

content, what the famous physicist Richard

Feynman called Cargo Cult Science. Common

violations of scientific practice and scientific

ethics by contrarians include unrepre-

sentative cherry picking of data, demands of

unattainable precision from mainstream

science, advancing alternate conjectures for

which the evidence is at best flimsy, pushing

irrelevant red herring assertions, falsely

generalizing from isolated unrepresentative

cases, ignoring contrary evidence, making

bumbl ing mathemat ica l er rors , and

misquoting mainstream science. One

particularly ludicrous claim by contrarians is

identifying themselves with Galileo. Con-

trarians generally do not admit mistakes. The

contrarian media concocts false accusations

of climate science, of which contrarians

themselves are guilty. The untrained public

cannot tell the difference.

Selected stolen emails of climate scientists

with no significance were quoted out of

context and made into an industry of

propaganda about the so-called and dis-

credited "Climate gate"; numerous inves-

tigations concluded there was nothing

actually wrong.

An error on one obscure page in the middle

of 3,000 pages of three 2007 IPCC scientific

reports was blown out of proportion and used

to attack the whole IPCC institution and

climate science itself.

What about proof, uncertainty, and action?

Climate deniers mischaracterize science by

47

demanding “proof". Actually, science never

“proves” anything. Science uses mathematics

but science deals with the real world. There

will always be some uncertainty about

something. However uncertainty must not

imply inaction. We generally never demand

"proof" before acting; otherwise we would

never do anything. Indeed uncertainty implies

risk. Risk management deals with un-

certainty. After all, things can, and often do,

turn out much worse than expected. Climate

deniers minimize climate risk and in the

same breath overemphasize uncertainty. The

actual uncertainty is whether future climate

impacts will be really bad or a disaster for

civilization.

What about statistics and action?

Technically, some attributions of climate

impacts, to extreme weather for example, can

only be statistically estimated. This does not

mean the absence of danger and it does not

mean we should not act. After all, negative

effects of smoking are also statistically

estimated, and we act against smoking. We

can say more. Global warming increases the

probability for extreme weather generally for

the simple reason that warming puts more

energy into the weather system, making

weather act like it’s on steroids.

References

UU-UNO Climate Portal

www.climate.uu-uno.org

Skeptical Science

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

argument.php

Citizens Climate Lobby

http://www.citizensclimatelobby.org/

The Author

Jan Dash has a PhD in theoretical physics

from UC Berkeley, and published over 50

papers in scientific journals. He was

Directeur de Recherche at the Centre de

Physique Théorique CNRS in Marseille,

France. He is currently Visiting Research

Scholar at Fordham University and Adjunct

Professor at the Courant Institute NYU. Jan

is the UU-UNO Climate Initiative Chair and

Managing Editor of their Climate Portal at

http://cl imate.uu-uno.org/. He is a

Matchmaker for the Climate Science Rapid

Response Team whose goal is to provide

authoritative scientific answers to media

questions. Jan is the author of the popular

“one-liner” responses to climate contrarian/

denier/faux-skeptic fallacies. He was the

Editor of the Climate Statement Summary

and Recommendations to Governments of the

UN Committee on Sustainable Development

(Co-NGO, NY), delivered to leaders at the

Copenhagen, Cancun, and Durban Climate

Conferences. Relevant to the economic

impacts of global warming, Jan has worked

for 25 years in quantitative risk management

at various financial institutions, and wrote a

book on the subject.

Note: The ideas expressed in this essay are those of the author, without implication of endorsement by any of the above institutions. I thank the many people who have helped me understand climate change and how to communicate the issues.

48

!e Last Pack of Cigare"esby Capt. Wayne Porter, USN *

* The views expressed are those of the author

and do not represent the official views or

policy of the Department of Defense or the

Naval Postgraduate School.

At the beginning of this century, we

Americans find ourselves at an inflection

point in history, facing a complex and

uncertain strategic environment charac-

terized by increasing market and cultural

interdependence and competition for finite

resources—energy, minerals, food, and water. 

This is a point Michael Klare stresses in his

new book, The Race for What’s Left.  But

perhaps more significantly, I believe we are at

a Darwinian moment for civilization, one that

is full of opportunity if we have the

wherewithal and determination to seize it by

adapting to our changing environment.  In

essence, we are outliving the usefulness of

carbon-based fuels as an engine for the global

economy, and we need to seek a more

sustainable model of economic growth. It is

as if we are breathlessly racing the rest of the

world for the last pack of cigarettes, with little

regard for the longer term consequences of

that addict ion.  America ’s cont inued

credibility as a global leader hinges on our

willingness to accept the challenge of creating

a new model of prosperity and security in an

interconnected world. 

A few months ago I was invited by the

environmental group, E3G, in London, to

accompany a small delegation from the Office

of the Secretary of Defense and the Center for

Naval Analysis on a “road show” in northern

Europe to discuss issues of environmental

and energy security with interested political,

military and academic groups.  Our meetings

included discussions with German and

European Union Parliamentarians and think

tank representatives in Berlin, with civilian

and military NATO and EU representatives in

Brussels, and with high-level, international

participants in the British Foreign and

Commonwealth Office-hosted “Climate

Security in the 21st Century” conference at

Lancaster House in London.  More recently, I

moderated the Global Conference on Oceans,

Climate and Security in Boston at the

University of Massachusetts.  Secretary of the

Navy, Ray Mabus, accepted an award and

delivered an inspiring address at this event.

I found these events both encouraging and

distressing.   

In both the meetings in Europe and the

discussions in Boston, I was encouraged by

the level of concern expressed in the need to

address the phenomena of environmental and

meteorological changes that are impacting

our planet—perhaps not an unexpected

perspective from this select group of

participants. But I was also struck by the

apparent lack of awareness that climato-

logical change and diminishing resources—

through increasing fuel prices, failing

agricultural policies, and water scarcity—

have already manifested themselves in

virtually every aspect of our strategic

environment, and that “climate change,” or

perhaps more accurately, anthropogenic

atmospheric and environmental change, is

49

only an effect of a larger problem, rather than

the cause of these manifestations.

Finally, I was distressed by the apparent

hyper-focus on security concerns and the

threat they represent. Little regard was given,

for example, to opportunities to address what

many consider to be the underlying cause of

these conditions and manifestations.

Throughout the course of our history,

Americans have excelled across the spectrum

of human endeavor through fair competition,

innovation and entrepreneurial spirit.  But

we should not lose sight that the key

ingredients of this legacy were hard work and

self-confidence.  In a world whose population

may reach nine billion by 2050, we must

demonstrate our exceptionalism by forging a

path to sustainable economic growth and

security.  It’s time we retool the education

and job training needed to create a new

model of growth, one based on clean and

renewable (and reusable) resources: energy in

addition to food, water and minerals. Darwin

stressed the importance of adaptation and

strength gained through competition.  As a

species we need to evolve along with our

environment.  For those with vision, this

represents an opportunity rather than a

threat.  For instance, why not explore the

development of industrial clusters in the

United States to serve as centers for

international investment and cooperation in

leading edge technologies and manufacturing

associated with clean, renewable energy,

sustainable agricultural and aquaculture

development, scrap metal recycling, and

water treatment and management?  I am

currently involved with a project in Salinas,

California that is attempting to do just that.

With strong and visionary leadership,

Americans can prove the efficacy of the

values and free market ideology upon which

our nation was founded. I am proud of the

supporting role the Department of Defense is

playing in the pursuit of cleaner, sustainable

sources of energy and energy efficiency. But

this transformation cannot, and should not

be, a military-led effort. The reinvigoration of

our economy and manufacturing base—as

well as the awareness that fair competition

can result in multiple winners, rather than a

single winner and multiple losers—must

confidently begin within our free market

system. We need to engage American citizens

in an honest dialogue that focuses on the

challenges and opportunities of today’s

strategic environment and encourage them to

generate a new, sustainable legacy of

greatness.

The Author

Captain Wayne Porter, USN, was previously

assigned to the Office of the Chairman of the

Joint Chiefs, serving as a Special Assistant to

ADM Mullen for Strategy and is currently

serving as the Chair for Systemic Strategy

and Comdplexity at Naval Postgraduate

School.  CAPT Porter and Col Mark Mykleby,

USMC (ret) are co-authors of “A National

Strategic Narrative” released by the Woodrow

Wilson Center for International Scholars. 

For more information on the National

Strategic Narrative, visit:

www.nationalstrategicnarrative.org

50

!e Future is Not Simplicity, but Complexity, Be"er Understood & Managed by Joseph Robertson

A version of the following article first appeared

on The Hot Spring Network, on November 12,

2008. It appears in this inaugural edition of

The Hot Spring Quarterly to illustrate the

essential idea that we can do better if we

acknowledge the complex nature of lived

experience, and then work together within the

truth of our world to improve the outcomes

most likely to occur at the human scale.

Complexity is not an outlandish tendency of

troubled souls and pretentious intellects, as

so many who run from it like to make believe;

it is the basic state of nature as we know it.

The more we discover, the more certain we

can be of this: even elemental particles are

less solid than they seem, behaving like

tightly bound arrangements of impenetrable,

irreducible spherical bodies, they apparently

achieve this physics by behaving like

something they are not (now widely accepted

in particle physics, “string theory” proposes

that elemental particles are actually 2-

dimensional vibrating “strings” whose

vibration causes them to interact as if they

were not strings at all).

The human body is an astonishingly

complex organism, programming with viral

code (DNA) the arrangement, development

and physical or chemical task assigned to

each cell, organ and extremity. The brain is

so complex, we can only begin to grasp it as

“circuitry”, though it processes information

through chemical processes that allow it to

achieve many millions of times more

computational capacity than even the most

advanced neural networks. Consciousness is

part of this, or is the result of this, but we

can say almost nothing with certainty about

how consciousness itself arises. We can

describe what we witness, or what we think

we are witnessing, but we cannot replicate

the process by which the conscious mind

arises from the background noise of material,

chemical and energetic interrelationship.

For many, the mystical or spiritual

approach still yields the best explanation: a

force more powerful than the sum of all

things, a conscious creator, a God, an energy

field that pervades and unites all other

phenomena. Jean-Luc Marion calls it the

saturated phenomenon: that reality so vast it

could never be approached by human

understanding. That infinite vastness means

the human intellect is quickly saturated and

overwhelmed by all the lesser component

phenomena. The human intellect is, then,

limited by time and mortality, by the laws of

physics, which prevent simultaneous multi-

focal conscious presence—being in two places

at once—and so cannot possibly acquire

enough information to even initiate a viable

definition of what lies beyond saturation.

The mystical road to understanding

complexity takes us, eventually, if we are

honest, to Marion’s problem of saturation.

That said, we now understand that simple

complexities abound, even within reach of

our limited phenomenological potential: five

senses feed into one consciousness, which

also in optimal conditions absorbs infor-

51

mation through language, through text, by

way of human gestures, settings, emotions,

by fearing and desiring, by approaching or

getting distance from an object of its

attention, by creating, by dissecting, by

appreciating or by competing with other

realities. The depth of that “other reality”, the

reality of the vast multiplicity of otherness,

existing “out there”, but also deep within the

basic structure of our body, our physical

existence, our chemical awareness of self,

that complexity is the lifeblood of what makes

being human more interesting to us than

being a mass of granite.

In this light, complexity is really a funda-

mental truth for us all, and as such is

increasingly a right of every conscious

individual. We are entitled to experience, to

seek to know, to indulge in and to express

complexity, entitled because complexity is

what the human life is made of. Simplicity, or

the “simple life” as it is often called, a life

away from the chaos of big cities, even the

aesthetics of “clean edges” or a so-called

minimalist style, are all complexities designed

by the individual or by human surroundings,

to indulge an aspect of our humanity that we

prize above others.

In the complex and intertwined human

relationships that comprise today’s global

village, in friendships that exist across far

borders, as with diplomatic negotiations, we

can find there is something deeper and more

true, more accurately applicable to the

human element in that connection, in the

contradictions, in the vast terrain of “gray

area”, in the relational vortex that is neither

black-and-white nor non-negotiable. We find

that one moment’s staple truth is another

moment’s straightjacket, that we evolve, not

just as a species, but as individual spirits, to

consume and to make contact with an ever-

broader range of information, not so we can

be corrupted and post-modernized, but so we

can better adapt to environmental factors,

carry out the natural imperative of survival

and procreation, and devote the power of our

conscious attention to the vitally important

human work of forestalling unnecessary

depletion and unraveling of prized stabilities

within a hotbed of relentless self-overturning.

Natural ecosystems depend upon a be-

wildering degree of complexity to remain

dynamic, adaptable, resilient. The degree of

elasticity in an ecosystem—its ability to

absorb harmful interactions or infusions of

matter or energy—determines its “fitness” for

survival in the wilds of geological changes

over time. Climate variations and intrusive

organisms can upend a seemingly balanced

and harmonious ecosystem suddenly, leading

to disaster for its most habitat-dependent

species; the degree of biodiversity, of food-

web complexity, of climate-elastic charac-

teristics, determines the long-term viability of

an ecosystem, and by extension the

possibility for relative homeostasis in

surrounding ecosystems or the broader

natural environment.

The degree of elasticity available in a given

context also affects directly how human

civilization is able to interact with the natural

environment. Where monoculture cropping

exists—meaning only one variety of a given

species of plant is cultivated—an entire

agricultural economy can be in danger of

sudden collapse, as happened in Ireland in

the 19th century, due to its dependence on a

52

single variety of potato. All human activities

depend on the persistence of natural

“services” that emerge from complex webs of

re lat ional phenomena—basical ly , for

example: what happens to rainwater after it

hits the ground, how much is absorbed into

the soil? or runs to the sea? what force does

this give to river currents across a given

region?

We cannot say that poverty is caused by

ignorance or by negligence or by laziness. We

cannot say that wealth is caused by

knowledge or by perseverance or by merit.

There is no clear answer to such questions,

because the relational data is so multifaceted,

so layered, so many-threaded and inter-

twined, it is effectively impossible to make

singular declarative statements of universal

truth that ably define all related circum-

stances. So we must travel to the frontiers of

our awareness, and seek out the best and

newest information, the closest thing we can

get to the actual experience of another point

of view, and we must shape composite ideas,

that play well in our own and in others’

narratives, so that we can speak differently

and imaginatively, without sacrificing pre-

cision or stumbling into untruth.

Without this ability to work through the

complexities of plural-interest relationships,

we cannot ably locate or respect the freedom

of the other, which means in a world now

globally interconnected, we cannot guarantee

our own. Science is demonstrating that, while

elegant theories can be crafted to make

universal statements of fact—E=mc2, for

instance, or the idea that all matter is really

just astonishingly minuscule vibrating strings

—complexity is better able to explain what

really is the truth of the physical universe

than is simplicity.

Our choice is to understand that we must

never stop inquiring, we must never claim

there is nothing more to learn, and embrace

complexity and the work of living within it, or

ignore it, build up superstitious complaints

against its effects, and hope for the best.

Technology has reached a level of complexity

such that most people could not fashion from

scratch most of the basic tools they use to get

through their everyday existence: this is a

demonstration of complexity, both the virtue

of its vast efficacy and the difficulty of its

dominion over us. The right approach to

complexity is the thing we must pursue, not

the means by which to erase it from our

consciousness.

The right approach is the one which

allows us to deal, sustainably, with the actual

fabric of aspiration and incident. What the

scientist, the mystic, the politician or the

poet, learns, if she is honest about what she

is doing, is that there is no room for the false

claim that reality abhors complicated or

complicating considerations: reality is made

of complicated and complicating con-

siderations. What the honest thinker, explor-

er, seeker of true and relevant ideas about the

shape of the universe must acknowledge is

that to consider complexity is to begin to ask

the right questions. From there, we can

explore what otherwise appears to be, or to

ask for, the very simple.

53

Appendix

The Untiring Web of Influences

Consciousness seeks to know the shape of

the universe; reasoning is inherently

cosmological. Whether we approach the

problem of all that we don’t know by way of

Descartes’ admonition to first doubt of all

things, insofar as is reasonable, or by way of

Hume’s contiguity principle—that we can

know what is beyond our experience by

intuiting its relationship to something specific

within our experience, we labor, sometimes

heroically, to form viable pictures of the

universe as it must be.

The Hubble Ultra Deep Field image (detail). For

more information, go to bit.ly/hubbledeep

The Hubble Space Telescope’s Ultra Deep

Field survey—until this month the deepest

observation into the far reaches of the

universe (learn about the HXDF image at

bit.ly/hubblexdf)—captured the light of

10,000 galaxies. The HUDF project was able

to go deep enough to identify 10,000 galaxies

by focusing on just a tiny sliver of the night

sky. There is 12.7 million times more sky to

explore. This means the Hubble Ultra Deep

Field survey revealed to us that there are over

100 billion galaxies in the observable

universe. It would take over 1 million years,

however, to observe them all, using the

technology that got us this one astonishing

image.

The HUDF marked a paradigm shift in our

understanding of the observable universe. It

confirmed theories that had not yet been

proven by observational data, and it revealed

to us the unimaginable vastness, the crisis of

experiential saturation that we face, when we

seek to do that very thing which is most

inherent to our conscious activity—seeking to

know the shape of the universe, the nature of

things, the truth behind what appears to be.

The HUDF revealed not only galaxies and

galaxy clusters, but vast star -forming

regions, some bigger than galaxy clusters and

thought to be concentrations of matter and

energy that might differ greatly from the

physics we know and experience here on

Earth. It is difficult to know what piece of

information from the HUDF, HXDF and

future intergalactic observations, will provide

the catalyst for world-changing scientific

breakthroughs. The web of influences going

to work, all the time, on the universe we

inhabit is untiring and unswayed by factional

54

interest. We cannot urge it or believe it into

being what we require. Natural systems seek

stability, without giving evidence of a

conscious plan to acquire it. Human systems

give that evidence, but still contain flaws that

allow for unraveling.

The stability of all that we plan and do

and love depends remorselessly on the

resiliency of natural life-support systems. We

are now challenging those life-support

systems to survive our unknowing campaign

of hyper-exploitation and flawed vision. We

want what they offer, but we are not aware of

its true value. Just this week, the Climate

Vulnerable Forum, made up of 20 national

governments, released a study it com-

missioned from the humanitarian organi-

zation DARA. The DARA study found that by

2030, climate destabilization could kill 100

million people around the globe. While

skeptics say climate predictions are “alar-

mist”, the DARA study deals simply with

existing facts in evidence, and then looks at

what they indicate about a future in which no

action is taken.

The findings reveal something we need to

know in order to understand the paradigm

shift that is coming: we are already living

with the impact; our climate is destabilized in

dangerous ways, and we are paying a price.

According to the study, global economic

output—collective GDP—has already declined

by 1.6%, or $1.2 trillion. That is real wealth

that real people do not have the chance to

have contact with, because a destabilized

climate is undermining ecosystem services,

agricultural integrity, access to resources and

the reliably temperate climate patterns that

make much of the world favorable to human

habitation.

There is untiring complexity in the bio-

chemical infrastructure of sustainable life,

and there is unrelenting complexity in our

relationship to the natural world, which

includes the worst of our vices and inefficien-

cies. The coming paradigm shift relating to

climate is not that global climate patterns can

be destabilized; that one has come and gone,

for most astute observers—those who define a

paradigm. It is not that we must “do more

with less”; efficiency of consumption, resilien-

cy and resource retention are also well

understood. The paradigm shift that is

coming is the double awareness that we have

no choice—we must make sweeping changes

to the industrial infrastructure of the built

environment—and that we are already fully

equipped to make the transition affordably.

This double awareness can be called a

paradigm shift, because—most importantly—

we don’t know exactly what lies on the other

side: as we come to understand the immense

complexity of everything we touch, we will be

better able to envision the solutions to the

immensely complex problems that arise from

our fumbling through complexity. When that

moment comes, we will see new uses for old

technologies, new technologies that emerge

from simple variations in perspective and

practical application, and we will recognize

that complexity was, all along, the best

source of the solutions to the problems

complexity demands that we confront.

The difference will be our understanding,

and we will get there together or not at all.

55

Buckminster Fuller described the human brain as

“nature’s most powerful anti-entropy engine”. The

significance of that observation lies in the fact that we

often perceive ineluctable entropy as the only true fate of

any system that, for however short a time, pretends

order. In fact, Fuller argued, the human brain is

specifically designed to interfere with the process of

unraveling inherent in all systems, and to build order

sustainably into the fabric of anything it comes in

contact with. We recognize that this is the driving force

behind science, politics, anthropology and economics,

and we hope to use these pages as an opportunity to

show how insight, the quest for knowledge, real human

learning and ingenuity, can help us to transcend the

unforgiving limitations of the physical universe and

achieve something better, something more valuable, and

more conducive to mutual thriving, than what would

occur had we never sought or discovered that insight.

Wika Iritama: "Power to the people!"by Cynthia Paniagua

Dancing Resistance & Tradition for Los Boraa & Kukama-Kukamiria

in the Peruvian Amazon

This is a deeply personal account of my

previous and recent spiritual, cultural and

political life experiences and engagements

with the Boraa and Kukama-Kukamiria com-

munities and their struggle for human rights

and territorial sovereignty in the Peruvian

Amazon. I highlight traditional and newly

emerging dances as cultural and political

discourses for both of these native com-

munities. The dance is a vehicle which

explores conflicting and contradictory aspects

of its usage by and for the state of Peru, while

simultaneously being performed by the com-

munities as a voice of political resistance

(against the state). My commitment to the

struggle and to those I consider family further

encourages the use of narrative writing—a

proposed weaving of personal perspective and

theoretical opinion. The notion of ethno-

graphy-through-writing as a tool for political

change becomes an increasingly inspiring

endeavor—one previously clouded by very

early archival works claiming unrealistic

access to “objectivity”. I believe dance

ethnography, as an effective tool for political

change, is contingent on discarding this

overly used ideologically loaded term. (To

claim such a thing is to become overtly

subjective, absorbed in the self-imaging

project of being an omniscient being who

understands the “other”, yet knows better).

For this reason, I offer first hand oral

testimony, through interviews conducted in

the field, along with my personal assessment

of practice and theory. Inspired by the

methodological approach of Brenda Dixon

Gottschild, I am committed to “working

through”, and not around, the complexities

surrounding the body politic of traditional

dance—including issues of race and class.

The following account is a beginning, an

attempt to translate my fieldwork (otherwise

known to me as my life) as a performance

artist and activist to and through writing. I

hold on dearly to transparency as my

flotation device. This is step one.

The Language of “NO!”(Boraa, 2002 video)

The specific event which motivates my

research was my encounter with a video

shown to me in 2005 in the Upper Amazonian

city of Iquitos, Peru. As I desperately

searched for video of Boraa traditional dance

(in vain) at a regional cultural center, Lalo

Reategui, a member of the center began

speaking of another video that I may want to

see. A video filmed in 2002 was presented to

me.

The video revealed a negotiation forum

held between foreign corporate investors

representing pharmaceutical companies and

members of several native communities

accompanied by their Apus (leaders). It was a

forum held at Caballococha, a small rural

town at least 20 hours (by river and land)

57

from the city of Iquitos, bordering Peru,

Colombia and Ecuador. Within the simple

open-ended space the aesthetic distinctions

between the groups in the video were clear;

local indigenous communities were partly in

traditional dress, faces marked with colorful

traditional designs. The investors were

European, semi-casually dressed unmarked

by paint, but marked by their physical

distance and seemingly uneasiness. Present

were also translators from the capital of

Lima, positioned between the two groups of

negotiators. FECONA (Federation of native

communities along the Ampiyacu River) and

FECONAFROPU (Federation of native

communities along the Putumayo River) were

about to engage in open dialogue over

whether to allow the exploration of their

territories in exchange for infrastructural

development and economic “progress”: the

promise of educational centers in exchange

for unmonitored rainforest explorations, and

possible exploitation. This impending

invasion experience weighed upon the

interests of various native communities.

Members of the Boraa community had yet

to arrive at the meeting—their presence

necessary in order to commence the possible

signing of contracts. I began to question the

relevance of this video to my research, when

suddenly an Apu (leader, Miguel Mibeco Ruiz)

representing Los Boraa appears on the

screen. Miguel simply entered the space

quietly as everyone began to “take their

places”. Before either party spoke a word, the

sounds of song and drum broke the silence

and the tense formality of the space. What

seemed to be around 20 or 30 Boraa

community members entered the space with

song and dance, positioning themselves to

face the investors. It wasn’t too clear what the

initial reactions were, as the lens focused on

the dancing Boraa, but what was clear was

the sudden change in tone. Once the Boraa

completely filled the space they began

chanting aggressively in Boraa (language)

accompanied by several ‘gestural’ movements.

Some Boraa entered wearing ties around

their necks, with faces painted white, inside

of their hands drenched in red paint, as they,

one by one carried other traditionally dressed

Boraa to their reenacted ‘deaths’. One by one

they were placed on the floor, eyes shut

closed, some shivering. It was clear this

wasn’t a demonstration intended for enter-

tainment, nor a tourist attraction. They came,

they danced and they left, with an obvious

intention and message: that of resistance.

Los Boraa men and women clearly revamped

the negotiation table based on their own

terms of communication, void of third party

translators, verbal manipulations or suc-

cumbing to invasive foreign contracts. The

answer was clear. “NO”. As I watched the

monitor in disbelief, I began to observe the

confusion that ensued. The meeting could no

longer continue, the investors frozen and

speechless, and so the camera ceased to film

briefly after.

This exemplifies the ways in which

intangible forms of heritage, such as dance,

become a language of resistance, identity

negotiation, cultural autonomy and protest in

the name of territorial sovereignty, among

some native communities in the Peruvian

Amazon. I also feel it is important to focus

attention on the uses of traditional (folkloric)

and non-traditional dance by two native

58

communities, Boraa and Kukama-Kukamilla

as a tool for representation within the

contexts of folkloric dance institutions and

tourism, as well as in unconventional spaces.

The Kukama-Kukamilla communities were

not present in the 2002 video, but are

increasingly using cultural expressions such

as dance and poetry through movement as a

form of intervention, and are therefore very

relevant to this account. Both communities

share a history of displacement and ex-

ploitation resulting from colonial and

neoliberal state ideology, yet both com-

munities have very distinct languages and

traditional practices. With a history of

violence and mistreatment by the state and

foreign investors, many native communities

have joined forces to respond, supporting

various pan-indigenous movements. Dance is

a shared language within recent protest

activities. Thus far, I have only seen two of

these demonstrations—the 2002 video

(Boraa) and recently in 2009 (Kukama-

Kukamiria) upon an invitation to participate

and support their political cause.

I am interested in exploring how traditional

dance (as an intangible heritage) and (or/vs.)

new dance projects within these two com-

munities interweave as identity construction

mechanisms negotiated between unequal

powers compromised of local, state and

international actors. Within this context, I

also aim towards deconstructing racialized

clichés and stereotypes imposed upon

indigenous mobilized bodies by re-examining

the power relations present in racist per-

petuations and repercussions. This includes

addressing how indigenous body images are

manipulated by state politics to applaud the

‘exotic’, while simultaneously imposing and

condoning ethnic genocidal practices against

them, marking a disjuncture, a binary of

what is loved and what is hated. “The per-

petrators both fearful of and fascinated by

the (black) body were locked in the love-hate

syndrome that characterizes oppres-

sion.” (Gottschild p.15) Unlike Gottschild’s

mention of racism in the U.S. as a low grade

fever, I would say that oppressive race-class

relations regarding indigenous bodies in Latin

America are an ongoing high grade fever,

openly sanctioned by a 500-year-long colonial

legacy which is currently at its tipping point.

In this respect, I explore the rhetorical

question of “what is dance?” through it’s

discursive powers and its direct relationship

with folk dance institutions, heritage making,

state control, cosmovisions, human rights

and resistance in Peru.

Before watching the video of the 2002

Boraa demonstration, in 2005, I had lived

with the Boraa community for months at a

time, starting in 2004 (during which the

event was never mentioned.) However, before

my arrival to Iquitos, I had only the slightest

notion of who they were as a community. As

a performing Peruvian traditional dancer in

both New York City and Lima, Peru, the first

proclaimed notion of Boraa identity came

with a dance: what is commonly called la

danza de la selva (the jungle dance).

59

Los Boraa as represented by Peruvian folkdance institutions:

PERFORMANCE IN LIMA

La danza de la selva is performed within

folkloric institutions in order to represent

“authentic” Amazonian indigenous culture of

Peru. It is commonly performed by urban

mestizo1 folk dancers in touristy settings and

dance contests, particularly in the capital,

Lima. The five-minute circulated choreo-

graphy and dance style provide folkdance

institutions a way to include Amazonian

culture in their repertoires. Before it is

performed, it is commonly announced as

generally as the title implies—“the jungle

dance”—seldom adding any specificity to

what community it attempts to represent. As

the Amazon comprises more than 60% of

Peru’s geographical makeup, including over

30 different native communities and 46

different languages, this one popular staple

dance seems hardly sustainable, in the way

of its claims. La danza de la selva’s per-

formative fallacy of representing the whole

through parts, or Amazonian native com-

munities as one unit is exemplified by what

ethnographer Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett

refers to as the “ethnographic fragment”.

Whether the representation essentializes (you are seeing the quintessence of the Balinese) or totalizes (you are seeing the whole through the part), the ethnographic fragment returns with all the problems of capturing, inferring, constituting, and presenting the whole through parts. (BKG p. 55)

The “part” that claims to represent the whole

is further delineated with a key objectified

body part. The skin. Commonly, dancers will

darken their skin before performing the selva

dance, where skin color (an aesthetic tied to

race distinctions) becomes the essential

“costume.”

Personally, these images provoked mem-

ories of minstrelsy practices in racist U.S.

entertainment history. My lens translated the

painted skin, along with the exoticized dance

as a symbol of power relations and ap-

propriation over the marginalized absent

body it tries to represent.

How did the folk dancers see themselves as

representing “la selva” with the use of skin

color as a self-conscious add on? During

group interviews I questioned the need to

darken the skin. I received the following short

responses from five different folkdance

troupes:

• "I’m too white, it would look just horrible ... Imagine my pale legs jumping to this; how embarrassing!"

• "To represent the true Amazonian. They get a lot of sun ... no they are born that way, it doesn’t wash off for them!" (jokingly laughing)

• "Because their skin is dark. We have to be authentic in representing the image the way it is, otherwise it will look fake."

• "Look at me! I’m already brown, I don’t need that makeup!" (smiling) (This answer was given by the solo dancer and group leader who opened choreography of the piece.)

• (response to the latter) "No, but now you need s l a n t e d e y e s ! Y o u ' r e n o t “ c h i n o ” enough!" (laughing)

• "To be more “charapa” (a staple name given to Amazonian natives) It's indigenous."

• "They have beautiful skin ... I wish I had that."

• "Its part of the image ... haven’t you seen them?"

60

When asked what native community the

dance represents, some the responses were

as follows, beginning with the troupe leader:

• “From Loreto. The Boraa, the ones from Iquitos … that whole region. The tribes that live in the Upper Amazon region of Loreto, you know. It’s a ritual dance to the earth.”

• “The ones who live in Loreto, but the real ones, not the ones who walk around wearing jeans dancing cumbia. They are losing their culture. We make sure the tradition doesn’t die.”

• “Los Boraa.. I know because of they way they move…. like … more to the earth… because they know the earth better, they know the jungle better, so they move like that. They “have” that, they are used to it.”

• “I think its the Boraa but also the Yagua because they live right next to each other.”

This was not the first time I heard similar

stereotypical notions on the indigenous body.

These were more or less the same answers

given to me back in New York City, where la

danza de la selva is routinely performed in

the same manner; a staple dance to round

out their multi-cultural depiction of Peruvian

culture. Programs usually consist of an array

of Andean and coastal dances, accompanied

with announced histories, meaning, etc.

Suddenly the lights dim for the spectacle, of

the ambiguous yet “exciting and mysterious”

Amazonian indigenous identity. Signature

movements are the same, ranging from very

low crouching, sudden high “attack-like”

jumps, spear throwing, high screeching,

animal calls, promoting embodied notions of

the “animal”, “primal”, “wild” and “uncouth”.

These are all common stereotypes of the

indigenous body attached to a colonized

Darwinistic view of indigenous “folk” as

primal, the embodiment of “the natural”,

whose movements are therefore binary to a

Eurocentric aesthetic of uprightness, of

‘civility’. The folk dancers interviewed glorify

the indigenous body as a deeply intuitive

body, naturally agile, the quintessence of

“animal” so to speak. “But racism and social

Darwinism have attached sticky, negative

connotations to this reverse anthropomor-

phism” (Gottschild p45), an idea that further

perpetrates the stereotype that agility in

indigenous bodies is an innate quality, not

learned. I could not help but feel my body

reject the dance as an all-flash, plastic,

racist, exoticized misappropriation of identity.

As it repeated (with exact choreography) with

every show, I wondered where my place was

in all of this.

Through the kind of repetition required by staged appearances, long runs, and extensive tours, performances can become like artifacts. They freeze. They become canonical. They take forms that are alien, if not antithetical, to how they are produced and experienced in their local settings, for with repeated exposure, cultural performances can become routinized and trivialized. (BKG p. 64 )

State Obsession (Love?)

Folkdance is a Peruvian state necessity. It is

an essential cultural marker that becomes

the spokesperson for a homogeneous yet

pluricultural patrimony. It is necessary to

claim heritage, to mark ‘difference’ as agency

within a capitalist international community.

With similar uses of heritage for the national

museum, the Peruvian state supports the

promotion of “cultural wholeness” through

dance representations, as “efforts to produce

61

unity out of diverse rural traditions.” (Klein p.

3) The dance becomes part of a symbol, a

“nation brand“ where dance is objectified and

easily marketed over a peculiar fine print: Too

much difference not included. In this respect,

la danza de a selva

can safely be used to fulfill the limited time slots in the showcase of a “multi-cultural” or “diversity agenda”, and very often remains embedded in hierarchal premises that confirm the status quo. (Chatterjea p. 7)

The aesthetic of what is already labeled as

the indigenous body is run through an

acculturation machine where it is dis-

mantled, pruned, reassembled and regulated

as marketable to the gaze of the dominant

culture. The indigenous body becomes erased

in all its transformed “new” staged visibility

where people are defined to skin color,

animalist ic movements, a celebrated

anomaly.

The phases of appropriation give a false

sense of ‘getting closer’ when the dance

actually performs another kind of work:

In short, the appropriation not only produces the divide between dominance and subalternity but also the demand for further appropriation as a very condition of social reproduction. That race, class, gender, and sexuality, as the very materiality of social identity, are also produced in the process indicates the pract ical generativity ... necessary for any cultural product.” (Martin p. 206)

As folklore is repeatedly taught as rep-

resentative of “everyday life”, to all Peruvians

as national identity markers, la danza de la

selva falls into the dangers of cultural and

political ambiguity.

Similarly by aestheticizing folklore—no matter what is gained by the all inclusive definition of folklore as the arts of everyday life—we are in danger of depoliticizing what we present by valorizing an aesthetics of marginalization. (BKG p. 76)

For these reasons I left the folk dance in-

stitution and traveled to Iquitos to under-

stand how the Boraa represent themselves

and get a first-hand opinion of this pop jungle

dance promoted to represent them. I affiliated

myself with FORMABIAP,3 an NGO dedicated

to preserving the language and traditions

within the northern Amazonian native com-

munities. After all this misrepresentation I

had observed and felt with the business of

culture making, I became self conscious with

regard to what my dancing body meant.

Dancing beyond my body

When it came to performing traditional dan-

ces from the Andes, I felt deep connections

due to traditions practiced within my family

since childhood, in and out of Peru. None-

theless I avoided dancing la danza de la selva

due to lack of background information, dis-

connectedness and a distrust in the in-

stitutional “bastardizing” of it. I was raised to

dance “con el espiritu y corazón de los

ancestros, con el sexto sentido” (with the spirit

and heart of the ancestors and with the sixth

sense)—a principle I hold dear. I needed to

further understand certain meanings before I

could connect and perform, otherwise my

body would feel empty; moving as a bag of

skin with no sense of agency given to me by

the spirit. Dance existed (and still exists) for

me beyond physical movement, where the

62

physical execution was secondary to the

elation of a lived liminal space, a strong

circulating communication held between the

body and the spirit. In retrospect, this

phenomenological experience of dance and

the body as enacted by the spirit, is a shared

one. I recall my grandmother who em-

phasized dancing our ancestral past of mem-

ory through spirit, where “they” sometimes

dance through and with you”, a merging of

the collective and the individual through an

extraphenomenal force: Soul power is both

personal and collective.” (Gottschild p. 231)

The question of “what is dance”?” for me

swims through this ever changing, inter-

weaving consciousness and subconscious-

ness between the body and the spirit or soul,

whether it is mine or not. This cosmology

passed down to me by my grandmother

furthered the idea that in order to be an ef-

fective “mover” I had to be a transmitter of

the spirit, the energies. La danza de la selva

in no way evoked any spirit in me, where

perhaps a dance from anywhere in the world

could.

The process of meaning making, (a lim-

inality in itself,) where dance becomes the

narrative between my body and the memory

of my ancestors or (spirits) suggests a pheno-

menological approach as a “way of living in

the world that integrates intellect with sen-

sory experience... it can be used to construct

meaning, to celebrate the mundane as well as

the extraordinary...” (Closer p. 2) This ethical

relationship with the senses and dance

serving as both an “inner and outer“

experience, highlight the fact that:

The senses represent inner states not shown on the surface. They are located in a social material field outside of the body... This speaks of a social aesthetics that is not purely contracted or negotiated synchrony but one that is embedded within and inherited from, an autonomous network of object relations and prior sensory exchanges. Performance therefore is elicited by externality and history as much as it may come from within. (Seremetakis p. 67)

Considering this, who or what legitimizes

traditional dance as ‘authentic’?

“Authenticity” as a problematic term within

the social sciences is nevertheless a term

relied upon among several folkloric theorists

to legitimize their claims. Amazonian archival

histories have already created a ‘false nos-

talgia” or romanticized ancestral past, seen

through a “privileged” gaze, rendering the in-

digenous body to the symbol of “purity”.

Another way to approach the question of au-

thenticity ‘is described by Peruvian anthro-

pologist Gisepa Canepa Koch:

Authenticity should be understood as the capacity for social groups to represent themselves, and to own those spaces within national and global discourses, which permits them to assert who they are for the ability of auto representation and self determination, instead of the resistance of supposed essential identities. (Canepa Koch p.16)

Los Boraa as representing themselves through dance

Upon my arrival to the main plaza in central

Iquitos, there it was, la danza de la selva,

performed by scantily clad young girls pan-

handling for tourists. I quickly made my way

to FORAMBIAP, was provided with a guide,

63

and traveled by boat down the Nanay river to

the Boraa settlements. The close proximity of

Boraa migrant settlement to central Iquitos is

the result of a growing economic dependency

to the global market, where tourist activity is

the main source of income. The display of

representational dances supersedes any other

activity, including the selling of arts and

crafts, as the leading money-maker. In fact,

the tourist boom (which started in the mid to

late nineties) increased the demand for

tourist outlets, creating new reasons for

Boraa to migrate and settle. It was, therefore,

no surprise that I was greeted with a dance

specifically performed for tourists.

Dressed in traditional clothing, five dan-

ces were presented to me, none of them

resembling la danza de la selva in the least.

The dances were t it led la danza de

bienvenido, la del mono, la del lagarto, la del

anaconda y de celebración (The welcome

dance, of the monkey, of the lizard, of the

anaconda and of celebration.)

What meanings did these dances have for

them? How is globalization (fast-paced

tourism and related development) creating

new traditions? What about la danza de la

selva that represents them in the capital?

The following interview (2005) with Boraa

Apu (leader) Miguel Mibeco Ruiz, also known

as Lliihyo described the dances as such:

MR: These dances (the five shown) are

centuries old, from our grandfathers, our

ancestors .. all the way from the Putumayo

River.

CP: Even the “welcome dance?”

MR: NO, no, not that one…. we created that

one for tourists a couple of years ago. All of

these are to welcome foreigners to our

dance practices, or cultural activities … so

they can see and participate.

CP: Are any of these dances danced outside

of here? (the tourist settlement)

MR: NO. In San Andres (where we live)... we

have our own celebrations, but we don’t

dance these. We dance socially, but not

these. These dances are our heritage, but

we don’t dance them anymore in San

Andres. Maybe on the occasion, to show

our children, but the practice of it is

mostly done here. That is our income also.

Noone else has this same tradition this

style of dance. This is purely Boraa.

CP: The tourist camp is part of your tradition

as well...

MR: Yes. Its good, we make enough money to

sustain ourselves and we keep our

tradition alive. Sometimes we make new

dances. Its how we survive.

CP: What if dancing didn’t pay ... the purpose

of dancing then...

MR: Maybe not so often, I don’t know. I still

would want my grandchildren’s children to

learn it... even though it changes...

sometimes, to make it better.

CP: What changes? How is that?

MR: For tourists I see some dances change...

not the steps, but the way the steps are

done. More force, more energy, step on the

ground harder. Louder singing. Before it

was softer...

CP: Which one do you like better?

64

MR: Both. The softer version makes me feel

more inside. Its from my childhood. The

new versions are exciting and it gets more

attention from tourists. My grandchildren

like it better like that, they have more fun.

I showed Miguel a video of la danza de la

selva. His reaction:

MR: No, that’s not it... What is that?! That’s

what they dance over here in the plaza...

that’s not us. (laughing) They make money

doing this? MMMM ... Why do they say it’s

Boraa? This is not Boraa. Its nobody. It’s

the young students from the city (Iquitos).

What’s it called again?

CP: “la danza de la selva”. Most troupes are

informed that it is a dance that represents

Boraa ... Yagua.. –

MR: No. No, no, no. Not Boraa, not even

Yagua ... no native community here dances

that. The lights look nice and so do the

costumes... but that’s not us, that’s what

they want to say. That’s an invented

dance ... not ours. Thats not it ... not it.

But what are you going to do ? What can I

do? Tell them to come here and see how it

is... How crazy ... crazy. Look at that. (as

he watched the screen off my camera) They

think we are made of feathers?

CP: Its not authentic?

MR: (clearly upset) What is authentic? It

means the truth. That is not the truth.

That is not Boraa. They can never take,

imitate, my cosmovision ... It doesn’t

matter what they do. Its not Boraa.

(Miguel Ruiz Tamani, personal communi-

cation, August 2005)

The excerpt from this interview challenges the

notion of “truth” in dance. Truth for whom?

The heritage making, the self-conscious

display of “what used to be” practiced as

ritual celebrations now becomes a vital

tradition of signifying itself.

Tradition (whether old or new) becomes heritage, on the other hand, when its authenticity and it’s imminent death are recognized (or invented) with the express purpose of “expediency”, that is, of getting things done in the world, whether that be preserving an ancient temple, reviving a folk festival in order to attract tourism, or, as in the case of the Morrocan Gnawa ... validating the artistic traditions of minority groups in order to increase their visibility and viability on the global stage. (Kapchan p. 3, Possessed by Heritage)

The five Boraa dances, have nothing to do

with la danza de la selva , yet, by default may

be perceived as serving the promotional

tourism and state sponsored commodification

of heritage, “contributing to the health of

national culture” by contributing to the

tourist industry. Who, then, owns folkloric

dance? Los Boraa? Local travel agencies?

Respected folkdance institutions? The state?

Is dance an object to be owned? A

Foucaultian view would waste no time in

concluding that both individual and com-

munal decisions on cultural meaning-making

as an activity are inevitably tied to state

cultural control. Especially when regarding

the systematic internalized “eye of the Other”

discoursed by new aesthetics practiced in

Boraa dances. “Since the Other was reluctant

to recognize, there was only one answer: to

make myself known.” (Fanon p. 92)

65

As for la danza de la selva, it confirmed

that Los Boraa receive NO respect in the

decision making process of folkdance

institutions which claim to represent them.

Los Boraa practices do, however, reinforce

their cultural rights by reinforcing their

unique dance performances (whether for

tourists or not) as a self-determined identity

marker. Regardless of any changes, inevitable

with time, Boraa self-representation through

dance is a choice, a spiritual continuum of

past memory as the new dances are:

promised as substitutions, replacements and improvements to prior sensate experiences. (Seremetakis p. 8)

Admittedly, I couldn’t help but feel like the

dance was cheapened, a feeling totally

arbitrary on my part. In retrospect, remem-

bering Miguel’s preference for the “softer

movements” which provoked more “feeling

inside” and also his indispensable, im-

penetrable and theft proof private relationship

to the Boraa cosmovision negates state con-

trol.

Particular and now idiosyncratic cultural experiences are described as having long disappeared, as lost, when in fact they are quite recent and their memory sharp. As one moves deeper into conversation with people, their intimacies with these distant practices comes out as fairy tales, anecdotes, folklore and myth (Seremetakis p. 9)

Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett notes how, “in

making a spectacle of oneself, or others, what

is private or hidden becomes publicly ex-

hibited; what is small or confined becomes

exaggerated, grand or grandiose” (BKG, p. 48)

I was invited to live with los Boraa after

about a week of visiting. I lived in the com-

munity for about four months, leaving my

camera in Iquitos. I have not been the same

since. For the purposes of this report, I will

not indulge in elaborating on my personal

experiences during that time, but will note

the following: Miguel was right. None of the

tourist dances are physically enacted in San

Andres; I have, however, witnessed elder men

and women speak of the dance to their

grandchildren through narratives based on

spiritual beliefs and Boraa cosmovision.

State Hate

The Boraa and Kukama-Kukamilla communi-

ties have survived centuries of displacement

by Spanish colonizers and later foreign and

Lima-based economic markets, forcing them

through several cycles of colonization and

assimilation. These neoliberal systems have

continually mandated the exploitation, en-

slavement and even genocidal treatment,

which comprise the history of these families,

among so many other indigenous com-

munities. Not only have they fallen victim to a

violent history with foreign rubber investors

and their mafias, but they have also endured

decades of territorial battles resulting from

the rise of the cocaine industry, civil war,

terrorism and the current exploitation of

recently discovered hydro-carbons in their

lands. Recognition as a community with

territorial sovereignty and human rights by

the Peruvian state is crucial to their current

economic, cultural and basic human survival.

66

In the last three decades we have observed an important dynamic of the development of political systems within Amazonian indigenous society, a response to the pressure exercised by an expansive national society whose objectives are not only to transform the environment of these groups, but also modify their cultural, economic and social status. (p.21 PNUD, Proyectos RLA/92/G 31,32,33)

Not much has changed since 500 years

ago. In 2006, Peruvian president Alan García,

after signing the Free Trade Agreement with

the U.S., arbitrarily opened Amazonian ter-

ritories and (so indigenous bodies) to foreign

petroleum consortia for exploitation, without

the prior consent of indigenous communities.

The violation of state and international law,

indigenous human rights, human and eco-

logical contaminations, that followed led to

pan-indigenous protests in 2009. On June

5th, 2009, peaceful protests turned to violence

as police and military helicopters fired upon

hundreds of unarmed members of protesting

native communities—Boraa and Kukama-

Kukamiria included (the massacre at Bagua).

President García later publicly denounced

indigenous peoples as “savages” who:

are not first-class citizens and who ever has this way of thinking wants to take us into irrationality, a primitive regression. To the past. (Alan García, Canal N, June 2009)

As a result of these happenings, I was

invited back to Iquitos, in November 2009, to

give testimony of the violations of human

rights (tied to oil exploration) I had witnessed

with the Boraa in 2005. Los Boraa, along

with Achuar and Kukama-Kukamilla native

communities, were also planning a protest

event in memory of those lost in Bagua. I was

specifically invited to take part as a perfor-

mance artist. Five Kukama women organized

a dance and poetry performance as part of

the protest.

Dance insurgency: Kukama-Kukamilla

Kukama-Kukamilla are a community that

has integrated almost completely into urban

life in Iquitos since the nineteen seventies.

With the exception of small settlements along

the Marañón River, most Kukama-Kukamilla

live in the city of Iquitos. Maritza Rodríguez,

considered a Kukama Apu (leader), a bilin-

gual teacher (member of FORMABIAP) and

organizer of the Kukama dance demonstra-

tion addresses her cultural and political

concerns in an interview conducted the day

before the protest event:

M R : We a r e w h a t I c a l l a n “ e t n i a

urbana” (urban ethnic group). Because we

wear jeans, speak Spanish and are

completely assimilated into urban life does

not mean we are any less “indigenous”. We

have the same history of genocide as the

Boraa. Maybe some of the dance traditions

that were practiced long ago ... are gone.

But either way I strongly identify with my

heritage and work toward the recuperation

of our community. The Kukama are

warriors by nature. We resist. It is tradition

to resist. Violence marks our history, all of

our histories as indigenous people. Los

Boraa, Yagua, Achuar are dying from

contamination. What does the world do?

NOTHING. But we are willing to die to

protect what is rightfully ours. Alan García

67

is making a grave mistake. He is not only

killing us, he is killing the “lungs of the

earth” and everyone will feel it eventually.

The fact that I’m standing means that I am

here to speak out, to mobilize, to risk my

life for justice.

CP: What will the dance mean for tomorrow’s

protest?

MR: That we are not afraid. If they arrest me

because I am dancing, that will be the

“ultimate”! They say I am a terrorist

because I’m speaking the truth. But our

bodies are already condemned to death! We

are not the ones terrorizing... I want

everyone to hear the poetry, the words that

denounce Alan.

CP: Why dance?

MR: It’s not to entertain, or to do what people

expect of us, traditional dance with

traditional dress, feathers. No. Our

ancestors danced before battle and so do

we, except we do it in public, our own way.

The spirit is still there, you understand ...

It’s to warn them (authorities), it’s to show

our determination, that my body is still

alive and even after they kill me, I will be

there. We are not afraid ... and we won’t

stop until we are respected, recognized. We

have to show who we are, that we are not

terrorists. We are more “civilized” than these

killers of the supposed “first class”. Dance

demonstrates that we exist. That the in-

digenous body is there, moving, expressing,

reacting. And my voice will go with it. If we

couldn’t change the law through table

dialogue, then it is time to mobilize. Be

militant—otherwise we disappear, fall into

conformity like so many Peruvians do...

Disappear into the forest (the background).

CP: It will only be Kukama women performing

this tomorrow?

MR: Yes, we indigenous women have a lot to

say. We are there to see the blood shed, to

take care of our dying brothers, children.

We want to show that we can be involved in

protesting. We are a community, with one

voice—men, women, even the youth are

getting involved.

CP: Who made the dance moves?

MR: All of us. Some of them are movements

from traditional war dances but most of it is

just how we feel, how our body wants to

move—we are angry—with the words of the

poem. And the rest is improvised, you know

how it is… we barely have time to get the

girls together for rehearsal …we are always

detained by police, questioning. But you’ll

see it tomorrow … and you’ll dance in the

battle too! Don’t be scared!

CP: (laugh) I am “gringa” here though.

MR: What?! No you are indigenous... I feel

that... besides from your Andean family ...

anyone that comes to fight for us has an

indigenous heart. Your friends from your

school who care have indigenous hearts...

anyone. I will dance it tomorrow ... and

make it loud. Wika Iritama!

CP: What?

MR: “Poder al pueblo!” (Power to the ‘pueblo’ -

people, the popular masses)

(Maritza Ramirez, personal communication,

Dec. 2009)

68

Considering the dance as a human rights

discourse, through protest, as a means to

express the “tradition to resist”, Maritza

implies a tradition of violence as part of

Kukama and Boraa heritage. The very lives of

indigenous communities are in danger, yet

the dance persists as a direct language of

insurgency where the body becomes agency

for affect and reaffirmation of identity against

the state. Again we see the body literally

“becoming responsible” for the survival of a

community, to gain visibility, to represent

and say “we exist” on different platforms

where the bodies of the oppressed cannot be

negotiated on the terms of the Other. There is

a double-consciousness of what is expected of

them in terms of dance and tradition. Maritza

highlights the continuity of tradition “our own

way”, breaking free of an expected dance

routine while maintaining the cosmovision of

the dancing spirit. Contrary to the roman-

ticized notion of the indigenous communities

as passageways into the primal, the past, or

as obstacles against modernity:

replication of the body is not a “ condition in every ethnographic community, and even, then … human bodies are never stable over time. Yet they may be perceived to be stable in some instances and viewed as an authentic conduit to a past and continuing performance identity. (Buckland p. 15)

The dance exists in and out of the tourist

camp, the body asserting itself from private to

public spaces, but maintaining a communal

goal. Survival. The uncodified movements

demonstrated by the Kukama women “make

themselves known”, and make visible, all unequal actors (local, state, international) on

the stage of the community plaza. No fine

print, no exceptions, no third-party trans-

lators.

The intent of such choreographies is to reveal the forces of oppression to the viewer, to render them blatantly visible, thereby destabilizing them ... to subvert the status quo (Gere p.140)

Culture becomes a vital resource for native

communities in the Peruvian Amazon, not

only as it marks difference, but as an integral

part of the centuries’-long sustaining of place

(territory). In the case of urbanized etnias

such as the Kukama-Kukamilla and Boraa,

culture—no matter how subjugated or altered

it may be—is a vital part of a mobilizing axis

of the urge to self-determination and auto-

nomous development. This cultural principle

acknowledges the supremacy of the spiritual

realms mentioned, and of the ideas and lan-

guages (including dance) that conceive and

express them. According to both Boraa and

Kukama-Kukamilla, to kill the rainforest is to

kill them, their ancestors and their way of life

—an unquantifiable reality.

Can dance as protest for the Kukama or

Boraa communities become part of new local

tradition? If so, then its practice as a direct

negation to state interests would threaten all

preconceived notions of state-serving cultural

activity, negate the role of folkloric in-

stitutions who are quicker to glorify la danza

de la selva than these protest dances. Fur-

thermore, it would fall outside the categories

of a desired state “pluralistic culture” since

president García continues to reinforce the

idea that Amazonian indigenous are “second-

class citizens”. As disowned by an authori-

tarian Peruvian government, not only the

dance, but its cultural cultivators are unac-

69

ceptable, labeled by the state as an obstacle

to state “progress”.

Moving onwards, never stopping

On December 4, 2009, communities from

near and far gathered to protest against the

criminalization of indigenous peoples and of

the right to protest. Present were Boraa,

Kukama-Kukamilla, Achuar, Kichwa, Ticuna,

Aguaruna, Wampis communities. Maritza and

her comrades opened the scene with poetry, a

call and response which collectively began to

include the voices of other demonstrators.

When the streets became loud enough with

call and response, confirming that all were in

solidarity, the dance began.

The poetry accompanied the movement,

but not as a subtitle or a logical explanation

of it. Whether a dance scholar from NYU

comes to interpret the dance as “gestural or

narrative” or read into the use of words their

serving as movement interpreters, the dance

as logical or illogical—as the academic gaze of

a dance scholar may easily pick up on these

things—this gaze was foreign to me in the

moment, an in-depth dance analysis far re-

moved from the concerns of the Kukama and

Boraa communities. Nothing mattered but

the bodies, the spirits, the life, the death. As I

participated, the spirit pulled me, my body

touching other bodies, some sick with

impending death. Mourning the dead fueled

militancy. (Gere p. 142) We held onto each

other.

Moving together as a fearless mass, sing-

ing, dancing, mourning, shouting for the

right to be heard, was a moment I will never

forget. Although we were subsequently de-

tained, none of us could be threatened into

silence. Los Boraa and Kukama-Kukamilla

among others affected are teaching me, and

those who truly listen, about the value of and

commitment to human life.

As Miguel once said: “Jamás me podrían

quitar ... mi cosmovisión. Hagan lo que

hagan.” (“They can never take ... my cosmo-

vision [the spirit]. It doesn’t matter what they

do.”)

The Author

Cynthia Paniagua is a dancer, choreographer,

and educator whose work reflects her

Peruvian heritage. She was raised in New

York City where she earned a B.A. in dance at

Hunter College and an M.A. in Performance

Studies at NYU. She won a Fulbright

scholarship to study traditional dance in Peru

to “quench a burning desire to know the real

Peru, my mothers country and unearth the

mystery of the dances.” She studied at Peru’s

two leading folkdance institutions Jose Maria

Arguedas and San Marcos. She then

journeyed up and down the coast, Andes and

Amazon of Peru studying and living with

many of the living masters of Peruvian dance.

Her experience was taped as part of the movie

Soy Andina. In 2007 the movie was released

and Cynthia returned to Peru with the movie

and dance workshops as part of the biggest

cultural exchange tour ever organized by the

U.S. Embassy. She continued touring the

movie and Peruvian dance workshops in the

70

U.S.. Her success and positive response from

her audience has encouraged her to continue

to share the experience and the treasure of

Peruvian dance. Today Cynthia divides her

time between NY and Peru where she

performs, choreographs, and teaches. “The

journeys are part of my quest in order to

respect my ancestors through dance and

share that energy with my audience and

students.” She is the founder of Kaypacha

Dance, a project to bring together Peruvian

indigenous dance, culture and spirituality,

and contemporary dance expression.

Notes

1 – mestizo: Literally translates as “mixed” and used as a race label - a mixed race of of Spanish and Indigenous blood In common every day usage, however, “mestizo” is synonymous to “criollo”, a more Eurocentric perspective that attaches itself to an elite class and lighter skin.

2– Borra are part of the Huitoto linguistic family. Within this family are two other groups, Huitoto and Ocaina.

3- FORMABIAP – Programa de Formacion de Maestros Bilingues de la Amazonia Peruana. – Educational Program for Bilingual Teachers in the Peruvian Amazon.

Bibliography

Buckland, Theresa Jill. 2006. Dancing from Past to Present: Nation, Culture, Identities. University of Wisconsin Press.

Canepa Koch, Gisela. 1998. Mascara, Transformación e Identidad en los Andes. Pontifica Universidad Catolica Del Peru. Lima, Peru.

Chatterjea, Ananya. 2004. Butting Out. Reading Resistive Choreographies Through Works by Jawole Willa Jo Zollar and Chandralekha. Wesleyan University Press. Connecticut.

Fanon, Frantz. 1952. English translation copyright 2008. Black Skin, White Masks. Ediciones de Soleil.ed. Richard Philrod.

Gere, David. 2004. How to Make Dances in an Epidemic. Tracking Choreography in the Age of Aids. The University of Wisconsin Press. England.

Gottschild, Brenda Dixon.2003.The Black Dancing Body. A Geography From Coon to Cool. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kapchan, Deborah. In press. Introduction.Intangible Rights: Cultural Heritage and Human Rights. Deborah Kapchan editor. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara 1998. Destination Culture. Tourism, Museum and Heritage. University of California Press.

Klein, Barbro. 2006. Cultural Heritage, Human Rights, and Reform Ideologies: The Case of Swedish Folklife Research. Intangible Rights: Cultural Heritage and Human Rights.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Kozel, Susan.2007.Closer: Performance Technologies, Phenomenology. MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachussets.

Martin, Randy.1998. Critical Moves: Dance Studies in Theory and Politics. Duke University Press.

Proyectos RLA/92/G 31,32,33. 1997. Amazonia Peruana: Comunidades Indigenas, Conocimientos y Tierras Tituladas. PNUD (Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo) / GEF (Fondo Mundial del Ambiente).

Seremetakis, C. Nadia, ed.1994. The Senses Still: Perception and Memory as Material Culture in Modernity. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

71

Take it from Yale: What we really need to communicate about climate changeby Steve Valk

Of all the third rails a member of Congress

can touch to commit political suicide, the

deadliest is to propose a tax on carbon, right?

Well, that depends. If you couple that tax

with an equivalent reduction in income taxes

– a revenue-neutral tax swap, as it were –

majorities across the political spectrum

would vote for a candidate who supports it. In

fact, only 25 percent of Republicans would

oppose for that reason.

That’s just one of the surprising findings

from the Yale Project on Climate Change

Communication, which, since 2005, has been

trying to bridge the gap between climate

change science and policies that could avert

catastrophe.

If there is a gap between science and

policy, it most likely stems from the public’s

confusion about climate change and its

causes. At the Citizens Climate Lobby

Conference in Washington, D.C., last month,

Tony Leiserowitz from the Yale Project walked

us through the research. Some of it was

depressing, but a lot of it was hopeful,

pointing to opportunities that exist for

communicating vital information on climate

change.

The depressing: S ince 2007, the

percentage of people who say global warming

is happening has dropped significantly.

Tracking data from Pew, for instance, finds

that figure fell from 77 percent in 2007 to 58

percent in 2010. Since then, however, those

numbers have rebounded but have yet to

reach previous levels. Equally disconcerting

is the trend in what people believe is the

cause of global warming. The percentage who

think it is human-induced has declined while

the percentage who believe it occurs naturally

has gone up (see below).

So, why all the confusion? Hasn’t everyone

read James Hansen’s “Storms of My

Grandchildren”? Well, no they haven’t, and

Leiserowitz ticks off a list or reasons behind

these numbers heading in the wrong

direction:

• The economy and unemployment

• Declining media coverage

• Unusual cold weather

• An effective “denial industry”

• “Climategate”

• Increasing political polarization

One of the more illuminating facts from

the Yale Project is the percentage of people

72

who think there is agreement among the

experts on climate change and its causes.

Among scientists who do peer-reviewed

research on climate change, various surveys

show some 98 percent concur that global

warming is happening, primarily because we

burn fossil fuels. For those who follow the

issue closely, this comes as no surprise.

Among the general public, however, this vital

piece of information has gone unnoticed (see

below).

The opportunity: Based on extensive

research done by the Yale Project over the

years, here are the five most important things

that need to be communicated to the public

about climate change:

1) Climate change is happening

2) We're causing it this time

3) There are serious consequences to

humans and nature

4) Experts agree on the first 3 points

5) There are lots of options to solve this

problem and to make our lives better.

Among these, number four is perhaps the

most critical. Leiserowitz characterizes this as

a “gateway belief.” Those who understand

that scientists are in agreement on climate

change and its causes are likely to accept the

first three points. Those who accept the first

three points are likely to be concerned or

alarmed about the situation and expect their

government to do something about it. This is

where that elusive phenomenon called

political will kicks in, and we inch closer to

the tipping point for pricing carbon.

Which takes us back to that delightfully

surprising poll I mentioned at the beginning

about large majorities supporting a revenue-

neutral tax swap on carbon (see below).

Leiserowitz et al (2011)

As one might expect, strong majorities of

Democrats and Independents would support

a tax shift, but 51 percent of Republicans

also express support for a carbon tax swap,

with only 25 percent likely to oppose. What

makes this poll even more remarkable is that

support for this type of a carbon price exists

even in the face of limited understanding

among the public on climate change (that

73

depressing stuff we talked about before). As

more and more people begin to comprehend

the ramifications of our changing climate,

support for a price on carbon will only go up.

There’s lots more juicy information from

the Yale Project, including the latest poll

finding that pro-climate-policy candidates are

likely to win votes and another study showing

more and more people connecting the dots

between extreme weather and climate

change.

So, here’s your conversation opener for

the next six months: “Bet you didn’t know 98

percent of climate scientists say global

warming is happening and we’re the cause.”

Tell them Tony from Yale sent you.

The Author

Steve Valk is Director of Communications for

Citizens Climate Lobby.

Cu!ing Arts & Music Programs Erodes Our Children’s Potentialby Joseph Robertson

A version of this article first appeared on The

Hot Spring Network on August 4, 2010.

When state and municipal budgets are tight,

education funding is usually targeted for

cuts. The politics of the cuts is almost always

framed as being about “holding teachers and

schools accountable” as a way of protecting

the future we expect for children. The reality

is that those cuts reduce the resources

available to students, and “non-essential”

courses like music and art—usually those

subjects for which accounting consultants

are not able to quantify future return on

investment—are eliminated in favor of those

subjects standardized test-makers know how

to test for—those subjects which the test-

score-based system for budgeting converts to

direct monetary value for the schools.

But who is being held accountable? What

is called “accountability” in political speeches

turns out to be broadly punitive from the

start, and it is the future diversity of stu-

dents’ skills that are in fact targeted. The

system is deliberately degraded, due to a

philosophy that says hardship will generate

improvement—a reckless distortion of the

science of natural selection, in which features

74

that promote survival are promoted by that

survival.

Funding cuts are also carried out in a way

that is inherently dishonest, justified to all as

a way of building accountability, but cut from

districts where there is less wealth per

household, meaning they require higher

levels of statewide funding, to achieve the

same diversity of skill and experience other

communities might find funded through

extracurricular programs and other types of

budgeting, whether private or public. More

money is revoked from where it is needed by

maligning the notion of shared responsibility:

convince a given community that its money

should not help a more needy community,

and you will have the freedom to erode that

needy community’s basic resources.

The philosophy that funding and perfor-

mance are not linked, or that markets can be

abstracted from the communities that feed

them, is spread through political rhetoric,

because it has to spread in order to justify

removing funding from schools in com-

munities which cannot provide adequate

funding to achieve competitive standards in

resources, personnel and infrastructure. The

myth that “responsible” communities do more

with less is used as a bludgeon to malign

poor communities and deprive their children

of funding.

We can easily confirm this is a myth by

simply looking at what wealthy communities

demand of their public schools: a diverse

range of subject matter, including robust art,

humanities, and phys-ed programs; expen-

sive, highly trained faculty, sometimes with

doctoral degrees; extracurricular extra-

vagance, from football stadiums to radio

stations and TV studios; school newspapers;

latest edition textbooks; free-of-charge on-

campus photo-copying services, etc.

Everything wealthy communities demand

of their schools is, to some extent reasonable,

but it is not so clear whether any community

has a right to say another community’s

children should be denied those services just

because their parents are not affluent. In

poor, inner-city school districts, it is common

to have only a small minority of faculty

meeting state requirements for Masters

degrees, common to have teachers trained in

one subject teaching something totally

unrelated, due to shortages of qualified

teachers for that subject, or budget

constraints, common to have older textbooks,

shared textbooks or none at all, common to

have no funding for extensive extracurricular

activities in which students are able to

choose a path that matches up well to their

personal preferences and character.

Television studios, radio stations and

school newspapers are much harder to come

by, because all necessary funding is devoted

to basic life-support: teachers, sanitation,

security. Vital programs in language, arts,

75

and phys-ed are often cut, simply because

schools can no longer afford to pay teachers.

In New York City, in the fall of 2012,

“education reform” has seen the elimination

of “language arts” programs, meaning the

effective use of grammar for thoughtful

composition is not given as much time or

attention as before. Reading, math and

science are promoted as essential, because

testing is easily standardized, but little

thought is given to what options this limited

curriculum will give students later in life.

A student, for instance, that excels in

science, but has little experience of cultural

history, art or creative design, may lack

certain skills that would allow her to choose a

career in astronomy, because she will have

learned to focus on what she “can know”,

which means what she already knows, and be

intimidated by a field of study that goes far

beyond her life experience. But a student who

spent her childhood playing the cello, while

getting by in math and science, might find

herself drawn to and daring enough to con-

template a future that involves studying and

redefining the cosmos.

These intangibles have real value for any

community: the more capable and dynamic

the future of a community’s people, the more

prosperous and stable that community itself

will be. Another way to say it is: good schools

breed stability and prosperity, and every

community’s children should have the same

right to a good education that they have to

clean public parks, fresh air, and a life free of

gunfire and danger.

Cutting arts and music from schools

erodes the future of children whose options

for study are limited to those schools. Such

cuts are often justified by a falsifying market

psychology that says the wealthy should not

have to think of “the greater good” of society

when spending their public funds, but in fact,

the cuts are justified by the claim that it is in

the interest of “the greater good” that public

funds not be spent on certain communities.

Ultimately, the logic is circular, the

justification is shoddy, and the claim that the

refusal of those who have enough to build the

social fabric through public programs is a

moralizing contribution to “the greater good”

quickly runs into a celebration of bias and a

callous disregard for future outcomes. In

other words, we need to think twice before we

target defenseless children for ideologically

motivated spending cuts.

What’s more, there is no evidence that

these sort of cuts help to improve the lives of

people anywhere. It’s a now versus then

mentality, which says we can safely deprive

the future of its needed quality of life in order

to have an easier time holding onto what we

have now. We don’t need to invest wisely; we

can just keep what we have and celebrate

ourselves in the process.

76

We do, however, have evidence that by

reducing the range of quality educational

options for students in a given community,

we can destabilize that community econom-

ically, erode its public spaces, deprive its

residents of productive leisure time which

can be devoted to maintaining the fabric of

community, and we can drive rates of anti-

social and criminal behavior up, while

shutting down businesses that complement

the higher quality education that should have

been available.

Specifics? Charter schools are great, for

those who get to use them. But no solution is

satisfactory that leaves a majority of students

with no access to high-quality, state-of-the-

art educational programs. Charter schools

can never be treated as anything other than a

testing ground, where best practices can be

discerned and then distributed through the

standard educational system. If we can only

find funding for the charter schools, then we

are failing.

Curricula? No serious school should be

“teaching to the test” in order to promote a

mechanical increase in standardized test

scores: the only worthwhile increase in test

scores is the one that comes from having

promoted real intellectual curiosity, real

breadth of basic knowledge and a well-

rounded experience of what society knows:

not just reading, science and math, but

history, civics, ethics, literature, critical

thinking, music, art, phys-ed and foreign

language.

We have to begin any discussion of

education policy by thinking about what we

want to build into the future of our society.

And we have to consider that our society is

not a landscape of isolated villages and

disparate demographics that never have to

mix and have no responsibility to one

another. We expect all communities to respect

the same laws and honor one another’s right

to life and liberty, so we cannot shape those

laws to then discriminate against com-

munities that need to tap the benefits of

being part of a commonwealth more than

others do.

Building a generative economic future,

one in which our investments actually pay

back higher returns than we put in, means

considering how we contribute to the building

of the fabric of a functioning, humane, stable,

civilized public space. All people need and

deserve a public space in which community

and individual are part of a virtuous feedback

loop. We cannot do this if our approach is

more punitive than constructive; we cannot

do this if we ignore how flippant cuts to other

communities’ funding might be rooted in

flawed mystical assumptions and perversions

of the concept of natural selection.

Build better schools, and children will fill

them. Build opportunity, and children will

rise to it. Build a future of diverse options,

77

and children will grow into more diverse and

complete citizens. Build community, and

those who inhabit the community will

flourish. We can say we don’t want to throw

good money after bad, but we can’t make

good policy by smearing whole communities

with the bad that is our bad policy. When

educators, administrators, budget managers

and publishing companies that sell the tests,

restructure a program of study to make it

appear as if education is happening, when in

fact the best of what education can be is

being skirted in service of a self-reinforcing

logic of punitive test-score analysis and

tactical deprivation, the “soft bigotry of low

expectations is being intensified and expan-

ded, not made into a thing of the past.

We have to build stronger, more vibrant

futures, for all children, by making sure we

spend, and spend wisely—spend to invest,

not to purchase retroactively the legitimacy of

unsound political arguments. We have to take

seriously the fundamental rights and trans-

cendent human dignity of every student: that

means we must give them the tools to

perform, the information they need to

perform and the opportunity to actually

perform, as complete human beings, with

integral and sovereign intellects, making

critical judgments and creative choices, at

every step of the way along their educational

journey, a journey we should expect will not

end at graduation from this or that level of

conventional schooling. We know how to do

this, and it starts with privileging the

intangibles: those segments of the human

character and intellect that foster develop-

ment of ethical understanding, compre-

hensive language ability and compositional

potential in the expression of ideas, including

in the visual arts, in music performance and

composition and in the art of movement. If we

do not provide access to music, to art, to

thoughtful expression through language, we

are not empowering students to rise to the

highest heights of their abilities, or even to

recognize that a given challenge—as yet not

apparent to student, teacher or parent—

might be theirs to take on.

If we cut the education of intangibles and

transcendent humanizing values from our

curriculum, we degrade our students’ future

potential; if we empower them to recognize

where there is real value in the exercise of

their character and their abilities, they will

rise to the challenge of building a better

future for all of us.

NOTE: The Winter 2012-2013 edition of the Hot

Spring Quarterly will include a G.O.O.D.-based

education report. The value of arts and music

programs, of access to ideas and to new ways of

thinking, to thinking itself, needs to be better

understood, better assessed and better protected,

and we are looking for ways to begin to show this.

78

Poetry of the Future Libraryby Joseph Lucia

In the two following poems, Joseph Lucia

explores the existential crisis inherent in

crossing over a conceptual threshold in our

relationship to information, and explains what

might be the functional “afterlife” of libraries.

Below the City

Below the city, something’s amiss in the

mud-

choked sloughs where industrial flotsam

abuts

asphalt and airport, the camouflaged

dwelling places of slick-furred rodents,

a borderland that hints you can’t

go back though the path forward requires

a shrink-wrap agreement about the future

tense of any sentence you might serve

without parole. There are no acceptable

outcomes

when unnamed effluents from the chemical

plant’s

hot retort are seen as gifts by those who

count—

no malice in their mannered sweet platitudes,

their words deemed nourishment not

poisoned air.

All our bad politicians meaning all of them

should be buried here or at least dropped off

alone by a late night taxi driver who can’t find

any address like the one scrawled on a Post-it

note

and passed hand to hand in spite of Google

maps.

Technology won’t save you from malformed

visions,

the self-induced calamities some might call

fate, messenger RNA failing its functions,

receptor

sites slow on the uptake letting bad stuff, lots

of it,

happen at the molecular level. You can’t

imagine

what goes on down there without complex

formulas

and a degree in Genetics. Many will try to tell

you

knowledge won’t help. But in lost versions of

the truth

there’s still a vestige of conscience about

facts,

though facts never matter to the faithful

who won’t accept any possible distinction

between what’s up and what’s down in the

old

implausible cosmologies , the troubled stories

that always were just preventive medicine

for common terrors, for wakefulness at 3 a.m.

when quivering inner voices reveal anxieties

we can’t deny, denial itself the antidote for

loss.

Somehow we know we won’t escape or do

otherwise,

returning by compulsion to these outlands,

79

the places we pass by on the way to other

places,

rejectamenta littering the roadside,

reclamation sites

operating their loud, violent equipment all

day,

crushing wrecked cars, chewing up defunct

appliances,

even the old Kenmores that made homes

outposts

of reliability. Seeming alive in their hydraulic

frenzy,

elegantly engineered robotic claws feed scrap

iron

into the maw of a machine that compresses

and reforms it, yielding postmodern raw

material,

dense cubes of refuse that will somewhere

again become

fresh objects of desire. Who knows where

they end up,

the recuperated wastes fundamental to our

self-regard:

yes, we can figure out ways to amend wrongs

by making more stuff, by low-cost

manufacturing of

illusory goods. That’s the job of marketing

but also the whole megillah of our fevered

romance,

the lovely stupefaction by which we live. What

are we

willing to do other than seek paralysis by

argument?

The politics of rage is just another face for

this junkyard

culture, for our refusal to see ugliness at the

margins

as ugliness in the heart. Our cars keep

running

on the worn down highways. Most of us

ignore

the rust on bridges and don’t care that

there’s no more

American steel. But you can still smell it in

the air

if you sniff really hard, the rank sulfurous

odor

of the dead mills. The big plants are gone, the

ones

producing heavy stuff. But the commitment

continues

elsewhere, in our chemical obsessions, in the

black spew

we turn to energy so our motors keep

running

even though there’s a parasite eating us from

within.

The beauty of it is we always find amusement

in witnessing slow cataclysm and eventual

demise.

80

The Afterlife of Libraries

When the shelves are dismantled, the

visitations begin,

brief ghostly apparitions of recycled volumes

in a remote corner of the upper stacks

where the Qs were, crowded but less

visited than some of the more welcoming

books,

the ones down in the Ps unburdened by a

tumult

of formulas, the deltas and thetas

that are just Greek to students who spend

more time daydreaming than doing labs.

There, above the reinforced concrete floor

that supported the old weight of knowledge,

in the red glow of the Exit signs, the lost

empirical tomes assert their quantum

prerogative

to flicker back into existence for a picosecond

and to shed their complex words into the

mute air

riddled with signals, the layered protocols

running

on staggered frequencies and bearing the

disembodied

syllables that could be the soul of thought.

Unexplained interferences start to interrupt

the dependable performance of mobile

devices,

a perfect storm of untethered content

appearing

in fragments on bright sharp touch screens

where people see their faces reflected as

background

to whatever they read. A woman looking at

weather.com

has several sentences on Analysis of Variance

inserted at the bottom of her display, just

above

the navigation icons. A guy using his golf GPS

app

gets equations defining the photoelectric

effect

overlaid on a contour map of the seventh

green.

A kid playing Pokemon online is puzzled

by the description of glutamine synthesis

scrawled across the gym floor. It happens at

random,

this networked dispersion of facts and

discourse

into the cellular ether where people graze

bits of information they need for a minute

without realizing the matrix of mind and

culture

has been un-housed and rendered formless,

and flows

now through buildings, over mountains and

rivers

without destination, without an endpoint

in the binding physical artifact that is its past

perfect

home. But information wants to be more

than free.

It wants to matter and last, to counter

entropy

81

with the order of classified things, as if

blooming

out of the multi-verse there could in fact be

pure forms,

ideal manifestations of all the ways we know

revealed in what we held as books but what

are instead

in this altered place shadow beings from a

gone world,

a world where fingers made a tacit pact with

signs

pressed into paper: that we can embrace

thought

and witness its slow accretion, that we can

take

pleasure or solace in the long corridors full

of others’ words that enlighten and humble

us. Suddenly

it seems there’s a corrective impulse in the

curled up

dimensions at the Planck distance, the

hidden-then-revealed

bridges across unmeasured magnitudes

of space and time: hints that the old

collections persist

somewhere and foam up into being again

here,

breaking through the welter of digital

distractions,

giving hope to those who remember the

weight of pages

and the contract with the future of a few

strong words

emblazoned on all the various and durable

spines.

The Author

Joseph Lucia is director of the Falvey

Memorial Library, at Villanova University, in

Villanova, Pennsylvania. With his team, he is

developing new programmatic models, and

new tools and technology (used worldwide),

for the digital age library.

82

Visit, read & share the Hot Spring uarterly online, at:

http://bit.ly/hotspring-q