Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
We are the 99 percent

Occupy Earth Day!

Posted 12 years ago on April 18, 2012, 2:17 a.m. EST by OccupyWallSt

occupy earth day

On Earth Day, April 22, we will take Earth Day back to its anti-corporate roots with a three-part day of action. From the OWS Environmental Solidarity Working Group:

The future of Earth will be won in the STREETS!

Saturday, April 21, 3pm

Melt-In @ Grand Central Station, NYC
Because Nuclear Reactors Melt down
Because Our Planet is Melting Down
Because Nuclear Power is Not a Solution to Global Warming
Renewables Are!

Sunday, April 22nd (Earth Day)

Jazz Funeral for the death of Earth as we know it
12pm Noon BP Gas Station, 300 Lafayette St (@ Houston), NYC
Occupy Earth Day will begin with a New Orleans-style jazz funeral march for the Gulf Coast led by the Rude Mechanical Orchestra and commemorating the anniversary of the BP Deep Water Horizon oil spill, which began on April 20, 2010.

1pm Union Square, NYC
We will arrive at Union Square for a rally to reclaim Earth Day from corporate greenwashers and return it to its radical roots. We will hear from voices involved in a variety of interlocking eco-struggles both local and global, including Gulf Coast recovery, tar sands, fracking, nuclear power and genetically modified food. At Union Square, we will spotlight movements fighting to ensure that ecocide like that unleashed on the Gulf by BP never happens again. In the face of our mounting biophysical crisis, we need renewable energy. We need a system that values ecosystems over profits.

2:30pm The Highline @ Gansevoort and West Street
From Union Square we will march to the spot of the proposed Spectra Pipeline, a fracked gas pipeline that the Texas Eastern Transmission wants to build in the West Village. A recent well leak off the coast of Scotland, currently spewing 200,000 cubic meters of gas per day, is already drawing comparisons to Deep Water Horizon. We need to move away from these dirty, deadly and ecocidal forms of energy and towards a sustainable world.

More info:

Occupy DC is also hosting Earth Day-themed events all week! For more info on Occupy Earth Week in DC, check here, here or @OccupyEarthWeek.



Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 12 years ago

Why do you guys feel the need to turn everything into an occupation, protest. negative, and funeral? It is always someone else's fault.

We use Earth Day (actually week) in our community to teach folks to be better stewards of their environment. We have festivals, plant sales, and work days for the environment, talk about recycling, using recycled materials, how to reduce light pollution, plant trees and shrubs, clean up by the river, planning a home garden, using less energy....

It is OK to be positive about something. You can sometimes get more done. Educating people is important since there are 7 billion of us. The decisions of individual people are the largest cause of many of the environmental issues we face.

[-] 5 points by DanielBarton (1345) 12 years ago

Joe is right on this one at my university we have green week to show how much energy we use and how harmful it is. We need to be friendly a a movement. If we teach people what to do to be green by planting trees and energy efficient things. Make this a fair of knowledge not a march of hate

If this movement start going anti nuclear power. The cleanest power system in the world i'm out if this movement even think to protest something that will give job to thousands. Im free to talk more about this.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 11 years ago


All I am saying is Earth Day has been positive for years. There has been a lot of progress since the 1970s. Rivers are cleaner, people recycle, sure there is more to be done.

There are a lot of great events and I have been participating for over 20 years. It is about education and "Acts of Green"

Education not finger pointing.

Most of global warming is caused by individuals. Just go stand on a bridge over an LA Freeway and you will see where the smog is coming from. 250 million cars in the US with one person in each car.

There are still many people who leave lights on all night. There are still many people who chose not to recycle. There are still many people who chose bottled water over filtered tap water.

Educate, persuade, lead by example...

Pick up one bag of trash from the trails, rives or streams. Show people how to compost kitchen veggie scraps instead of throwing them in the trash. There are a lot of positive things you can do whether you are in the country or the city.

Instead of a funeral for the earth (which isn't going anywhere) why not have a concert to "Touch the Earth"? Especially in cities where many people only touch concrete and carpet 99% of the time.

Instead of a nuclear melt down why not have become geo-thermal energized?

Here are some other good examples: http://act.earthday.org/events/search/distance/07821

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 11 years ago

yes exactly i know what you mean. It is a sad day when we get out of a helpful situation with earth day and move to a bad one.

They should really just do a fair because people wouldn't mind or care about it. It would be a much better influence on the young and old alike


[-] 1 points by icfmike (173) 11 years ago

nuclear definately not the cleanest, but has the potential to be the most harmful for the longest time ...the nuclear waste is the issue... please do some investigation into the subject...

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 11 years ago

Actually i know more than 98% of this world on the subject. I know all the ends and out of it so yes i know what i'm talking about. I have know and that is why i advocate it. i know its so safe that i would put it in my own back yard.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 10 years ago

This Earth month. take a stand


[-] 1 points by jemcgloin (63) from Staten Island, NY 11 years ago

Nuclear generates waste that is highly toxic for ten thousand years. A real solution for this problem has still not been found. Much of the waste is still stored at the reactors in containers that will not last 100 years. This is not clean.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 11 years ago

highly toxic no, radioactive yes that is contained behind lead and cement. I know these containers i've seen and studied them. They are some of the safest thing know to man. also they last a very long time so long in fact we dont know the actual lifespan. we predicted a couple thousands of year.

Its cleaner than you think i know this for an absolute fact.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

HI Dan. I like thorium too, I do wonder about fluoride leaks though. It seems nothing is a perfect solution.

Do you know anything about Ecat?


[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 11 years ago

Fluoride leaks is not an issue. These reactors cannot melt down, they operate at standard pressure (so there's really no leak risk in the conventional sense), and if fluoride is released, it's only in a very specific (and predetermined) way (and it's captured, in other words, no radiation is released). Workers need to take quite a few precautions when working in these reactors, but in that sense, it's not much different than conventional reactors (and we can operate a reactor very safely, without any work safety issues).

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Thanks francis, I understand the inherent safety of the process.

I spent hours watching youtube lectures.

I'm thinking more along the lines of a disaster, man made or natural.

I suppose the fluoride containment vessels could be made strong enough for "almost " anything....................:)

If I remember correctly, it's half life is much shorter then cesium.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 11 years ago

Anything on Earth day this year?

http://earthday.nature.org/about/?src=e.nature . That's a little something

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Don't know what this has to do with an 11 month old thread on LFTRs.

And news on Ecat?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 11 years ago

It was the only earth day post I could find.

So I figured this current earth day news might be appropriate reason to bump up the Occupy earth day post. (I much prefer adding to existing posts than adding new posts)

I did find this also.


Not much of an earthday man? Wasn't trying to annoy you.

What is ecat?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago


The closest thing to cold fusion, yet.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 11 years ago

Well that looks amazing. I'll research further.


[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 11 years ago

Fail safes will be placed in

and on ECAT i heard and dabbled in that physics but don't know a whole lot on the subject. I will be looking into it more and reading it.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

I'm not sure what it's limits are at the high end of it's scalability, but it would seem perfect for localized usage.

I believe the one they are building is 10 megawatts.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 11 years ago

yeah that would be perfect for cities and suburbs

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

Do you build them?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 11 years ago

not yet, i may in the future if i go down that path. I'm still in university.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

Good for you. My girlfriend works in an alternative energy lab @ USF in Tampa. Really cool stuff there.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 11 years ago

yes it is. Thank you by the way. I a big advocate of these types of reactors because i know the true cost and i see way more benefits than anything else. It will be a good future if everyone hopes on board with the idea

also good for her

[-] -2 points by dougwalter (0) 11 years ago

Many studies have shown that wind and solar can provide baseload power and provide for most of our energy needs.

[-] 3 points by DanielBarton (1345) 11 years ago

no just no sorry

i have been studying these things and i have seen the data first hand that we cannot produce enough electricity with solar or wind. Plus do you even know what toxic chemicals are in solar panels that the EPA allows to just be thrown in the trash.

Nuclear is the way to go. The future of this type of power is endless with fusion most likely able to produce power in the next 15 years. The system we use can be supplemented with nuclear power in a short time. Megawatt reactors can power small cities with minimal work or effort or harm. Storage of waste has gotten so high tech that it shouldn't be a worry to anyone anymore.

Even most environmentalist are arguing for more nuclear power it helpful to our future as a system.

  1. Solar only 10% energy comes back into what was taken to produce it. Silicon and mercury used in it non recyclable. Only being able to use for 10-15 years. unpredictable energy influxes

  2. Wind unpredicted energy influxes. Takes thousands of miles to plant these turbines. They use tons of steel that require iron and coal to be mined. Very heavy maintenance cost. Will last about 20+ years if well maintained

  3. river/dam every useable stream has been used up and it does provide enough power to only the areas around it. damages local water life. life span 100+ requires constant upkeep.

  4. tidal destroys beaches and other close items such as sea life. they have not been implemented so can cause other effects that are lurking variables. installing price is very heavy. lifespan ?

  1. geothermal. dangerous and limited. but other than those two it is a good source of fuel. But to get it you will have to wreck environments to build structures. life span = 9 billion years

  2. nuclear fission high start up cost. year or two to build depending on how complex the plant is. waste that must be treated and put away every 5 years. most plants are installing on site storage spent fuel is size of small crate. only thermal waste lifespan 50+

  3. nuclear fusion. Very very high start up cost. problems with converting energy into electricity. When done it will be very low cost to run and no waste other thermal heat. The power source is tritium or He_3 both both that are hard to get and will require us to mine the moon or deep sea. power supply though is unlimited for this we would need only a few plants to power the united states. lifespan 9 billion years

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy.html the guy who proposed the solar and wind use false data and old propaganda. But non the less good talk

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 11 years ago

They're only arguing for conventional nuclear because they haven't done their homework. Thorium reactors is a much better solution. Otherwise, I largely agree with you. All we need to do is, everywhere we put the word uranium, simply replace it with the word thorium :)

It will be the mineral of our future (but I'm not sure how you're getting 9 billion years out of geothermal, the sun will use up most of its hydrogen in about 5 billion years ... and we'll be toast long before that).

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 11 years ago

I'm for thorium reactors too. I'm for them all. It will be a process to get to thorium reactors but it will happen. I know how wonderful they are. I didnt put them in because i dont know all the ends and outs and i dont want to put down false information.

i put 9 billion because i heard that number till the sun blows if its 5 billion im sorry again we will never know

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 11 years ago

I just posted some material, with various links (wiki articles, a NASA paper, etc.) on thorium. I hope, before everyone get's too warm and fuzzy over wind and solar (that could never meet base power requirements), they at least do some cursory research on this & keep an open mind to this technology (and the best part is, we have at minimum enough easily recoverable thorium right here in the US, to satisfy our energy needs for at least 1,000 years, and that means we likely have much more).

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 11 years ago

interesting reads,

Again though we need to get these plants up in running to test and to see how many we need. It is a good option.

again this is a type of nuclear its a different type but it till is that is why you should educate the local public on these issues. I will do so once i have fully read the material.


[-] 2 points by SPAR23 (25) 11 years ago

They cannot produce on a large enough scale, wind isn talways reliable becaus it could just not be windy and the same with solar power.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 11 years ago

How can this be possible? Solar and wind are intermittent power sources, meaning the sun only shines during the day, and wind power only generates power when the wind is blowing (not very complicated). "Base power" is the 24/7, 365 days per year, power that electrifies our grid.

If we'd like to ad environmentalism to the list (which I absolutely endorse) let's at least understand this issue with some level of sophistication, and intellectual honesty. Solar and wind cannot, I repeat, cannot (no way no how) meet base power requirements (the energy storage technology simply doesn't exist, although there are some advanced materials that at some point in the future may make this possible, but we're talking about stuff that PhD students and professors are still tinkering with in the laboratory, which means decades, at best, before we're able to mass produce these materials, assuming they can even work in these applications).

There's really only one way (in theory) to use intermittent power sources as base power (but there's still no realistic way it could meet our needs). Basically, store energy as potential energy, by doing something like using electricity from wind or solar (while the wind is blowing or sun is shining) to maybe pump water against gravity (and at night, or when the wind isn't blowing, let gravity do the work, and bring the water back down to rotate a turbine). The same principle could be applied to compressed air, but the fact is, in most parts of the country, this cannot be a feasible solution (we just won't be able to generate enough electricity with solar or wind to accomplish this).

Plus, it's a terribly inefficient use of space. It would take hundreds of square miles of land (using wind or solar) to generate what a single thorium reactor could generate (and thorium is perfectly clean and safe). Land is a finite and valuable resource, we need it to grow food, we need it for living space, etc. So I have no idea where this affinity for solar and wind is coming from (but I know where it's "not" coming from, it's not coming from scientific reality).

[-] 1 points by jemcgloin (63) from Staten Island, NY 11 years ago

Portugal supplies more than 50% of its power through renewable sources already. It is not a question of what is possible, but of which systems the poiticians will support while oil companies are paying for their elections. If half of the $billions spent on subsidizing fossil fuels (including wars like iraq) and nuclear plants went to real sustainable projects (including efficiency) we would have this problem solved already.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 11 years ago

Portugal is a model for alternative energy (and drug decriminalization). Of course the geographic size differences between Portugal and the US are considerable. Portugal is using wind power to pump water uphill (so they have wind when the wind is blowing, and hydroelectric when it's not). It's expensive (their consumers pay much more for electricity), but maybe costs can come down over time. Nevertheless, here in the US it's doubtful wind/solar could ever get above 20%. Doesn't mean we don't do it, but we need to compliment wind and solar with a stable source of base power (something like thorium reactors). Portugal is also building an electric car infrastructure (which is another awesome idea, something we could certainly do in our large cities for now, while the technology is maturing, and then maybe eventually roll it out to our suburbs, unless something like hydrogen fuel cells becomes viable one day ... which would really be awesome).

[-] 1 points by jemcgloin (63) from Staten Island, NY 11 years ago

your statement that wind and solar could only amount to 20% of US power sounds like you mean that would be due to politics not technology. It is time to make the future politicaly viable, and then the technology will happen. Hence: Occupy Wall St.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 11 years ago

The Yellowstone caldera is untapped thermo power generation that anyone can see is viable for today's technology. No big leap of faith required there, except for the fact that the big investors won't go there, because they can't profit greatly from it.

[-] 3 points by DCInsider (54) 11 years ago

I agree with Joe. We should be celebrating Earth Week, not protesting it. I think someone got this all wrong. Who vets these events? And why is there such a need to do do many events? It's like some would rather do a hundred really badly organized events then a few good bi weekly ones.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 11 years ago

best post all year i've been trying to say that forever

[-] 3 points by dougwalter (0) 12 years ago

It is pointless to say that one tactic is better than the other. Both education and being better stewards and protest are important. But also ask yourself, what major progress has happened on the environment since the first earthday more than 30 years ago? Not much. Do we have any meaningful climate legislation? No. We need to take to the streets in addition to educating people.

[-] 2 points by jemcgloin (63) from Staten Island, NY 11 years ago

Occupy does a lot of positive actions in support of the environment. We had a natural filtration system at the park for waste water, bicycle generators to make electricty, an event, and ongoing dialogue with native Americans who call for going to Mother Earth as the source of all solutions, and I just got back from Occupy Raleigh NC where they have a solar array generating power for their camp (even the electric guitar). A New Orleans style funeral alternates between mourning and celebration and this does not seem inapropriate to me. And by the way an occupation is a positive not a negative. But I love all of your posiive ideas, so keep on truckin.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 11 years ago

The post says:

We will arrive at Union Square for a rally to reclaim Earth Day from corporate greenwashers and return it to its radical roots.

It would be hard to get any more negative than that. There were and are no radical roots. You guys want everything to be radical.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 11 years ago

Well said, Joe.

The easy path is to back into a corner and hurl criticism left and right.

The tougher track is to see just what YOU can do in your own way, in your own neighbourhood.

The 1 % supports and relies upon rampant consumerism and accumulating debt. The current austerity measures being imposed upon Greek people and now the Spanish are not a result of greed by the people, but upon waste in the upper levels of government.

Shun consumerism, and if you have children, throw the television away. You can see what you want to see on the internet, and you'd be crazy to allow your preteen child free access to the web, yet so many parents consider the tv and internet to be free electronic babysitters.

Take back control of your own life, and help your kids to learn true values, rather than those foist upon them by the 1 %.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 11 years ago


As I said above most of global warming is caused by individuals (the so called 99%).

Just go stand on a bridge over an LA Freeway and you will see where the smog is coming from. 250 million cars in the US with one person in each car. There are many other examples.

We need to work on the 99% as much if not more than we need to work on the 1%



[-] 3 points by mikeydubbs (40) 11 years ago

Look up the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, not all nuclear energy is bad. The problem is most development has been built around isotopes with the potential to create big bombs. Nuclear energy is the future, and it doesn't have to be a bad thing. Thorium is a limitless resource, and has zero potential for a catastrophic meltdown. The problem is nobody wants to put money into it because governments like big bombs.

[-] 3 points by Mackinyaa (10) 11 years ago

Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are the only way to go.

Yes, they are nuclear, but instead of using weaponize-able uranium, it uses the much safer Thorium, named for the Norse god of thunder.

http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor_1.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2011/09/11/is-thorium-the-biggest-energy-breakthrough-since-fire-possibly/ http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-08/thorium-reactors-could-wean-world-oil-just-five-years http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348

If you have ANY respect for yourself or for humanity, then you MUST include this in any speeches you present, in any information you deliver.

If you do not tell the people about safe, clean, long lasting thorium nuclear power, then you have failed yourself and the world.

Nothing will get better unless you act, not with emotions and quick judgement, but with research, facts, evidence, experiments and courage.

Do not let words scare you, do not let politicians scare you, do not let the past scare you. Thorium power will lead to our future.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 11 years ago

Thank you ... thorium is absolutely the best option (there's nothing else that even comes close).

[-] 1 points by Mackinyaa (10) 11 years ago

And yes, this will eliminate the need for oil, for coal power, for unsafe, radioactive uranium based nuclear power and for dangerous chemicals used in photo-receptor cells used in solar power equipment. No need for costly and weak wind or water power, this will power cities with an extremely large amount of power.

Do you know why this is not used now? The government cannot make bombs out of it. It's radioactivity does not allow for it to explode the way certain isotopes of uranium does. Do not think that this is some conspiracy. It's already well known the government spends billions of dollars on wars. Using just 2% of that money, we could have built at least a few Martian colonies. The science allows all of this, but ignorance, fear, and propaganda prevents the people from knowing what can be done, what could be, and instead plagues us with what is. War, poverty, crime, bad patent laws, the ability to make money simply by having money. Those things should not exist, instead, all people should be free to make money off their ideas and their marketability in practice. Not based on lawsuits and insane patent and copy-write laws.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 11 years ago

Well, back in the 60's when our nuclear industry was getting off the ground, our priority was nuclear weapons development (and uranium reactors fit the bill perfectly). While this is obviously no longer the case (at this point we're mothballing nukes, and the nuclear arms race is long over), entrenched interests are still barriers to progress nonetheless.

I'm not sure how much resistance the nuclear industry would have to thorium (I don't see why they would resist the idea if government provided adequate subsidies), but at this point the real resistance comes from the "coal" industry (and the rest of the electrical industry).

I mean, the easy answer is to simply replace coal (and natural gas fired plants as well) with thorium. If thorium gets going (even if it's application is initially limited to upgrading and retrofitting existing nuclear facilities), it will be the beginning of the end for coal fired power plants in the United States.

What people should understand is we've known about thorium for a long time, and the same is true with processes like gasification (that could potentially allow us to produce alcohol liquid transportation fuels using feedstocks like municipal waste). So it should make us stop and think when our policy makers waste so much time, effort, and money on things like wind and solar (that are no more than a public relations gimmick). In fact, the failure of many of these projects was all too predictable, so I think it's valid to question the motives of our policy makers (democrats and republicans)?

So it's sort of surprising to me to see OWS sort of jump on the status quo band wagon (I don't think this is a well informed position).

[-] 0 points by AntiOWSer (18) 11 years ago

"Do you know why this is not used now? The government cannot make bombs out of it. It's radioactivity does not allow for it to explode the way certain isotopes of uranium does."

...Last I checked, the last time the US actually used a nuke against another entity was 1945. The last couple decades, nuclear stockpiles have gotten smaller, and smaller. If what you said was true, we would not have invested the resources we have into solar, wind, coal, or anything else non-nuclear.

"It's already well known the government spends billions of dollars on wars."

It's called National Defense, and last time I read the US Constitution, it was the Government's responsibility. (I'm not vouching for the validity, and reasoning for every conflict, I'm just stating it shouldn't be too shocking)

"War, poverty, crime, bad patent laws, the ability to make money simply by having money."

The US has spent about $1.28 trillion on the "Global War on Terror" from the time it started, until bin Laden was killed. That's about $128 billion a year. Meanwhile, the US has spent about $13-16 trillion since the "War on Poverty started in 1965. That's about $309 billion a year, over twice as much. ...And poverty has only increased in the US. Do you really think more money should be put into poverty?

Also, could you please clarify your comment on how you shouldn't be able to make money by having money? It seems you don't think people should be able to invest their own money for retirement, or simply to gain more wealth. Should we get rid of savings accounts, and the ability to sell property (such as a classic car, house, or a business you've turned around) that has increased in value for more than you purchased it?

...And as for your Martian comment, I think its goofy to think that if it wasn't for war, that the US would have multiple colonies on Mars. Given the extreme inhospitably of Mars, and how long it would take for supplies (food, medicine, oxygen, water), and given how American's interest in space faded after a couple of moon landings, I doubt there would be any scenario where colonization of Mars would be a reality today.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 11 years ago

Are you actually suggesting that it can't be good, since our government isn't investing in it? :)

Forget about Mars, we don't need to obfuscate this issue by talking about space colonies, earthly thorium is well understood, perfectly clean, and safe.

I mean, do you know the first thing about physics? Tell me what a simple kinematics equation is (quick, google). Do you know anything about chemistry? I'm quite sure you don't know shit about any of this stuff, yet here you are playing nuclear scientist.

[-] 1 points by AntiOWSer (18) 11 years ago

I wasn't necessarily getting at that, but sure. It would be better if private organizations spearheaded the effort. Let their money be spent for the research, trials, etc. That way, if they fail, mine (and your) tax dollars weren't wasted.

I'm not sure where you were going with your last comment, or what comment of mine it was specifically aimed at. I never claimed to know anything about physics, nor am I trying to play "nuclear scientist." I just know it would require alot of logistics to colonize Mars, and disputed Mackinyaa's comment about Mars being colonized if we just used 2% of the money we used for wars.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 11 years ago

I don't think anyone is suggesting a Mars colony (I'm certainly not, I'd rather focus on our own, very nice at the moment, pale blue dot, earth).

At this point oil companies, banks, multinationals, etc., have accumulated so much power, stacked the deck so high in their favor (and their favor isn't our favor) that yes, the people have a right to demand our government level the playing field. Why are conservatives so eager to allow corporations the ability to manipulate government and stack the deck in their favor, but not people (the people whom our government is supposed to be representing)?

We should replace coal with something like thorium (and drop our fascination with solar and wind, which have some applications, but cannot meet base power requirements, and therefore should not be our primary focus). Thorium is safe and clean. I also think before we go off on a tangent and try to colonize anything, we should apply the already good science we have and preserve earth as our first priority. If we're going to invest in scientific research, we should make things like curing cancer, dealing with age related debilitation, etc. among our primary goals.

At the moment, the energies of physicists and chemists would be better applied in coming up with new materials (like nanomaterials), quantum information theory (which is very promising in terms of tangible benefits for human beings). Sure, we always want theoretical physicists trying to solve the remaining riddles in physics, but at this point, not only does string theory lack a drop of evidence, we don't even know how to design an experiment to verify it (so maybe we should focus on maximizing the science we do know how to support experimentally). Anyway, I digress.

[-] 1 points by mikeydubbs (40) 11 years ago

I'd love to see a mars colony, but Elon Musk has got it under control. Thorium is a potentially cheap, and endless power source. That would revolutionize society as we know it. War would become obsolete, and we could focus on building more human societies.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 11 years ago

I mean, we already know how to build a thorium reactor (we've known how for 40 years), but as far as going to Mars ... I don't know? We have a lot of priorities (like curing cancer, Alzheimer's, energy, understanding our climate better, etc., so the question is, can we afford all these things in addition to a Mars project, if not, does Mars trump these other priorities). Frankly, I'm far more inclined to put things like curing cancer and dealing with global warming at the top of the list.

Star Trek fans might have to wait for the next generation on this one (no pun intended) :)

[-] 1 points by mikeydubbs (40) 11 years ago

lolol, I think it's obtainable within the next two decades. Just like the Thorium reactor, we have had the technology to colonize mars since the Cold War. SpaceX is a private company thats mission statement is to make life interplanetary. They plan to send there re-usable rocket to the Space Station on April 30th. With proper funding SpaceX CEO Elon Musk believes he could send people to Mars by 2017. It would be extremely dangerous, but the man is an insane genius. Look up the Mars Direct program, all the science has already been worked out. Like the Thorium reactor, there really has been no motivation for anyone to invest in an endeavor like this. Elon Musk is a self made billionaire with the balls to make it happen. Space travel would create many scientific advancements that could help us back at home. However, since the cold war NASA has really been nothing more than a waste of tax payer dollars. In case you haven't noticed, American politicians have no vision beyond the next election cycle. This is why countries like China, and India are the ones busy developing Thorium as an energy source. Call me an idealist, but I believe within the next 50 years we will have both virtually endless energy, and space colonies.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 11 years ago

50 years? Yeah ... maybe (it's certainly conceivable).

[-] 1 points by Mackinyaa (10) 11 years ago

1945 was the last time a bomb was used, but since then, because most reactors were expected to be based on uranium, rather than something safer and more efficient, a protocol was automatically developed.

National Defense certainly does spend a lot of money, more than it needs to. We have wasted money developing weapons, when all that is needed is enough money to keep our troops armed and trained, rather than develop hundreds of drones and other methods of murder.

Regarding making money off having money, I simply refer to the ability to invest money and nearly always make a return. Although it is a theoretically fair system, the ability to buy out a company or sue them into oblivion is not an innovative way to become and stay rich. A small issue to me.

The war on poverty is not something I support. Poverty could be eliminated, or lessened if goods such as housing, electricity, cars+fuel and food was cheaper. Making those things cheaper would not be easy, but right now, we do know that oil and gasoline costs a lot of money, while after just building one LFTR in every major city would almost entirely eliminate the need for dirty, expensive fuels. And the Martian comment is infeasible because like you said, no one cares about going to Mars. However, Mars does have an atmosphere, with clouds and weather, it does have water, in the form of ice, it does receive sunlight and making medicine should not be a difficult task. As you may know, we already have a space station in orbit that allows residence for several months. That space station is over a decade old. In that time, the internet has exploded, computers have miniaturized small enough to fit into your hand and still display 3D graphics, but unlike a space station, a Mars colony would be situated on stable ground, have access to water, soil and methods to create electricity beyond solar power, such as LFTRs. No matter how small the interest and funding is for this, humans have the technology and the capacity to go to Mars.

[-] 1 points by AntiOWSer (18) 11 years ago

Yes, but I wouldn't say that the ability to enrich uranium is the only reason we use nuclear power, and not LFTR as you suggested.

Whether or not we spend more than we need to on National Defense is subjective. Many technologies we use everyday came from the military, or military research. The US is the world's number one superpower. You don't maintain that title without continuously researching, inventing, and innovating the next big thing in defense. You may not like drones, but for every unmanned aircraft, there's a one or two pilot's lives that don't get put in harm's way. Beyond that, you do need $$ to for people to pilot (remotely), and maintain the UAVs.

If the odds of getting a return on an investment wasn't as good as it is, then fewer people would invest. If you look at the the main stock market indexes, if I remember correctly, they have always shown a gain after any 10-year period (possibly not counting the Great Depression).

Forgive me for not being up-to-date on LFTR, but it still likely wouldn't do much to ease our dependence on oil. LFTR isn't going to run our vehicles (unless you're one of the 1% that can afford an electric vehicle), and beyond that, it wouldn't replace the hundreds of products that are made from petroleum.

As for Mars... Is there enough water(/ice) to support several humans permanently? Sure it has an atmosphere, but not enough oxygen for people. I think before (permanent) colonization of Mars, you would need a well-equipped (because of the remoteness of Mars, and the time it would take to travel to and from Mars) station orbiting Mars, and a means of transporting people back and forth in case of emergency. Yes we have a space station, but we don't even have our own means of getting into space now, or in the near future. As much as I would like the idea of seeing America land on Mars, I don't see that happening in at least the next 20 years. While Pres. Bush may have gotten me excited with the prospect, those were crushed by Pres. Obama.

...Anyways, all this speculation of what it would take to colonize Mars is kinda pointless in a posting about "Earth Day," isn't it? Speaking of which, I can only imagine how the environmentalists would feel about us colonizing Mars, and the possible environmental impact that would have. ...Especially given that the only reason we might colonize Mars would be if there were resources that would make it a good reason financially to colonize it.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

We have more then enough weaponized uranium right now. There is enough right now to end life on this planet if only one nuclear power launched all of their missals. As for R&D work? They have all of those decommissioned weapons uranium to play with. We have no need to continue down the same nuclear path.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 11 years ago

No Earthday 2013 posts? Whassat about?



[-] 1 points by AntiOWSer (18) 11 years ago

While I disagree with your statement about one nuclear power being able to end all life (Really? North Korea can't (fortunately) can't even successfully launch a missile capable of hitting mainland US. I would bet that the only countries that would be capable of ending all life on the planet (which would require adequate delivery methods), would be the US, Russia, and China. That's less than half of the nuclear-armed countries.

I didn't mean to suggest that we continue to develop nuclear weapons. I believe in all likelihood, we probably do have more than enough. But its a safe bet that the vast majority of the money the military has for R&D is for more conventional weapons systems. When was the last time you heard of a new nuclear weapon? We're not continuing down "the same nuclear path."

[-] 1 points by jemcgloin (63) from Staten Island, NY 11 years ago

It is possible that one well placed nuclear missle could spark a chain reaction of panic launches and retaliations by all of the nuclear powers, ending all human life, if not all life, on the plant.

[-] 1 points by AntiOWSer (18) 11 years ago

Perhaps, but that is not the scenario that DKAtoday presented. His/Her scenario specified one country launching all of their nuclear weapons, and my comment was directed towards that scenario.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

What you consider NK a power? So why should we need to continue with the same old nuclear reactors? We don't.

[-] 0 points by AntiOWSer (18) 11 years ago

I believe a nuclear power is defined as a country with nuclear weapons, so yes, not only do I consider them, but any knowledgeable person would.

I don't know what you're getting at with your next sentences. It doesn't make sense, unless you literally mean to say "North Korea has nuclear weapons, so therefore, we don't need nuclear power at all" ...Which the logic behind that doesn't make any sense at all.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

The follow-ups were to your previous comment. Easily confused? BTW it was really stupid/lame to pull NK into a discussion about a real nuclear power like the USA, China, Russia ending all life on this planet with the use of their existing arsenals.

[-] 0 points by AntiOWSer (18) 11 years ago

No, but you had it as the very next sentence. Usually when you change the subject, you start a new paragraph. To answer your question then: Because we get 19% of our electricity from nuclear power. I'm not sure how you assume that every nuclear reactor in the US goes towards making nuclear weapons.

Awfully quick to jump to the personal attacks, eh?

I'm sorry, it's all my fault. I should have known that when you said "one nuclear power" that you actually meant "one of (the eight) nuclear powers that's named China, Russia, or the US." I'm sorry that I took you at your word.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

SFB - the point is that we do not need to continue with uranium nuclear power. Period. I believe you know this is what I have been saying and you choose to be obstinately obtuse. Nuclear power is a plus for society just not uranium which has the added disadvantage of waste that must be stored for thousands of years before it degrades to a safe level. of radiation.

[-] 1 points by AntiOWSer (18) 11 years ago

SFB? Is that another un-provoked personal attack?

My point is, that nuclear power provides 19% of our electricity, with very few problems. Unless I'm mistaken, LFTR provides 0%. If LFTR is the future, they should have no problem finding investors with the money to develop it, and turn it into something that rivals other sources of electricity in the US.

Until then, there should be no reason to stop the nuclear power that we already have invested in, and has been providing electricity for us. The US's energy grid is pitiful enough to be talking about replacing nuclear power with something that isn't even readily available yet.

[-] 1 points by Yin7 (44) 11 years ago

We don't even go to the moon and there are many innovative ideas for the moon that could help humanity on earth. So, why mars? Let's concentrate on earth & the moon and the many asteroids & meteors that are soon to come this way like Apophis for example.

[-] 1 points by Mackinyaa (10) 11 years ago

Because Mars is a planet with sufficient gravity, plenty of ice, the ability to hold an atmosphere and it's likely it's soil can support plant growth.

But that's not my point! For earth day, if there is anyone presenting anything on alternate power sources, liquid fluoride thorium reactors is absolutely necessary. I am not a debate genius or a master planner, but I know about science, and if you want a method to create green, renewable energy in large amounts for a low price, LFTR is the way to go.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Green Tech.

This is where we should be going: Green Energy we have the technology we just need to use it. This is what I am talking about. A clean future to be implemented NOW!




FuelCell Energy http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=600

[-] 1 points by Yin7 (44) 11 years ago

I'm with you. Thanks for introducing me to LFTR.


[-] 3 points by Fez (20) 11 years ago

"...we will take Earth Day back to its anti-corporate roots..."

Umm... what? Earth Day has no anti-corporate roots. It's inception was strictly about the environment, and pro-environmentalism certainly doesn't automatically imply anti-corporatism.

Stop trying to skew history. It makes you look bad.



[-] 3 points by SPAR23 (25) 12 years ago

What is wrong with Nuclear Power, just because of Japan doesnt mean we shouldnt use it. It is the cleanist and most productive fuel. Please tell me something that works better.


[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 11 years ago

The future of our earth will be won in the laboratory, by people who have rigorous academic backgrounds in physics, chemistry, and mathematics.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

Lowe's is giving away free trees

[-] 2 points by SPAR23 (25) 12 years ago

Does anybody have a sloution for a clean enrgy source that is produced on such a massive scale as Nuclear. If so please tell.

[-] 1 points by icfmike (173) 11 years ago

yes, i do. hydrokinetics, using the flow of water. can be used in a spillway of an existing hyro plant, a river or like in CA many canals. hydrokinetics have been used thruout history, waterwheels. I do have a modern design specific to each situation eg; spillway, river, irrigation or other canal. can produce many times more than a nuclear plant with no fuel or pollution and it is diversified, both in production and distribution... please ask me more....not just an idea, but a detailed plan...

[-] 2 points by SPAR23 (25) 11 years ago

I think that sounds great but what about these

First is the impact that it has on marine life in clean waterways; do the turbines pose health risks?

Second is that the turbines rely on natural currents rather than high pressures artificially enhanced by huge dams. The much lower, natural currents require the mechanics of the turbine to be delicately refined.

The third problem asks the question of whether or not the turbines will continue to function in the varying conditions of natural waterways, such as floods, droughts, ebb and flow tides, etc.

[-] 1 points by icfmike (173) 11 years ago

not turbines in water ways-first I suggested using an existing spillway of a hydro plant. again not turbines-a type of water wheel turning a generator. with some friends we did this years ago, successfully. An example of where a waterwheel turning a generator is a concrete lined canal, in CA many small water districts have 100's of miles of canals where the FLOW of water turning a water wheel (new design) could be used over and over again to produce electricity at less of a cost than many water districts pay for renewable power. $ .03 per kwh

[-] 2 points by Mackinyaa (10) 11 years ago

That will not work as well as Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors.

[-] 0 points by icfmike (173) 11 years ago


[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 11 years ago

How much land will this require? Who will be displaced? How much environmental degradation will these hydro plants cause? Sure, we can build Hoover Dams everywhere, but it would dislocate thousands, create all sorts of disruptions, and it would be wildly expensive (not to mention the fact that there's nowhere to build these massive facilities in or near major cities, or their suburbs, so you have to transport electricity huge distances, which has its own set of problems).

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 11 years ago

How many would have to be implemented to make an impact.

Is there any research that i could look at?



[-] 0 points by Mackinyaa (10) 11 years ago

The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.

Please see my post below, read the links and spread the word.


[-] 2 points by FrankieDeez (2) 12 years ago

Your point is well taken about the need to be a friendly movement, to have a more positive spin, and to put forward something constructive instead of merely critiquing. At the same, however, all of these individual actions, while essential for a sustainable future, are not going to surmount the current ecocidal system. I've been taught about reducing, reusing, recycling since I was a child, but does that prevent BP from destroying the Gulf with no accountability? Bhopal?

I don't think that putting the emphasis on individual action at the expense of a broader understanding and focus on the underlying framework of global capital (and how it continues to destroy our planet with impunity while corrupting our government officials and preventing meaningful policies towards sustainability) is the right approach for Occupy to take this Earth Day.

[-] 1 points by bushmasterblues (1) 11 years ago

I wrote a song about this topic, River Flow - Splash!, check it out and let me know what you think of the lyrics and especially the message on the end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbq6CdREWdU Together we can all be better citizens of the earth, Gary Brown bushmasterblues@yahoo.com

[-] 1 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 11 years ago

Who says the world's military industrial complexes can't do anything about global warming? To the contrary, they're all out getting ready to flex their muscles (or rather, rev their diesel engines) to lay claim to warm new frontiers of the Arctic. See http://news.yahoo.com/ice-cap-melts-militaries-vie-arctic-edge-072343565.html .


[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 11 years ago

People with some appreciation for science, show up with big signs that say THORIUM NOW.




[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 11 years ago

This is the big day, EARTH Day!

The truth of what has happened and is now happening to the earth at an alarming rate will be evidently known by a overwhelming majority of people in the coming years and decades ahead. Unfortunately, by then, it may be too late. Human beings are so accustomed to fighting tooth and nail hard when the chips are really down and when disaster strikes. Heroes are born out of these huge events. It's why as youngsters we love those super heroes saving the day. Unfortunately, in this case, we may already be too late. The whole human race sucks at planning properly for anything. Since the current effect of the sickening dying EARTH is still easy to ignore, we are screwed to do anything significant. We're waiting on the disaster. History does repeat itself, and we damn good at repeating stupidity especially if it gives a short term to us. Long term thinking has always been a hard concept for us to grab a hold of and feel within our grasp.

Thankfully our founding Father Thomas Jefferson wasn't so short sighted. For some of us, we see a bleak future for good reason. Truth is not partial to us, and when we ignore it, it has dire consequences. Following it has always been the right way unfortunately we still can't seem know how to recognize truth yet.

All too late. Tell the future your sorry. They'll love you for it!

DO something now, we don't want that future of dread! WAKE UP!__ It's not too late to stand for what is clearly right!

The Puzzler



[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 11 years ago

This Earth Day Has Even Greater Relevance Than Recent Earth Days Because of the Occupy Movement and its Cause for the 99% Against the Tyranny of the Plutocrats in the 1%.

As a Reaction to Environmentalism and the First Earth Day, Corporate Elitists Declared War! And their Corporate Declaration of Insanity was the Powell Memo. From Powell’s impetus came the Business Roundtable, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Manhattan Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy (precursor to what we now know as Americans for Prosperity) and other organizations united in pushing back against political equality and shared prosperity. They triggered an economic transformation that would in time touch every aspect of our lives.

The Lewis Powell Memo - Corporate Blueprint to Dominate Democracy [Push Back on Environmentalism]

Forty years ago today, on August 23, 1971, Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., an attorney from Richmond, Virginia, drafted a confidential memorandum for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that describes a strategy for the corporate takeover of the dominant public institutions of American society.

Environmental awareness and pressure on corporate polluters had reached a new peak in the months before the Powell memo was written. In January 1970, President Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act, which formally recognized the environment’s importance by establishing the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Massive Earth Day events took place all over the country just a few months later and by early July, Nixon signed an executive order that created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Tough new amendments to the Clean Air Act followed in December 1970 and by April 1971, EPA announced the first air pollution standards. Lead paint was soon regulated for the first time, and the awareness of the impacts of pesticides and other pollutants-- made famous by Rachel Carson in her 1962 book, Silent Spring – was recognized when DDT was finally banned for agricultural use in 1972. (CONTINUED: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/the-lewis-powell-memo-corporate-blueprint-to-/blog/36466/)


—Bill Moyers

Why New York’s Zuccotti Park is filled with people is no mystery. Reporters keep scratching their heads and asking, “Why are you here?” But it’s clear they are occupying Wall Street because Wall Street has occupied the country. And that’s why in public places across the nation workaday Americans are standing up in solidarity. Did you see the sign a woman was carrying at a fraternal march in Iowa the other day? It read, I Can’t Afford to Buy a Politician So I Bought This Sign. Americans have learned the hard way that when rich organizations and wealthy individuals shower Washington with millions in campaign contributions, they get what they want. …

It’s heartbreaking to see what has become of that bargain [the American Social Contract]. Nowadays it’s every man for himself. How did this happen? The rise of the money power in our time goes back forty years. We can pinpoint the date. On August 23, 1971, a corporate lawyer named Lewis Powell—a board member of the death-dealing tobacco giant Philip Morris and a future justice of the Supreme Court—released a confidential memorandum for his friends at the US Chamber of Commerce. We look back on it now as a call to arms for class war waged from the top down.

Recall the context of Powell’s memo. Big business was being forced to clean up its act. Even Republicans had signed on. In 1970 President Nixon put his signature on the National Environmental Policy Act and named a White House Council to promote environmental quality. A few months later millions of Americans turned out for Earth Day. Nixon then agreed to create the Environmental Protection Agency. Congress acted swiftly to pass tough amendments to the Clean Air Act, and the EPA announced the first air pollution standards. There were new regulations directed at lead paint and pesticides. Corporations were no longer getting away with murder. (CONTINUED: http://viciousneutral.net/post/12784940593/the-powell-memo-began-the-1-takeover-of-america)

Right-Wing Rollback: The Powell Memo By Chip Berlet

If the attacks on the legislative agenda of the Obama administration seem to be coming from all directions, that's the desired outcome of 40 years of strategic funding by right-wing elites seeking to roll back the New Deal and restore "free market" government policies. (CONTINUED: http://www.zcommunications.org/right-wing-rollback-the-powell-memo-by-chip-berlet)

Hope or Despair on Earth Day?

(AUDIO: http://www.prx.org/pieces/62033-hope-or-despair-on-earth-day) Reflections on the 41st anniversary of Earth Day, the Fukushima nuclear crisis, the Chernobyl 25th anniversary, the one year anniversary of the BP blowout, and signs of hope from across the country with Brent Blackwelder and Antonia Juhasz. Brent is the president emeritus of the Friends of the Earth and Antonia is the director of the Energy Program at Global Exchange, a San Francisco-based human rights non-profit organization. A Fukushima-like hydrogen explosion could happen at the Hanford Nuclear Waste facilities, that’s according to whistleblower Walt Tamosaitis. The Hanford site in Washington State is home to two-thirds of the nation’s high-level radioactive waste. Joining Earthbeat host Daphne Wysham to discuss Walt’s case – and his being fired for speaking out – is Tom Devine, part of Walt’s legal team and the legal director for the Government Accountability Project. Oil companies like Chevron work with the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and other newspapers to place their advertisements directly opposite the paper’s environmental reporting. Discussing the corporate control of environmental reporting is Kert Davies, Greenpeace’s Research Director and Sut Jhally, a professor in the communications department at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. ++ Kert Davies mentions the Powell Memo, a document written by Supreme Court Justice Lewis S. Powell before he joined the US Supreme Court that outlines how corporations should fight back against negative public opinion (Environmentalism) – and the American Petroleum Institute’s work to undermine climate science. Also discussed is the book, Merchants of Doubt.