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

Today, 3/24: Disrupting Dirty Power - The Eviction of the Fossil Fuel Occupation begins

Posted 11 years ago on March 24, 2012, 4:29 a.m. EST by OccupyWallSt

disrupt dirty power

Today! 5pm at Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, NYC

Consider: During the warmest winter in modern memory, fossil fuel companies cooked up new plans to bake our planet once and for all. Defying public outrage and a presidential rebuff, they laid tar sands pipelines. They imperiled our water supplies with poisonous fracking. They went on drilling and spilling oil in our increasingly lifeless seas. And they continued to move whole mountaintops for that supreme carbon bomb: dirty coal.

Since the first Rio Earth Summit in 1992, our global governments have enabled transient fossil fuel interests to come before the survival of the 100%. The same Wall Street that foreclosed on millions of Americans’ homes are now busy foreclosing on Earth. If there’s a time for Americans to awaken to the climate vortex that is swallowing us whole, 2012 is it.

And that starts with the eviction, on March 24, of the multinational fossil fuel corporations that have been occupying the Earth up until now.

At the United Nations in New York City, and in towns and communities across the land, Occupy Wall Street and allied organizations in under two weeks will launch the first-ever Earth Month: a period of coordinated and sustained nationwide direct actions leading up to Earth Day on April 22.

The targets of the actions—which begin exactly three months before the 2012 Earth Summit in Rio—are three-fold, as Occupy connects the dots between dirty fossil fuel giants, the dirty banks that fund them, and the dirty legislation and subsidies those corporations receive from politicians they help to elect with their profits.

Specific actions throughout the month will target the biggest players in the industry: Big Coal, Big Oil, Big Gas, Big Nukes.

On March 24 in New York City, activists will flip the Occupy meme for a day, converging on the United Nations dressed in the business-as-usual attire of bankers and fossil fuel executives, where they will erect a polluters’ encampment of Wall Street corporations and force authorities to arrest them—the real occupiers that are squandering the planet.

In case you missed going outside since December, here’s some news: Spring came early. So join the movement and begin this global call of action to end impunity for the 1% fossil fuel corporations whose greed imperils us all. See how you and your communities can disrupt the criminal business of dirty power and reclaim the Global Commons for the 100%, by visiting www.disruptdirtypower.org, Facebook, Twitter, or writing to info@disruptdirtypower.org.

The eviction of the polluters starts March 24 at 5pm at Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, NYC. Because the climate can’t wait, and neither will we.




Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by shadz66 (19985) 11 years ago

There is alas, a rather overwhelming international scientific agreement in the actuality of rising temperatures. Even if the US Govt. wishes not to accept or acknowledge the science of major US scientific institutions, such as The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute ( http://www.whoi.edu/ ) or The Scripps Institute of Oceanography ( http://sio.ucsd.edu/ ) etc., internationally the scientists have known for well over a decade that 'something' is afoot.

'Mother Nature' has locked away VAST amounts of Ancient Carbon in the form of peat, coal, oil and gas. We know that there is a Carbon Cycle just as there is a Water Cycle, but that the time scale of the Carbon Cycle (which includes Geological processes) is much, much longer than in the case of water (simplified here to : evaporation, condensation, precipitation & run off).

Therefore, how can we as a sentient species, consider that we can bypass the Carbon Cycle and extract huge amounts of carbon based fuels, burn them and almost instantly (in geological time) return this carbon to the atmosphere Without There Being Any Repercussions ?! What is our individual and collective intuition on this matter ?

That Carbon Dioxide even tho' it is essential to life via photo-synthesis, is also a 'Greenhouse Gas' is undeniable. The Greenhouse Effect is well understood and without it life on this planet would not exist. We owe our previously relatively stable climate to this and the level of CO2 has been pretty stable at ~ 300ppm (0.03%) for a very, very long time (verifiable from ice and lake sediment cores). However, that proportion has risen in the last 40 years to ~390ppm (0.039%) which is a 30% increase in CO2 levels.

Further, both water vapour and methane are also greenhouse gases and the level of both will also rise with rising global temperatures. This is termed 'positive feedback'. A Human Influenced and possible 'run away' Greenhouse Effect is empirically, scientifically and mathematically possible, so the question is do we accept or 'believe' that it is happening ?

The atmosphere is but a film above us like 'cling-film' on a water melon. It's easy to assume that we can have no effect on the vastness of the atmosphere but this is not true. As the atmosphere warms, the dynamic and apparently chaotic but actually relatively ordered 'Climate System', has 'more energy' and will operate at a higher energetic level. Thus, 'The Climate' will be seemingly more chaotic to our perception. We are already witnessing weather records being taken to new levels throughout the world and this matter is not really up for debate - unless there is a truly vast international conspiracy of scientists at all levels !

Globally, as a species we can feel and detect that 'something is changing', that something is different now to how things were but we may choose to behave like the proverbial 'frog in a pan on a stove' &/or as a 'rabbit caught in a bright light' !!

It's now a question of adaptation, however consider this : That "The International 'Darksider-Sith' Ruling Elites" [translation : 'Parasites' !] actually do NOT mind countless hundreds of millions of the rest of us perishing if it means more for them and Less Of Us !!!

The above is compounded by 'Militant Pro-Industrialism' as well as by Religious Nutters - who IF they have belief in 'Biblical End Times' (ie some Jews, Christians and Muslims !!!) do not think human action can possibly affect The Earth's Climate as only 'God' could do that AND when compounded by the ignorant, those in denial and those who know but just don't give a shit ... well, we have quite a recipe for forthcoming "interesting times" ...


fiat lux ...

ommm mane padme hummm ... ~~~ *

[-] 4 points by factsrfun (8308) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

a very good comment, the sad thing is, I fear that any who understand it, already understand, if you know what I mean, it's just so sad that so many want to continue to believe any lie that makes them feel good

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 11 years ago

Perhaps 'frf', it is less a case of "what makes them feel good" and more due a psychic-defence against the unknown, itself resulting from all the fear and ignorance - mostly stoked, provoked and manipulated by The Wholly Corporately Owned MSM (ABCNNBCBS / FUX NEWzzz et al).

Information, education, reason and Collective Wisdom must come to fore ...

dum spiro, spero.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (8308) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

I have thirty years experience with the wisdom of the Hermitage Foundation, I have been frustrated for many years and at many times when I have tried to get people whom I was told were liberals, like Al Franken, to talk a little truth. What I found out is that the truth is so bad they refuse for fear of causing riots, that was the excuse of Ford pardoning Nixon, letting the GOP steal the 2000 election to name two.

Here’s a link to my thread about how Al let me down:


I have heard the reason they won’t talk about this, is that it would cost real money, most of the income tax paid to the feds comes from the 15% rate.

Anyway this place gives me a chance to post my bumper stickers, I hope you read some.

[-] 2 points by JosephB (26) 11 years ago

Added to what you have said, there is observed streaming of methane hydrate bubbles from the warming sea floor in the Artic.
This stuff is many many times more destructive to the atmosphere than CO2. Its release in increasing quantities is the beginning of the predicted thermal runaway that mankind will be powerless to stop.
Warming will accelerate for centuries if not Millenia and will not reach a stable temperature for hundreds of thousands of years. The climate that was able to support human existence in large numbers will be long gone.

Stopping all fossil fuel burning now looks to be the only hope. The economic argument of "hardship" for the global trading is just nonsense when compared with the consequences of continuing business as usual for the short term greed of the 1%.

Change will occur and it is a matter on planning intelligently for survival or letting the Psychopathic 1% drive us to destruction.

[-] 6 points by shadz66 (19985) 11 years ago

'JB' : I thank you for and agree with, your point. Further, as the Russian and Canadian Tundra thaws out, then even more methane will be released from the previously frozen bogs and marshes adding to the problem which you identify in your comment. Also your allusion to the 'time lag' between human activity and it's affect on the climate system is also a very important point.

One avenue towards a sustainable solution I believe, is the well known process of fermentation. Alcohol is an excellent combustible fuel and wherever we can grow plants, we can have cellulose from which we can ferment & distil alcohol. Fast growing plants like hemp, jute and flax can lock up huge amounts of carbon and also have a multitude of other uses from food, fibre, fertilisers and fuel to pharmaceuticals, carbon-fibre and building materials. In so doing we would utilise a 'carbon loop' - growing & locking up carbon then releasing some of it back as we burnt the alcohol. This is far more preferable to interfering with the long term 'Carbon Cycle' and returning ancient carbon straight back to the atmosphere.

We as humans have the wit, where-with-all & now need to have food, fibre and fuel available to us at near negligible cost (if not free) ... but 'The Mendacious & Manipulative Market Maniacs' want scarcity and thus to manipulate 'supply and demand' for no other reason than they want to accumulate ... More Mere Money !!! WTF ?!!

Radix omnium malorum est cupiditas !

[-] 3 points by JohnWa (513) 11 years ago

When the billions of tons of methane cease to be locked in a frozen state within the tundra as ice cover decreases , that release will accelerate warming in runaway and sea level rise will also accelerate further at an unprecedented rate never seen before in the geological evidence known.

All this prediction is of best guesses but based on solid science. Computer models are not yet available to give more definitive scenarios but the extension of existing models are much more frightening than what is outlined above.

Sea level rise of 5 to 25 metres near the end of the century looks to be a range well within that likely when Tundra methane becomes unstoppable. Sea level rise would then continue to accelerate levelling off eventually at hundreds of metres above todays level.

The risk is so high and the cost cataclysmic.

To date rise has slowly accelerated within the age of fossil fuel use with about 8 inches over a hundred or so years.

Current discussion of oil prices, tar sand extraction and further oil exploration are all driven by a ludicrous consumerism promoted by deliberate market economy strategies of yesteryear.
Design of our cities , transport systems, food and water supply. waste management, health systems and infrastructure, are all hinged on fossil fuel and high energy demands.

The likelihood of that continuing is remote. Adaption can be intelligent or left to the greedy demands of the oligarchy.

The past myopia has been manipulated by the 1% engorging themselves.

Occupy represents a protest very necessary to arouse the apathetic masses before it is too late to avoid massive changes and uncontrolled population depletion.

[-] 3 points by sandcanyongal (3) 11 years ago

Hi all, Yes. Spring not only came early here in Tehachapi, CA, but there was no winter at all. Up here in the mountains, the weather is at least 20 degrees warmer at night time. While on this topic ,I live in the Tehachapi Pass where the subsidized corporations are installing 100s upon100s of industrial level wind turbines and now industrial level solar plants against the will of the people. Both the Board of Supervisors and developers are working together to run the people off of their properties so the land can be converted to energy plants. This is the home of the California condor, one of the rarest birds on the planet. The turbines are going into precious wildlands and avian flyways. The peoples' objections are "blown off". Enough. The wildlands aren't renewable. When they're gone, they're gone. The same is happening in the Mojave Desert!

With this said I agree 100% with your demands! I love all of you and will support you any way I can. - Silence is Consent.

[-] 2 points by amanofnoimportance (82) from Orlando, FL 11 years ago

This really comes down to OUR survival as humans at the bottom line.

This planet is resilient. We will kill ourselves (and will admittedly take lots of animal and plant life with us) with any harm that we can possibly commit on the course we are taking. But we can't take the whole world with us.

Another form of life will spring up. The world doesn't care about humanity.

You care about humanity. You want to save yourself, don't you? You want to save the world for future generations of yourself? Right? This is the safeguard against the death of our planet: The fear of our annihilation, or our annihilation in the end.

So...at the very least, we'll do it for ourselves. Don't fret. At the same time, push if you feel compelled.

[-] 1 points by dewdney11 (8) 11 years ago

Well done for holding it..The evictions are not important even if we unite for a short time..They all add up And like in the speech the dots on the lines will come together....



[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8308) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

If anyone is interested in evidence of surveillance test falsification and cover-up I have it, it’s old stuff, but some of the people involved are quite high in the industry now.





[-] -1 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 11 years ago

Forget it. These people are just becoming more and more deluded.

[-] -2 points by po6059 (72) 11 years ago

without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the earth would have been fried by the recent solar storm, carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats.

[-] 4 points by JosephB (26) 11 years ago

I cannot see any evidence of this nor reputable scientific views that would support protection with rising CO2.

The complexities of climate science are often distorted.

[-] 2 points by po6059 (72) 11 years ago

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ if the page is longer there do your own search on the nasa page "solar storm dumps gigawatts into earths upper atmosphere- NASA science

[-] 2 points by JosephB (26) 11 years ago

Thanks Po5059.
It looks quite an alarming new slant on what is happening with the vapor trails left by planes, but the real breakthrough is observation and follow up of the mechanisms of what this polluting is doing. This is giving a better understanding of how aircraft are stuffing up big time which may be added onto the extravagant waste and massive carbon footprint of air travel and war games, both unsustainable on many levels.

Sun spot activity and solar storms are not new.

The complexities of what impact they have on the total warming of Earth is a part of daily balance of absorption. Total results of accumulated heat are captured in the temperature record,

Similarly the postulated effect of CO2 acting as a useful shield cannot be taken alone as a wider appreciation of combined effects tend to undermine this assumption.

The article is not well written and can cause confusion as to what the absorption and re radiation means. Infrared is invisible being below red and the northern lights are not caused by that but ionization. Much of the radiation coming from the sun is reflected by the upper atmosphere as various layers ionize. The heating discussed is local and the re-radiation complex.

Sun spot cycles have been near dormant in recent times and the pattern of activity is in cycles. You may note that the amount of energy reaching Earth from the sun in one day is in excess of what NY would use in 200,000 years.

I am suspicious of the wording and writing style used in the Nasa article as they have written it almost implying CO2 and NO are helpful being in abundance in the upper atmosphere.

Nasa has released some damning data on various aspects of global warming and ice melt. Could this article in your link be a politically directed piece of PR.

“When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
This quote above taken from the article, is not a scientist speaking.

[-] -2 points by po6059 (72) 11 years ago

save the planet, global warming, climate change,.......all terms used by people to control you.if you fall for this nonsense, the left knows that have a victory in controlling you.

[-] 3 points by JohnWa (513) 11 years ago

Big oil wants people to doubt the evidence of how CO2 from their fossil fuels is stuffing up the biosphere big time. They don't care about the mess they just want money and will leave the problems for the generations ahead.

By believing that no change is happening you are helping them.

They are the 1%

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 11 years ago

the goal of socialism is marxism. the administration that is place in d.c. at this time has this as their goal.

[-] 2 points by JosephB (26) 11 years ago

Thank you for the advice. PO6059

Neither Right nor left can control the hard evidence that CO2 levels are rising,

The seas are absorbing more CO2 and becoming more acidic as the amount of atmospheric CO2 increases. Also the sea has become warmer by 1 degree C in recent times and sea level has risen 200mm since fossil fuel use has proliferated.

The CO2 level rise in the atmosphere is accelerating, ocean acidity speeding up and so is the rate of sea level increase.

To ignore these simple things leaves ignorance to take over whether that be right or left.

Take your pick.


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

From your article which you could have placed at any time instead of fucking around.


Footnote: (1) No one on Earth’s surface would have felt this impulse of heat. Mlynczak puts it into perspective: “Heat radiated by the solid body of the Earth is very large compared to the amount of heat being exchanged in the upper atmosphere. The daily average infrared radiation from the entire planet is 240 W/m2—enough to power NYC for 200,000 years.”

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

I believe that you are giving credit where it is not due. Find a report and paste the link.

You probably meant to give credit to the ozone layer and to Earth's magnetic field. The ozone layer which is being destroyed.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8308) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

Good morning DK, hey did you see that NOVA about how after 9/11 when all the planes were grounded the temps climbed to projected levels, the guy who did the work had a theory that odd as it is the polution shades us, as we do better on paticulars temps go up, of course if we don't do better we die from lung disease, anyway bottom line is there is a "build up" of not yet seen temp increase coming

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

Morning factsrfun. Do you mean to say that carbon pollution does have more then one effect on the atmosphere? Intriguing. I'm not much into the choking aspect of particulate pollution myself.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (8308) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

He was mostly addressing the claims about how temps should be higher than we see, if CO2 were having the effect predicted and all. It's a good piece here’s the link:


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

Thank you I will have a look. Isn't it funny how some bad things can have apparent pluses in them? I mean before they kill you?


[-] 3 points by factsrfun (8308) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

I have heard it said that the planet's climate is a rather complex system, I have no reason to doubt that. That's why when I do listen, I listen to the folks with lots of schoolin'.

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

True Dat.

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 11 years ago

It took millions of years for the atmosphere to settle in all its layers of gases. Makes me wonder what happens when we fly planes through it , or worse shoot a space shuttle up straight through it disturbing each layer with turbulence .. kinda like throwing a stone in a quiet pond and watch how it stirs up a cloud.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 11 years ago

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012mar_saber/ if the page in longer there , do you own search on the nasa page. " Solar Storm dumps gigawatts into earths upper atmosphere-NASA science

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

Interesting. This is from the article you wanted to quote? I ask as someone else was kind enough to post it.


Well, I might now. After a lifetime of enjoying contrails, it came as a surprise to me to learn recently that something so ephemeral may not be a harmless by-product of the jet age but may in fact impact the climate. This is of particular concern in well-traveled air corridors, where contrails by the hundreds can spread into man-made cirrus clouds that can both block sunlight from reaching the Earth and trap radiated heat from escaping to space.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 11 years ago

the article you posted has NOTHING to do with the one i am talking about.

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

So sorry. That is what you get when you tell someone to find the article you are referring to instead of providing a working link. Misunderstandings.

The more you know.

This has been a public service announcement.

BTW - I didn't post the article.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 11 years ago

you posted it. or re-posted it as a rebuttle.

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

Still can't find your article? Stop whining and get to work.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 11 years ago

can't find it? no research skills?

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

Is there really an article or are you just trying to get by with slinging shit as usual?

I mean you say there is but you for some reason are unwilling to provide it.

Yet if someone else provides an article you don't like it because its not the one you wanted.

Go cuddle for comfort with your buddy VantagePoint250624.

To bad so sad that you both live on bullshit, but at least you have that in common.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 11 years ago

go to the NASA website,.........do search for " solar storm dumps gigawatts into earths upper atmosphere " when ows/dems/libs cant /wont deal with facts, they froth over. Happy frothing !!

[-] 0 points by VantagePoint250624 (-51) 11 years ago

Ha ha ha! YOU instructing ANONE to work!

That's a riot!

Is it much work to hold your hand out for Obamamoney?

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

Whats your " VantagePoint " 250624

(o) do you enjoy your all exclusive view? No wonder though that you are out of touch with reality.

[-] 1 points by VantagePoint250624 (-51) 11 years ago

I know you are an internet addict and live on this forum during all hours you are awake.


From which corrupt interest do you receive your pay?

Obama? Soros? IMF?

People aren't stupid and don't believe for one minute that there is any trust the owned government deserves, or that any efforts to negotiate with it are tantamount to anything more than pissing upside down.

Of course, voting D will fix everything.

Fool, voting has never fixed anything for as long as any one posting on the net has been alive.

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

Page not found - try again?

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 11 years ago

do you own search,..............."solar storm dumps gigawatts into earths upper atmosphere- NASA science. go to the nasa page and do your search

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

Figured you would want to support your position.

Guess not.


[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 11 years ago

you are either too lazy or too stupid to find the story with the info i provided.

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

Sure point the finger at someone who is not trying to make a certain point and call them lazy for not supporting someone Else's conjecture, call them lazy for not trying to prove the point for the one who made the conjecture.

Huh. Silly me.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 11 years ago

No, stupid you.

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

You're provided story has NOTHING to do with global warming.

It's about the uppermost atmospheres ability to shed the heat from solar flairs.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 11 years ago

the story is about the value and importance of Co2 in the atmosphere. No Co2, and the earth would severely damaged. It protects the planet,..........is that too difficult for you to understand?

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

There's a very real difference between the ionosphere and the troposphere.

Is that so hard for you to understand?

I have yet to hear anyone say we need to remove all the CO2.

Balance is the key.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 11 years ago

anything in the lower atmosphere works it way upward. how else do you think the CO2 get into the upper atmosphere? it doesnt " grow there".

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

That's called atmospheric wind currents most notably recognizable from weather reports are the jet-streams.

See we live on this really really large spherical object.

Now get this - this really really large spherical object is enveloped in what is referred to as an atmosphere ( I guess for lack of a better term ).

Anyhoo - This really really large spherical object is thought to spin inside of this atmospheric envelope.

Result? Much chaos ensues. Add sunlight and moisture and it becomes even more entertaining.

Huh. - where was I?

Oh...oh yeah.- you see in all of this spinning and wind currents and stuff continually stirring things up? Things can stay aloft for quite a while. Even things that are heavier than Air ( that's some of that atmospheric stuff ). You know particulates of various types.

Some of these particulates can even be picked-up off of the ground by those weird air currents jet streams and such.

I know I know. Who knew! Right?

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

I don't have the time, nor the patience to explain it all.

You really need to improve your understanding of how it works.

My point is, solar flairs have little effect on our weather.

Man does.


[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 11 years ago

IF you were able to read the article,...you would know that's not true.

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

I did read both articles.

Did you?

You're talking apples and oranges.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 11 years ago

i read both. the one from the scientific american has NOTHING to do with the one from NASA

[-] 0 points by VantagePoint250624 (-51) 11 years ago

These two clowns "but may in fact" are EXPERTS on any and all subjects.

Just ask them.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 11 years ago

they have a vast knowledge of nothing.

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

Po they don't know these subjects they are not from a science background they are liberal trolls that spend to much time on the internet. That is a good subject to bring to the table of how the earth is changing. Its was good not to say that we do need these gases in the air for plants and the more C02 in the air may bring more and bigger plant life

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 11 years ago

without co2 , we would die. trees take it in and produce oxygen.

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

i know that dont worry i am a man from and in the science field

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 years ago

the public should be able to understand

[-] 2 points by po6059 (72) 11 years ago