Smash capitalism, liberate the planet


Marita Noon

Occupy Wall Street is a chaotic collection of people with conflicting messages. According to the New York Times, they represent “A feeling of mass injustice.” They want to:

  • make banks safer, and let them fail.
  • name and shame fat-cat salarymen.
  • free legislators from special interests.
  • change the United States’ two-party system.

One sign seems to cancel out another. Some, like “End the Fed,” could be seen at a Ron Paul or Tea Party rally. Some, like “unf*#@ the world,” are vague. Others, like, “Smash Capitalism, Liberate the Planet,” represent an underlying mindset.

It would be easy to write them off as a group of kooks who will go away after they have had their 10 minutes of fame. However, what began as an apparent grassroots movement may have been hijacked. Commenting on Occupy Wall Street, Nancy Pelosi said “God bless them.” According to the Washington Post, “Prominent House Democrats are embracing the Occupy Wall Street protests,” and CNN reports that labor unions have pledged their support:

“Wall Street protests swelled Wednesday to their largest numbers yet, after local unions pledged support to a third week of demonstrations against income inequality, corporate greed, corruption and a list of other social ills.”

Rush Limbaugh believes George Soros money is behind the protests.

What if…

What if they do not go away? What if they were to get their way?

Because they don’t have a unified message, it is difficult to predict what kind of utopia the effort would produce, but we can make some educated guesses that I suggest need to be incorporated into the news cycle and private conversations.


It is clear that “corporations” are the villains — broadly represented by “capitalism,” specifically “banks.” Somehow, they believe that if we could “Smash Capitalism,” we would “Liberate the Planet.” If I were a newscaster amongst the demonstrators camping out in Zuccotti Park, I’d ask them, “Do you think the world would be a better place if corporate America was in charge or if environmentalists were in charge?”

I can picture the on-camera scene. A demonstrator dressed like a “corporate zombie” would scoff at the very question. “Environmentalists!” would be the quick response. states that there is no official list of demands, yet a list of 13 “demands” remains on their website — posted by “Anonymous.” Number five is: “Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil-fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative-energy economy up to energy demand.”

There is widespread belief that oil, gas and coal — all fossil fuels — are at the base of much of the world’s ills. Demand seven includes “decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.”

So what would the world look like if just these energy-related demands could come true with the wave of a magic wand, if the environmentalists were in charge?

The foundation of my new book, Energy Freedom, is an in-depth study of environmental groups’ websites’ goals as they relate to energy. In short, they want to “kill,” “block” and “deny.” The only thing they want to expand is moratoriums.

Here’s a sampling of what could happen to four major aspects of American life if the environmentalists were in charge.


Most Americans have the freedom to come and go in their individual cars as they choose. A 2006 survey found that 91 percent of Americans consider their cars to be a necessity, not a luxury. Yet environmental extremists are actively working to stop or prevent drilling for oil and gas. They also aim to shut down coal-fueled power plants and oppose nuclear energy. With a reduced capacity for electricity and transportation, our lifestyle, as we know it, ceases to exist.

Modern conveniences

The same survey found that most Americans consider things like microwaves, air conditioning and heating, computers, and cell phones to be a necessity. However, in a limited-fuel, environmentally controlled society, these items would have to go. They all require electricity — as do electric cars. Additionally, each of these “necessities” is made from plastic and plastic is typically made from hydrocarbons.


Like modern conveniences, our health is heavily dependent on both energy and plastics. If you have been in a doctor’s office or hospital lately, you know that even taking your temperature requires electricity and plastics. Today’s extreme regulations could have an adverse impact on our health.


Without abundant electricity to purify water and pump it into your home and remove and process waste matter, you couldn’t live there. You’d need to move to a location near a fresh water source. Additionally, many environmental groups want to block the cutting of trees — making the construction of new homes near a potential fresh water source virtually impossible.

We need exploration and innovation

We all want clean air, fresh water, and a safe food supply, but stopping, opposing, denying and blocking are not the ways to get it.

Huge strides have been made since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Despite increases in the typical activities that produce pollution, America is much cleaner now than it was 20 years ago. Since 1970, our population has increased and our energy consumption has gone up. We drive more miles each year. At the same time, our American ingenuity has been at work generating an increase in our Gross National Product. If you listen to Occupy Wall Street, you’d assume that pollution has also increased. However, the truth is that, despite this growth, our aggregate emissions are approximately half of what they were.

Michael Economides, author of Energy and Climate Wars says, “The U.S. is certainly one of the cleanest, more environmentally responsible nations in the world. Virtually no European country can boast cleaner waters, more pristine rural landscapes or air quality.”

We need exploration and innovation in America. We need to tap into energy sources currently — or in the process of being made — off limits in America by the Endangered Species Act or by plans to lock up resources under the guise of a national monument. When you think about it, energy makes America great — and we do it in a manner cleaner and safer than anywhere else on the planet.

Marita Noon is the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy. Marita’s 20th book, Energy Freedom, has just been released.

23 thoughts on “Smash capitalism, liberate the planet

  1. This has become about energy…fortunately thats just ONE of millions of complaints so far….right now people are encouraged to voice there complaints be it “they dont get to water their yard enough” to “down with corporate scum” we are just getting the people to voice thier own complaints however they feel they need to as long as its peaceful, people need to know its alright and not to be scared anymore, you will eventually get the real demands of the collected force, till then people just need the chance to express their own discust.

  2. stever,

    The only assertion that I made in my initial comment was that Marita Noon is a paid lobbyist working for multiple political organizations that are committed to protecting the corporate interests of the fossil fuel industry. Please scroll down to the bottom of this thread and you can easily verify this fact.

    All of my other comments were specifically addressed to other posts in response. Your continued attempts to portray my position as something more sinister would appear to be maintained for the purposes of continued argument. Do you not comprehend that the word “unless,” acts as a modifying proviso by creating an if/then situation when used in a complex sentence?

    If you really would like to continue this conversation and are not just picking another extended onscreen fight in which you refuse to answer any of the simple questions offered in response to your comments, then you can always click on my screen name and leave a message for me at my video channel. As far as continuing to engage with you on this thread… that’s no longer going to happen.

  3. Durablebrad you are asserting something that you have no basis to support, and are unwilling to investigate. You are the one stretching, if I did that I’d get hurt. LOL

  4. When I read statements such as “Occupy Wall Street is a chaotic collection of people with conflicting messages” and “One sign seems to cancel out another” I can’t help but wonder how anyone who wrote this or who reads this can’t process that you could say the same thing about a Democratic or Republican convention or rally.
    It is called freedom.

  5. @durablebrad

    I am not qualified to render an opinion on the legal ruling in Citizens although I suspect you are only interested in my opinion to pigeon hole me in a political sense. I don’t do “points” of reference.

    I suggest you review the archives of this blog and the previous version (hint: look for Carter Bundy as one example) and tell me how you decide to draw a bright line with this column. You seem to imply that Heath is on the take which is a stretch, at least, and an accusation without foundation, in my opinion.

  6. MJM,

    Inaccurate personifications of people you have no interest in meeting or learning to appreciate, due to a host of preconceived notions, rather than actual experience, would appear to be the source of your attacks ad hominem against members of Occupy Albuquerque. If you took the time, as I have, to actually speak with the UNM officials who are attempting to secure the campus and provide an opportunity for free expression of peaceful protesters, you might have a different perspective.

    Furthermore, the videos available on youtube and other streaming video sources offer everyone the ability to observe the protesters in real time without the lens of media to distort and compromise the events, or the message. Unfortunately, you appear to have missed the point of both over the course of the past month.

  7. stever,

    Just so I have a point of reference: Do you support the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling?

    If not, then why would you support paid lobbyists infecting a public forum with corporate propaganda?

    If so, then why would you claim that “this is not a discussion,” and why would your opinion matter more than any other?

  8. durablebrad. thank you for your comments..but I am attacking not one..just articulating what my senses tell me….

  9. when paid lobbysits are permitted to infect the discussion

    I think I understand the problem. I am pretty sure this is not your web site nor is this a discussion. People from a wide range of interests have had articles posted by Heath. If you think there is a bias that you find unacceptable, I think there are other places you can go. As far as I have seen in four plus years, thats not a reasonable observation.

  10. durablebrad says: “I do not read ANY of the websites you mention”. Pity, for you would be very comfortable there and enjoy them, you would fit together like peas and carrots.

  11. Dr. J,

    I do not read ANY of the websites you mention.


    It is irrelevant how much revenue is derived from an industry when paid lobbysits are permitted to infect the discussion, unless of course they are contributing financial support to this site… then that would be relevant.


    Attacks ad hominem are generally the course of action mot likely to be taken by those unable to understand the debate, and without the ability to form a reasonable argument in response to the assertions of their opposition. Thank you for providing further proof in your previous tautology.

  12. Oh, and with the comments about Occupy Wall Street and the protests it is inspiring all being negative so far (I for one appreciate MJM calling them dirty hippies. That’s the spirit!), I thought I might as well add in a link trying to explain their side with, ya know, facts and such. Don’t worry, Ms. Noon, they don’t say much about energy-producing companies.

  13. Skeptic, if it’s the EPA’s job (that we give them with our tax dollars and congressional approval of their existence) to protect our health from environmental threats, and it’s the finding of the EPA that greenhouse gases may endanger public health and welfare, then it’s the EPA’s job to try to control greenhouse gas emissions. That Obama doesn’t agree is disappointing, since they are trying to do the job that we have told them to do.

    I agree that the benefits of regulations need to be balanced against the economic harm they can do, but I have to go a step further and ask that the economic harm of lack of regulation needs to be included in this tabulation. A paper from 2009 about reducing exposure to lead and the economic benefits of this increased regulation (less reduction of IQ as child -> smarter, more efficient workers as adults) comes to mind as a good example of this kind of cost-benefits analysis.

  14. Well that Occupy Wall Street crowd is certainly an interesting group. I sure respect the right to peaceful protest what ever makes you unhappy….But c’mon. Back in those good old days…about 4 or 5 years ago, everyone thought they were smarter than the average person…That includes me and every one else…Hey you could flip your house like pancakes on the griddle…So lots of shills joined that party and lost their back sides. The stupidity of others sure put a dent in the value of my real estate holdings…Oh BooHooo.. But you takes your chances and some times you loose…Only this time the marginally informed folks like those that occupy Wall Street want to point fingers at someone else. Perhaps they should look in the mirror. Has anyone beside me looked at those folks occupying part of UNM? I might offer some of these folks a job if they could a. pass the drug test..b. take a bath…c. get a real education…

  15. artiofab,

    Yes, according to this EPA chart, the
    trends in emissions have decreased even as population, energy consumed, and economic growth have increased.

    But, you are correct in implying the importance of the Clean Air Act in meeting this.

    The Clean Air Act worked, and we can be thankful.

    On the other hand, committees don’t like to end.

    The CAA has met its objectives – pollution levels are lower than targets set in the CAA.

    But the EPA now wants to regulate CO2, which is not a pollutant.

    And the EPA wanted to set a new standard for ozone that was even lower than the CAA.

    Thankfully Obama rejected this move.

    Ozone is nasty stuff but it doesn’t need to be at zero ( some level of ozone is created by trees ).

    And someone needs to balance the benefits of regulations with the economic harm they do.

    Beware the tyranny of the bureaucracy.

  16. Ms. Noon….you forgot to answer your own question…”What if they don’t go away…?”
    Therein lays the big question.
    Possible scenario…..
    1) Those on Wall Street could possibly be held accountable.
    2) The bankers that pretty much singlehandedly caused the world economic crisis with the deriviatives and mortgage shenannigans might have to pony up to the foreclosure mess and start working with homeowners instead of making ghost towns out of neighborhoods
    3) Maybe big oil will begin to take environmental situations more seriously….lest we forget the catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico a while back
    4) Maybe American jobs will return to this nation and many of those on the “occupy bandwagon” will get a job and go back to work
    5) Maybe the 40,000,000 uninsured Americans will be given the opportunity to buy into a public option thus creating a healthy society that will indeed be a stronger society.

    Maybe Ms. Noon you were really afraid to answer your own question. But, good on ya for at least bringing the thought to all the readers.

  17. Ms. Noon AKA Marita Littauer is notorious for calling environmentalists watermelons and calling her ignorant adherents to “smash the watermelons.”

    I am sorry this commentary is just plain untrue . There is a quote: “Fiction writing is great, you can make up almost anything.” Ms. Noon needs a new job and maybe should explore fiction writing!

    Energy Makes America Great Inc is an outside oil lobbyist group, and Ms. Noon is simply an oil industry mouthpiece. It was just incorporated in New Mexico on August 30, 2010 in Albuquerque. Beware of these outside groups invading New Mexico.

    Marita Noon has also been working with New Mexico Turn Around – the group advising and handling Susana Martinez.

    Ms. Noon even insulted Native Americans during the Mount Taylor dispute by saying: “Then, you have Native Americans — I may sound racist, but I don’t mean to be — but they are not the people who are naturally public speakers; they don’t have a lot of experience at putting their thoughts together and articulating them. But they stood up with prepared, written-out statements.”

    Ms Noon also commented that God placed mineral wealth under the earth for us to use, she preached, and the tribes were getting in the way of America’s greatness by forcing us to rely on imported energy, including uranium from Russia.

    Read this article on Ms. Noon and the Mount Taylor controversy -shocking.

    Ms. Noon is the author of 19 books on Christianity with the pen name Marita Littauer.

  18. I suppose durablebrad thinks the Oil and Gas Industry in New Mexico will contribute as much to the state’s economy and revenue by becoming nonprofit.

    As for Heath’s use of guest columns, one would have to be willfully blind to not see that the overall selection is very balanced.

  19. Well said Ms. Noon. And one reason I like this blog is that Heath allows paid lobbyists and opinion activists from all sides to express their opinions and present their arguments. durablebrad, if you want a left wing echo chamber go to the Daily Kos, Huffington Post, the Daily Hurricane, or one small planet, they will fit your requirement that only left wing, liberal views are allowed.

  20. Heath,

    Why do you allow the paid lobbyists of the fossil fuel industry to find fault in anything that threatens the bottom line of their masters by hijacking your site? Don’t you do any research of the advocacy groups that threaten our collective future with their self-interested slant on reality?

  21. I’m sorta confused on what this has to do with New Mexico politics.

    There’s a lot of contradictory arguments (America has a clean environment, so let’s break it to explore for more energy!) in here that I’m guessing people will take care of, but I wanted to point out that the one small error of omission here.

    Despite increases in the typical activities that produce pollution, America is much cleaner now than it was 20 years ago. Since 1970, our population has increased and our energy consumption has gone up. … However, the truth is that, despite this growth, our aggregate emissions are approximately half of what they were.

    If this claim is true, and I’ll let other people do the math on that, but if this claim is true, and the US has kept its standard of pollution low over the last 40 years while increasing its energy consumption, what could be the cause of that?

    Did the Clean Air Act (passed in 1963 and amended in 1970, 1977, and 1990) help? The Clean Water Act of 1977? The National Wild and Scenic River Act of 1968? The other dozen or so acts that have been passed in the past ~50 years? Is there any sort of correlation between the US’s good environment and environmental legislation? The same environmental legislations which Ms. Noon wants to cut back on?