With 60+ BILLION food animals on the planet, this should be our first step in the Climate March! The best chance to mitigate climate change is to severely reduce consumption of animal foods. More than 1/3 of human induced warming is attributable to animal agriculture. Methane is 24 times more potent than CO2 but takes only 7 years to cycle out of the atmosphere. CO2 takes around 100 years to come out. Human pursuit of animal protein is the leading cause of methane release and a primary cause of CO2 concentrating in the atmosphere. Check the facts and act!

    “As environmental science has advanced, it has become apparent that the human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future: deforestation, erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities, and the spread of disease.” Worldwatch Institute, “Is Meat Sustainable?”

    “If every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetables and grains… the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off of U.S. roads.” Environmental Defense Fund

    “A 1% reduction in world-wide meat intake has the same benefit as a three trillion-dollar investment in solar energy.” ~ Chris Mentzel, CEO of Clean Energy

    There is one single industry destroying the planet more than any other. But no one wants to talk about it… http://cowspiracy.com

    Step by Step Guide: How to Transition to a Vegan Diet http://www.onegreenplanet.org/vegan-food/step-by-step-guide-how-to-transition-to-vegan-diet/

  • susan haig

    Rick brings up important issues, but here he commits the ‘intentional fallacy.’ Corporations comprise individuals. Some corporations are more public-spirited than others, but it hardly makes sense to view them monolithically as ‘the corporate world.’ The recent march in NYC was a civic breakthrough; a movement that was still considered ‘fringe’ by many in the news media was manifest as a broad gathering of citizens and organizations from diverse regions and walks of life. Business interests don’t obscure the central issue: citizen stewards need to be vocal and visible, if corporations and governments are to adopt responsible and sensible policies.

  • Carlos Campana

    I find it rather bizarre that march organizers couldn’t articulate a more forceful program for climate and environmental justice, that would at a minimum resonated with the concerns of everyday people about economic instability, unemployment and low wages.

    Also,it appear that little effort or thought seems to have been given to linking activists so they can engage in future struggle on this issue, or the promotion of any particular follow-up action of any kind. Good luck to them, but just as war is too important to leave to generals, the future of the planet is too important to leave to the banker-hipster-environmental commissars.

    We ought to be able to call people out for local assemblies and street actions, such that we could shut down business activity in a national general strike. Then you would know that this is a people’s movement, and that we are serious about about confronting the carbon establishment and ending environmental crimes against humanity.

  • Jim

    Interesting article except there is to my knowledge no financial link between the Peoples Climate March and Clinate Week NYC. The corporate sponsors of Climate Week NYC supported an event on the Monday at the Morgan Library, and a web portal that provided information about everything linked to climate happening in New York that week (including the march). As far as I know, Lockheed Martin no more sponsored the March than this article does in writing about it.

  • Terry Fernsler

    Unapologetically weighing in late, because this is a discussion that needs to be ongoing.

    This is the sort of narrow, neoliberal thinking that got us into the global warming problem in the first place. Yes, food animals are an environmental–and therefore a social–problem. To offer it as a panacea is silly, because you do not take into consideration unintended consequences. For example, what if farmers growing feed crops turned them into biofuels? What impact would that have on the environment? We will not make the changes needed to stem global warming–or world poverty, or hunger, or disease–by focusing on only one factor. And that is why we have a so much more difficult task than greewashing status-quo proponents. As humans, we have the capacity to change our behavior; as Americans, have we the will?

  • Terry Fernsler

    While corporate sponsorship of “climate change” marches (I still call it what it is–global warming) is distressing because of the indoubtable greenwashing that accompanies it, it should come as no surprise. Nonprofits, even (or perhaps especially) environmental nonprofits, have for years been seeking financial support from where the money is. In these days of rampant corporate capitalism, the money is with the large corporations. When I was taking a resource development course in a master’s-level nonprofit leadership program a couple of years ago, the instructor mentioned how the Pareto principle, as applied to fundraising, had shifted from 80/20 to 90/10, I was ready with my question: “Doesn’t that move us perilously close to relying too much on one source for financial capital?” His response was, of course, “Yes,” but we did not have time to discuss it.

    With the outcome of the Great Republican Recession of 2008-(ongoing) a consolidation of corporate strength and the weakening of the middle class, we should expect to see more and more of this sort of thing, until the nonprofit sector realizes that financial capital is not its core competency, nor can it expect to compete with the business sector to become so.