Marching On

The People’s Climate March set out to gather concerned peoples, and it did just that. Whether or not the march will grow to have the societal influence it set out to is, on the other hand, doubtful. It did, however, make a statement in uniting marchers in several cities across the world, setting the stage for more action.Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary General, was among the famous names who attended the People’s Climate March as it rolled through New York City last week, along with Tom Steyer, Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Keith Ellison. They were among approximately 311,000 other protesters on the curbsides of New York who gathered to raise awareness about climate change and to present a united front in common goals: stopping fracking, reducing carbon emissions and saving the environment for future generations. The event was timed with the aim of putting pressure on world leaders who gathered this Tuesday at the Climate Summit in the United Nations. Unfortunately, leaders of countries with major contributions to carbon emissions, such as China’s Premier, Xi Jinping, and India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, were not present.While the march did present the appearance of a unified front of people who are energized and concerned for change, to say that such a congregation is enough to convince world leaders to change profitable policies is myopic at best. One must realize, in addition, that the march took place not only in New York and Lexington, but also in Cairo, London and Melbourne. While this coordinated international unity is heartening, it must be recognized that the marches seem to be exclusive to the first world stratum of population, so far. Even within America, it would be wonderful to see this number of people turning out at environmental battleground areas. At the moment, the march seems more of a theater show for attention, rather than an event that will have serious implications.Perhaps we will see marches with more pointed goals, then, under the organization of those like Tom Steyer ‘75. Steyer hopes to donate $100 million with his group, NextGen, towards electing candidates in the 2014 elections who recognize the importance of the fight against global warming. To him, then, the march seems almost a political platform for awareness of the general public, not only about the environment, but also to the recognition of his own efforts to elect like-minded leaders.Steyer’s stated goal is to overcome those who do not believe the science, replacing them with senators and representatives who, although may not have the solutions, at least recognize the problem. As one oil-industry consultant said, "When Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Steyer fly to battleground states to hold public climate marches in the middle of campaign season with their preferred candidates, then we will know they are serious." It must be noted that Tom Steyer is the kind of person marked by radical-change. He is a dead serious person. He left his position at Farallon Capital Management L.L.C. to devote his career and billions to work against the oil and coal companies that made him his money. How this devotion will translate on the political scale, however, remains to be seen.As for now, it seems as though the People’s Climate March served to draw the world’s attention back to the importance of green energies if only for a minute. Regardless, it allowed people who share the same values to come together to stand as an international community. Perhaps the march will inspire similar congregations of people who share the same values across the world to march. Hopefully, this will even be enough to influence the 2015 Climate Summit, pressuring leaders into concessions over carbon emissions and green technology. As Ban Ki Moon put it, he had hoped that the heat of the movement would be enough to cool global warming. Perhaps this will be a year that sees fires ignited across the world. To hope the Climate March could have a direct influence on the Climate Summit, however, seems all too reminiscent of the familiar rhetoric of the people’s hope to be heard and for their voices to ignite change, only to be drowned out by the voices crying practicality and business sense. If the attendees of the Climate March are truly concerned about their cause, the Climate Summit should only prove to ignite this cause, rather than the defeatist nature with which too many treat the environmental fight.