Climate change has become a global concern, and proposals on how to contain the situation have headed a majority of climate change debates. Deliberate efforts have to be put in place to ensure that people undertake fewer activities of those that adversely affect the climate. Many alternatives have been recommended through international agreements and the National Resources Defense Council on how to lower global warming, but nothing on how refusing from meat would help. As stated in the 2006 United Nation repot, livestock contribution to the green house gas emission accounts approximately 18%. For example, it’s to a greater extent environmental friendly to grow grains for direct human consumption than using such grain to raise calves that would later be slaughtered to feed people. “Manure lagoons” are examples of gross contributor of polluting gases in the atmosphere (Klein 2009). The breakthrough is potentially possible through collective responsibilities on checking what people eat as outlined in various studies. However, a call by Rajendra Pachauri who heads the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to refuse from meat for one day a week was of a poor influence. There were some vicious and quick responses with others terming him as a “vegetarian”. Little effort seems to be undertaken by institutions such as Sierra Club and the politicians. Measure to control global warming caused by meat consumption seems to be easier than any other causes. It requires fewer movements and less proportions of one’s income. It is easier for a person who drives to work by his own car to substitute veggie in his dish than to use public transport. Such environmental friendly meals are affordable for cash-strapped families. This provides the basis to peanut butter and jelly sandwich campaign. As a way of controlling the menace, we need to put some efforts: not to eliminate meat in our diet, but rather cut on our consumption. Such efforts would complement the other measures put in place to control global warming.