The idea that poor people are excluded from the club of environmentalists who are able to 'take care of the planet' is absurd. Poverty is the primary qualification for belonging to that club. Every dollar we spend is attached to a precise quantity of energy, water and other consumable resources. Liz's $25,000 income means she uses only one quarter of the world's resources that someone on $100,000 does. She should be congratulating herself.

On the other hand, only a wealthy society can take the extra and expensive steps needed to mitigate the visible and damaging consequences of consumption, like the awful litter and the water and air pollution ubiquitous in the third world. That's the dilemma that Liz should be worrying about, not organic veggies and solar panels

Environmentalism is an activity for well-intentioned middle classes who don't think too deeply about the issues.

The poor are excluded through electricity costs, food prices, carbon taxes, car and petrol costs, etc.

It's also aimed at solving problems that don't exist or are insignificant compared to real problems.

A good well thought out Article.

My only comment is on this Statement

"I am a single mother with an income of less than $25,000 a year. While it makes me richer than many people in other parts of the world, it places me very near the bottom rung of the socio-economic ladder in Australia"

Liz, $25K does not place you near the bottom wrung in Australia.

Anyone on a Government Pension and even most on a part Pension receive less than $20K. This includes the Age as well as Disibility Pensions.

Anyone on the Dole recieves less than $15K., the same as married Pensionersget each

Something near 20% of the Australian Population live on less than your $25K , Liz.

For them buying Green or Organic, is not an opion, as you have correctly stated. A small Garden is the best they can sometimes do.

The Latte Sipping Chatters from the inner Cities neither know nor care about this.

Brown would rather praise people , whom this Government is going to have to shell mout 100s' of Thousands of Dollars to recover, instead. He is so miffed over Julias' response to these expensive Idiots , that he has cancelled his weekly meetings with the PM.

The Greens , it's all about Politics, very little about Reality

Yes, environmentalism should encompass everyone but Liz's enforced lack of consumerism means she will be in a better position to cope with a future world in which most people will be poor. The coming oil crisis is likely to set off a recession in which people will be retreating to the country just to survive in a semi-subsistence manner. So good on you for spending $100 for your veggie garden - we all need to learn practical skills like gardening so that we might be fed.

I'm a poor battler, probably poorer than the writer of the article.

Want my perspective on environmentalism, though it will upset the lefties and their NGO mates:

I pay inflated energy prices, and through my taxes subsidize solar hot water and solar power systems for rich households. Though I live in public housing, I cannot get any of these. So I see the whole renewable energy deal as a system to save money for the rich constituents of major parties, and make the rest of us poor pay more for our energy use because we have no other choice.

People migrate here for economic reasons, sometimes describing themselves as asylum seekers (even though they pass through several countries where they could settle they choose us because of our wealth and lifestyle opportunity). When arriving here from poorer countries, their personal footprint, and global cumulative emissions, increase because you can bet all you have they are going to be unwilling to give up the opportunity of car ownership, using domestic air conditioning, taking up a consumption-focused western lifestyle etc.

We could keep emissions lower by reducing arrivals from poorer countries, because back home they use less fossil fuel (but hang on the powerful NGO industry benefits from mass immigration from the 3rd world and many greens constituents are in the NGO industry or public servants getting something out of this).

Environmentalism is a money making scheme foistered on those who can't afford it by those who can. It has little to do with the environment at all. Perhaps the author is beginning to see this, or perhaps not.

This fact is borne out by the observation that Gillard was prepared to introduce the Carbon Tax despite the fact it made no discernable difference to the environment.