I am at a loss to understand the ‘Green Movement’.

I fully understand their concern about the use of fossil fuels, which may be causing an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, although actual limits of acceptability and reasons for them have never been stated – or at least widely publicised.

I fully understand their concern about the destruction of wildlife and the natural environments in general, though the majority of ‘Green’ supporters seem to come from the most unnatural environments on earth – cities. I suspect that most ‘Greens’ would be lost if they had to live in a rural environment.

What I fail to understand is their proposals for alternatives that will not adversely affect our standards of living. I have never heard any coherent suggestions.

If coal-fired power stations are bad, then so are coal mines – at least for thermal coal. That I understand. But why is this the same for coal used in industrial processes?

And if coal power stations are bad, why are there so many objections from the Greens to building dams for hydroelectric power, securing water supplies, creating wind generators, and nuclear power – all of which will help replace coal-fired power stations?

Why has there been no push to build combined cycle gas power stations, which are much more thermally efficient than coal-fired power stations, even if they are not so economical? Maybe it is just because it is far easier to destroy than to build, to condemn rather than develop practical alternatives and be accountable.

And the ‘Green’ demographic also appears to be strange.

The majority are from wealthy and middle-class groups, including education, public service, and the media but their politics are far closer aligned with the older socialist movements.

Perhaps it is a class problem…

Labor used to represent blue-collar workers – poor people with no real voice. They were vocally socialist, wanting more of the wealth generated by work to flow to the workers. They still spruik that same type of story, but the Labor leaders are no longer representative of workers. Few have ever been in the workplace and most have moved from university into politics, sometimes through the legal profession. Workers have had their lot improved and the union movements, which were the backbone of the Labor party, have all but disintegrated (apart from those in the public services, who are perhaps the best treated of all working groups). So, the Greens are not Labor supporters, they are of a different ‘class’ and they have their separate socialist group which aligns itself with Labor.

Maybe it is just another problem associated with wealth in the developed world?

Most citizens of developed countries have never experienced poverty, or any kind of want. They have never experienced wars or real economic depressions. They have never had to fight for all the freedoms and benefits they now have. That was the work of generations passed, bequeathed to them.

Maybe they just assume that life will continue as it is despite the changes that they proclaim to want to introduce. It is easy to make political statements when you never have to accept responsibility for their implementation.