Looking for something to do this weekend that will help those less fortunate than you? Better steer clear of the People’s Climate Change March.

Set to start Sunday morning on the Upper West Side, the march includes everything from labor unions to synagogues, beekeepers to anarchists, anti-Zionists to anti-corporate groups.

The thousands of marchers will, the Web site tells us, “take to the streets to demand the world we know is within our reach: a world with an economy that works for people and the planet; a world safe from the ravages of climate change; a world with good jobs, clean air and water, and healthy communities.”

What could be wrong with that? Well, here’s the thing about environmentalists: They have a long history of screwing the poor.

The religion of environmentalism, you see, does everything it can to stop economic growth from happening. Preferring things to be more “natural” typically means restricting energy use, technological advancement and the progress of civilization itself.

Sure, the Sierra Club folks have traded in their Volvos for even-more-expensive Priuses.

But they’re still largely the “haves.” A Pew Poll in March found that the two big groups opposing the Keystone XL pipeline were 1) those who make more than $100,000 and 2) Democrats with college or advanced degrees.

“Environmentalism has always been an enthusiasm of the upper classes,” notes Steve Hayward, a professor of public policy at Pepperdine University. Indeed, the organizers of Sunday’s march have been advertising nonstop on public radio.

Hayward says this is because “lower-income people have other things to worry about first.” Green issues rank low among poor folks’ concerns even in America.

As it happens, environmental improvement — cleaner air, cleaner water, healthier wildlife — has historically occurred only in the wake of major economic growth.

The whole environmental movement only took off here after the prosperity of the 1960s had taken hunger off the list of most Americans’ daily concerns.

Yet the modern green movement is often about much more than clean water and air. In fact, notes Hayward, it has long been about restricting energy use — first nuclear, then coal, then oil, now even natural gas.

But energy restrictions make it harder to do things like manufacturing.

The US boom in natural-gas production — and the resulting lower energy costs — has actually made it more practical for more companies to keep their manufacturing here, rather than sending the jobs abroad. Yet the greens overwhelmingly condemn the fracking techniques behind the gas boom.

At a time when working- and middle-class wages have been stagnating, it’s hard to see how the march’s organizers can get the “good jobs” they say they want when their top priority is caps on the use of energy.

That may be why environmentalists also like to talk about this as a “civil-rights issue.” But it’s a safe bet the marchers will look a lot more like the old nuclear-free movement (or the anti-war one) than anything Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. ever led.

Another demon to environmentalists is the use of “high-tech” crops — genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

Jon Entine, a senior fellow at the World Food Center at UC Davis, describes how much of the famine that has plagued Africa since the early 2000s could’ve been avoided if the affected countries had made use of available GMO seeds.

But environmentalists pressured governments in Europe (Africa’s main trading partner) to warn African countries that GMO use would mean reduced trade.

Entine notes that there are no nutritional or environmental differences between genetically modified crops and unmodified ones.

“A 29-year, billion-animal feed study showed zero impact of GMO crops on animal health,” says Entine. And GMO crops bring with them all sorts of benefits — they can bring greater nutritional value or make crops resistant to viruses.

As for organic crops, the “natural” ones that wealthy suburban moms favor, they require 20 percent to 40 percent more land to produce the same yield.

To go organic, Entine explains, “You have to clearcut more land to grow less food. You’ve used more tractors and consumed more carbon.”

Entine testified this week at a meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, where voices like his are in danger of being drowned out by environmentalist ideologues.

“There’s a hysteria created,” he says. But the “people who suffer most are poor. There will be 9 billion people on this planet by 2050 and organic farming alone would be a death wish.”

Where’s the march for that?