Reality bites: Labor's chance to move beyond climate politics

We’re sorry, this feature is currently unavailable. We’re working to restore it. Please try again later.

Advertisement

This was published 4 years ago

Editorial

Reality bites: Labor's chance to move beyond climate politics

"How many times are we going to let it kill us? Indeed, how many leaders do we want to lose to it?"

In his speech to the Sydney Institute last week, federal opposition agriculture and resources spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon asked these questions as part of his "lesson five" on Labor's federal election defeat: that it is time for the party "to reach a sensible settlement on climate change".

What would be "sensible", he argued, would be for Labor to wind back its target of a 45 per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2030 to something more like the Coalition's declared target of a 26 to 28 per cent. Even a cut of that lesser magnitude would be a concrete achievement to build on, he said, as opposed to another aspiration postponed.

Mr Fitzgibbon made no apology for putting politics before policy: "As Gough Whitlam once said, 'The impotent are pure'." But it didn't take long for his colleagues to push back. Mark Butler, the party's spokesman on climate change, reiterated Labor's commitment to the Paris climate agreement, while fellow frontbencher Tanya Plibersek chose to focus on how the case for action on climate change could be made in terms of new jobs. Even Mr Fitzgibbon's own NSW Right faction took him to task, as much for the timing of his comments as their substance.

The post-mortem of Labor's federal election defeat,headed by party stalwarts Craig Emerson and Jay Weatherill, is progressing and will be reported to Labor leader Anthony Albanese on November 8. Will it come to the conclusion that Labor's policy on climate change played a fatal role? The Herald's chief political correspondent, David Crowe, said: "All the signs suggest it did not. It was contentious but not as decisive" as WorkChoices was for the Coalition's chances in 2007.

Loading

Responding to Mr Fitzgibbon's speech, Ms Plibersek described the country as caught "in a perfect storm of inaction and unpredictability" but refused to "pluck a figure out of the air" when it came to cutting emissions. Others have suggested that Labor's focus should shift from 2030 to the longer-term goal of net zero emissions by 2050. These are questions of policy design and, as Crowe points out, the election in which any design will be tested is years away.

What is ever-present is the politics of this question, whether through global protests for international action or the decisions of the corporate sector or the frustrations of those attempting to persuade the Coalition government of the dangers of its own policy vacuum. It is this reality, as much as the scientific fact of climate change, that will dog the ALP in the coming months and years.

In another post-mortem of the election, which focused on the role of regional Queensland and Western Australia in tipping the balance in the Coalition's favour, political commentator George Megalogenis suggested that "voters are still prepared to give things up, provided they can see a direct benefit".

If Labor accepts the reality of the challenge posed by global warming then the task between now and the next election is to go out to these regions and listen and formulate responses to the concerns expressed, while building the broadest possible coalition with industry and activists to back the policy that best reflects its beliefs and values. Done properly, this would be the opposite of maintaining purity. It would answer Mr Fitzgibbon's complaint, while allowing Labor to argue that it is the only major party with a serious plan to combat climate change.

  • The Herald's editor Lisa Davies writes a weekly newsletter exclusively for subscribers. To have it delivered to your inbox, please sign up here

Most Viewed in National

Loading