,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
the comments thread on this article makes my head a bit explody. this labor trope that we should have voted for the garbage CPRS just because it had the word 'carbon' in the name is well past its use-by date.
but most of the people commenting on murph's article are doing so in good faith and just want action, whatever their political leanings. so here's a quick refresher. back in 2009, greenpeace called the CPRS a 'monumental fraud' greenpeace.org.au/blog/cprs-cont…
rudd wanted a 'bipartisan' bill. so he designed the CPRS to appease the coal and gas industries and the climate denialists within the LNP.
and when it all went to shit and abbott took the leadership, rudd demanded the greens pass his monumental fraud, without amendments.
so if you read this guardian piece and your first instinct is to say 'the greens and other crossbenchers should just pass whatever labor bowls up', respectfully, no. signalling that we would do that simply guarantees mediocrity. and it is way past time for that.
there are people inside labor who really get this stuff. the best thing we can do to strengthen their arms is elect a large, diverse, climate-emergency-acknowledging crossbench, at the same time as forcibly retiring the LNP dinosaurs who have done so much harm.
if you want to know what real action looks like, read up on the 2011 clean energy act. this was greens + labor + crossbench with the deniers outside the room. some labor folks are weirdly reticent to acknowledge just how strong it was. it was working.
