This thread is an invitation to those who want to understand why I think it’s unhelpful to frame climate action as ‘shut down coal or you’re the enemy’, and why this feels like a repeat of the Greens refusing to compromise by blocking emissions trading 10 years ago. A thread👇🏻
Labor has had a lot of experience trying to take climate action. We’ve had policies blocked, seen them get up, be turned into a political weapon and lost excellent PMs in the process. Fair to say it’s been a shit show, but surely we’ve all learned something along the way?
What I’ve learned is the public will reject any climate policy which feels like an extreme jump from zero to 100. They’ve shown that. You might want to imagine a climate policy can be implemented without asking the public’s permission, but we live in a democracy. Crucial context.
So, instead of framing climate policy as an all or nothing approach - cancel coal today or I won’t vote for you - climate policy will only work - be implemented - if we take the community with us. Labor can’t win by shutting down coal overnight. It has to be a transition.
I like to frame this transitional approach to climate action as stepping into a cold swimming pool one step at a time. You slowly lower yourself into the cold water, gradually getting used to temperature, easing your way in until you’re happily swimming around, used to the cold.
The community is the swimmer in this analogy. Instead of letting them ease their way in, many (Greens mostly) would like to shove the community into pool, pushing them into the cold water before they’ve been given a chance to decide if they want to swim. People vote against that.
This shock of cold water is a scary idea. And it’s even worse if you’re already cold, and you aren’t insulated against the shock. Greens and others who are all for the shoving in - all or nothing approach to entering the water - are generally more insulated.
Fair to say generally those advocating for the shocking leap into the cold unknowns are insulated by their high education levels, inner city jobs and experience with and ability to withstand uncertainty and change.
On the other hand, those who are terrified of freezing cold water are the ones least insulated against the shock. They’re living precariously, have lower educational attainment and therefore less choice in job market, and much more unlikely to have capital to cushion their fall.
I’ve learned since losing the election in May, that the needs of the uninsulated and cold can never be discounted in a democratic process. Labor should never forget the needs of these people - coal miners and their communities - not just because of votes, but for fairness.
Those who are calling for coal mines to immediately be shut tend not to be the ones impacted most by this change. I think many people need to show more empathy for others and more respect for their circumstances when advocating for policies which will hurt them.
A transition to renewables and to lower-emitting practices was never going to happen overnight - it always had to be a gradual process of incremental change toward a necessary target because that’s how change in the real world has always worked.
The push in the pool analogy also perfectly describes the Greens’ failure to compromise on the CPRS policy 10 years ago. This war continues on my feed where Greens say ‘Labor’s policy didn’t go far enough so Greens couldn’t support it’.
This attitude either purposely or accidentally misunderstand’s Labor’s CPRS. It was a mechanism, not a fixed policy. It moved incrementally towards the required emissions target so to ease the community and private sector into the swimming pool without a freezing shock.
The other thing that is wrong with the ‘cancel coal or I can’t support you’ is it’s a reductionist policy stance which ignores the complex mix of policies across many industries which are all required to meet our targets. It makes climate policy about one thing, which it is not.
I started to see this simplifying narrative during the election campaign. Many people on Twitter referred to ‘Adani’ as a catch-all climate position - you’re either for Adani or against Adani as proxy being for or against climate action.
This simplifying has continued post election. You’re either for the shutting of coal mines or against, and that is used as proxy for your determination to address climate change. That’s crap! Climate policy is not one thing.
This narrative is a Green weapon in wedge politics as it frames Labor as ‘just as bad as Liberals’ on climate change. This not only defies logic but defies basic facts. Labor took a comprehensive and ambitious climate policy to election and their will for climate action remains.
One other thing is that the simplification also results in single individuals in the Labor Party who hold different views to everyone else being held up as representative of Labor views when they clearly are not. Mark Butler is the Shadow Climate Minister. Enough said.
So that is my explanation for why absolutism, simplification and ignoring the views of the public, particularly those less insulated than you, is not helping Australia take much needed climate action. I desperately want this action. Can we please productively work to get it? End.
