Labor is tasked with addressing 8 years of Lib climate inaction to reach net zero by 2050. 43% by 2030 is extensively modelled. It’s achievable, not fantasy. Libs say it’s too much, Greens say it’s not enough. But we knew they’d say that. Reality is, we need ACTION, not wedging.
RIP my mentions. Say what you like, you’re not going to convince me that making Labor unelectable is a good idea for the climate catastrophe. If you didn’t learn anything from the 2010 CPRS debate, you’ll never learn 🤷🏼♀️
And if you want to know my personal view, I would have preferred 45%. I don’t know why it’s 43% instead. But I’m not going to war over 2% because that would be entirely self-defeating. Facts are facts. Only Labor can and will take EXTREMELY OVERDUE climate action. It’s urgent.
If the Greens accepted Labor’s net zero 2050 challenge, accepted political reality, accepted Labor’s modelling and detailed plans to turn Australia into renewable energy superpower, and congratulated Labor on it, the Greens would basically cease to have any purpose. So they won’t
The Greens exist to wedge Labor. They exist to steal votes from Labor’s left flank. They are a protest movement who choose not to do politics because politics is hard - compromise, pragmatism, policy detail. They are a political brand, not a party. And they’re not helping.
I’m sure the party itself is made up of well meaning people who all feel very strongly that they personally are doing right thing by pouring all their energy and passion into a Labor-counter-movement. I have Green-voting friends who I admire. But that doesn’t change reality 🤷🏼♀️
43% is starting point. Once Labor are in govt and have full view/resources, things will evolve and plans will develop - to REALISTICALLY reach net zero 2050. Everyone saying ‘why doesn’t Labor just say XYZ’ please go away and provide a detailed COSTED plan to back up your words.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
