Read on Twitter
So Labor says it's not backing down on climate policy.... https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/labor-rejects-claims-it-is-backing-down-on-climate-policy-20210128-p56xlb.html
IMO, @Mark_Butler_MP was without peer in his knowledge of climate policies within Labor, and probably within parliament. But after so many years in the role, it is fair to say that he was not 'cutting through' (which is often code for 'not exciting the Canberra press gallery'.)
And as much as Butler understood the importance of climate change and argued the case for more aggressive/responsible action than many if not all party-room colleagues, he failed to articulate a sufficiently plausible answer for inevitable 'but how much will it cost' attacks.
In 2019, in the run-up to the federal election, economist Brian Fisher ran some modelling that suggested Labor's 2030 plan would cost as much as 167,000 more jobs than the Coalition's goal (as agreed in Paris). The Australian gave it several goes before it gained wider traction.
By May 2019 (by memory, three months after Fisher's modelling first emerged), the issue had become an explosive row, as my colleague, @CroweDM reported here:
https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election-2019/new-modelling-to-unleash-explosive-row-over-climate-change-costings-20190501-p51j5e.html#:~:text=Dr%20Fisher%20concludes%20the%20Labor,permits%20to%20meet%20their%20targets.
https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election-2019/new-modelling-to-unleash-explosive-row-over-climate-change-costings-20190501-p51j5e.html#:~:text=Dr%20Fisher%20concludes%20the%20Labor,permits%20to%20meet%20their%20targets.
So the issue was really, why hadn't Labor seen that bomb months earlier, and at least readied a 'cut-through' response? What would it have taken?
The answer seems to be to go one of two ways, which may be what's at play now. One is to avoid having a big bull-eye target for Coalition and economists like Fisher to take aim at. The risk, of course, is to leave a 'shadow target' that opponents will anyway fire their arrows at.
The other way is to commission economists who can provide modelling for whatever target Labor is aiming at. That takes time and some $$, but at least allows the party to fill the void rather than have others (usually opponents) fill it. Let's see what lessons have been learnt...
