Like many Australians, green groups were surprised by the federal election result.

The Climate Council, Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Wilderness Society all invested significant resources in the weeks leading up to the May 18 poll.

Underlying much of their campaigning was the belief that the majority of voters wanted stronger climate action.



But the results did not seem to bear that out.

Did environmental groups fail to read public sentiment? And did they, in fact, help the Coalition to victory?

'Lecturing people in the community'

Former Greens leader Bob Brown led the now-infamous Stop Adani Convoy from Hobart, through Melbourne and Sydney, right into Central Queensland.

It was the epitome of what some describe as trying to "drive change from out of town".

One of Australia's leading social researchers, Rebecca Huntley, said the Stop Adani Convoy strategy was bound to fail.

"People from outside the area coming in — that just pisses people off," said Dr Huntley, who heads up Vox Populi Research.

"Lecturing people in the community, I don't think it's ever going to work."

Paul Williams is a senior lecturer in politics at Griffith University in Queensland and is one of the country's foremost experts on elections in that state.

He said the Stop Adani Convoy probably cost Labor at least "tens of thousands of votes" in Queensland, if not "hundreds of thousands".

"That doesn't mean the Queenslanders are in love with Adani — they're not," said Dr Williams.

"Adani became totemic — it was a totem for development and for blue-collar job creation."

Verity Morgan-Schmidt is opposed to Adani's Carmichael mine.

The chief of Farmers for Climate Action grew up farming in Western Australia and now spends her time campaigning and organising all around the country, including in rural Queensland.

But she agreed the convoy was counterproductive.

"I think the polls would reflect how successful that strategy was," she said. "It's very hard to drive change from out of town."

Many in the Coalition have also credited the Stop Adani Convoy for helping them win seats in Queensland.

Dr Brown remained confident the strategy was the right one.

Ms Morgan-Schmidt said the strength of any social movement "comes from within and from being part of that community".

"We need to really talk and connect with people where they are," she said.

Kelly O'Shanassy, chief of the Australian Conservation Foundation, agreed one lesson from the election was that environmental groups needed to do more local organising.

"I think that change — when you're talking about change in a specific community — needs to be done within that community," said Ms O'Shanassy.

The Climate Council's Amanda McKenzie said the Stop Adani Convoy was a mistake, and her movement needed to convince people that their community could benefit from the change they were calling for.

"We are advocating for substantive changes across the economy in all sectors. So you need to do a lot of work in bringing people along," she said.

Ms O'Shanassy said environmental groups needed to do more local organising. ( Supplied: Australian Conservation Foundation )

Green movement criticising Labor policy

Throughout the campaign, Labor walked an uncomfortable line on Adani. It tried not to openly support its proposed coal mine but also insisted it would not stand in its way.

But on many other issues, the environmental movement did not entirely embrace Labor's plans either.

Less than two weeks from polling day, Labor announced a radical plan to establish a new Environmental Protection Authority and rewrite federal environment laws.

These were in addition to its detailed climate policies and targets the party had already released, as well as the country's first federal land-clearing laws.

The reaction was mixed, with Greenpeace the least enthusiastic.

"While Scott Morrison and Bill Shorten lock horns over their policies, both are failing to address the climate emergency with credible plans," said the environmental group's media release on May 4.

This division was further exacerbated when Labor announced plans to subsidise the expansion of the gas industry in Queensland and the Northern Territory.

The move dismayed most in the environmental movement and led to a spray of media releases and news stories about the greenhouse gas emissions that expansion would inevitably create.

Dr Williams said Labor was trying to have it both ways on some environmental issues, and that meant they lost votes in regional Queensland without picking up as many as they could have in Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney.

Chief of Greenpeace Australia David Ritter said if Labor had strengthened its environmental policies, the environmental movement would have been fully behind the party — a sentiment more-or-less echoed by all the environmental groups the ABC spoke to.

"I think it was open for the Labor Party to be more ambitious," said Mr Ritter.

"That would have enabled even greater energy from the community to get behind their campaign."

Mr Ritter said that like everyone involved in campaigning, their strategy was informed by the available data — and they thought Labor would win.

In that context, he said they figured it was important to strongly criticise the Coalition's policy, "and similarly to seek to encourage the Labor Party to have a more ambitious climate policy".

A sign outside a pub in Clermont. ( ABC News: Rachel McGhee )

'Letting the perfect get in the way of the good'

There are those who believe the environmental movement did little to help the ALP's chances.

The ABC has been told senior figures within the party are angry at what they see as campaigning against Labor.

Although Ms McKenzie said the primary responsibility for success or failure lay with the parties themselves, she did lay some blame with environmental groups for expecting a party to be "perfect".

According to her, part of the environmental movement was so focused on Adani that it did not swing behind Labor, even though it was accepted by the movement as the better choice.

"We do need to push Labor on Adani. But also, where there is effective climate policy — and Labor did bring a strong domestic climate change platform — the environment movement could have done more to communicate that to its base."

Ms McKenzie alluded to the history of the Australian climate wars, where relatively ambitious policies — like Kevin Rudd's first emissions trading scheme — were scuttled by the Greens because they were not considered ambitious.

"I think that's the big lesson for the environmental movement is, as we've learned before: letting the perfect get in the way of the good."

Trusting politicians to deliver



But the environmental movement does not accept its actions were a major reason for Labor's loss.

Most people the ABC spoke to pointed to the money spent by coal miner Clive Palmer, utter distrust of mainstream politics and what they described as scare campaigns run by the Coalition.

Wilderness Society campaign director Lyndon Schneiders said trust was a big problem for parties promising anything ambitious, and that would always be an issue when it came to tackling climate change.

Dr Huntley agreed this was a problem for any party proposing something with an upfront cost, and environmental policy was a classic example of that.

"They don't necessarily think that our politicians are very good at thinking long term," she said.

Even if they did think long term, voters did not trust politicians to deliver, Dr Huntley said.

"You're going to get me to pay for this thing now, that you say you're going to do in the future? But you're so bad at even keeping the promises today!"

Mr Ritter said the environmental movement would have gotten fully behind Labor if they had better policies. ( Supplied: Greenpeace )

But Dr Huntley and Dr Williams believe the election was not won or lost on the environment, as other immediate issues like tax reform appeared to be more important in people's minds.

Incoming Environment Minister Sussan Ley said she acknowledged Australians held strong views on caring for the environment, both locally and globally.

"I look forward to listening to the variety of perspectives and ideas that will be put forward, as well as implementing our Government's strong range of policy initiatives in this portfolio," she said.

The new Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, Angus Taylor, said the Government had a clear mandate for its climate policies.

"Our national target is achievable, balanced and responsible, and is part of coordinated global action to deliver a healthy environment for future generations, without wrecking our economy."

Some environmentalists still think they got it right

Some in the environmental movement are already working on local organisation and how to embrace policies they find less than perfect.

Despite this, there are some who would not change how they approached the pre-election campaigning.

According to Mr Schneiders, it just was not the right time for change — no matter what the opinion polls seemed to suggest before the election.

For him, the answer is to keep on the same track.

"People get too wrapped up in the tactics of this game, you know? And they play the politics too hard," he said.

"There is a problem and it needs a solution. But all we can do is articulate the problem and provide the solution. If we do that long enough, the community … will respond."

Ms McKenzie recalled her first major sense of defeat — the collapse of talks at the UN's conference on climate change in Copenhagen in 2009.

"After Copenhagen, basically everyone, all activists across the world, gave up and went on holiday."

She said that left a vacuum for those fighting to stall action on climate change to fill.

So Ms McKenzie said she was focusing on what she saw as a positive.

"I think there is a sense that climate change is a bigger issue than it was before.

"I think that the core message of hope from the election is that climate change was a central issue. It hasn't been a central issue to the election since 2007."

