On Friday, the ALP it will not vote for the Coalition’s carbon price repeal unless Tony Abbott accepts their amendments – amendments that would ‘scrap the tax’ and bring forward the implementation of an emissions trading scheme.

The ALP has now lined itself up to continue the climate fight that has dominated Australian politics for the past seven years. With their amendments unlikely to be accepted, the carbon pricing bills are heading for initial defeat. Unfortunately however, after years of being told, and recognising internally, that it had suffered a significant failure in climate communications, the party seems to have learnt nothing. Their messages were weak at best, and destructive at worst. Certainly not a good start to another year of a climate fight.

So here are two key lessons for the ALP on how to message its climate position over the next couple of years.

Stop talking about ‘scrapping the tax’

The ALP’s messaging on Friday seemed to be broken down into two parts – both linked, and both problematic. The first was that the ALP would ‘scrap the tax’ and instead implement an emissions trading scheme (ETS). The argument, which harks back a few months ago from when Kevin Rudd took the leadership, comes from the belief that the ALP suffered heavily from Julia Gillard’s “there will be no carbon tax under a Government I lead”. The party clearly feels that it needs to ‘remove the noose from their neck’, and that this is the way to do that whilst keeping to its commitment for a price on carbon.

It is not a winning argument. Firstly, we actually already have an ETS. As Greens leader Christine Milne said on Friday:

“Labor knows as well as I do that we have an emissions trading scheme already legislated. It is the law in Australia; it’s operating with a fixed price and will go to a flexible price.”

Scrapping the carbon tax’ is political spin, and not policy reality. And it’s pretty terrible spin at that. Because whilst Julia Gillard’s ‘carbon lie’ may be the symbol of why the party has suffered so much on climate change in the past few years, the issue is actually much more structural than that – an issue that can be traced back well into the party’s first term in office. In 2009/10, when Tony Abbott became leader of the Coalition, he effectively shifted the debate on climate change. However, whilst the debate moved, Abbott did not start to win until the ALP made the decision to drop the CPRS. The ALP decided that the best way to avoid Abbott’s ‘scare campaign’ was to cede ground – drop the CPRS and ‘neutralise the issue’ (which actually just means to give in so they can’t criticise you for it) until after the election.

Doing so however had the opposite effect. Instead of neutralising the issue the party bought directly into Abbott’s framing, giving him the upper hand. And that has been the problem ever since. It started with the dropping of the CPRS, then there was the ‘Citizens Assembly’, then ‘there will not carbon tax under a Government I lead’ and now a pledge to ‘scrap the tax’. Terrified of his tactics, the ALP have bought into the Coalition campaign and framing – fighting the campaign on the Coalition’s terms.

And that is lesson number one. Stop talking in Coalition terms. Stop buying into their campaigns and using their framing. Stop talking about ‘scrapping the tax’ and ‘cost of living pressures’, but instead frame it on your own terms. For years the ALP has been reacting to Abbott’s every move on the debate, but now in opposition they have the opportunity to change that – to make it the ALP’s debate once again. But that means not talking about ‘scrapping the tax’.

Stop telling us you believe in climate science

The second message Shorten tried to get out over the weekend was (in exact words):

“We accept the science. Climate change is real. Australia needs a system to reduce pollution.”

The (not so subtle) message that the ALP is trying to drive home here is that Tony Abbott doesn’t accept the science, he doesn’t believe climate change is real, and he doesn’t have a system to reduce pollution. It may all be true, but it is a bloody stupid way to go about it.

Firstly, this attack is actually one that is really easy for Abbott to rebut. He has clearly stated he believes in climate change and that he has a system to deal with it – a system he claims will result in the same cuts in emissions as the ALP’s ETS.

Beyond this though the framing is pretty shocking. Let’s have a look at some polling data. Since 2006 public positions on climate change have shifted dramatically. It is not that people have gotten more skeptical, but rather that they have become less concerned about the urgency of the issue. People still believe that climate change is real, but significantly fewer people think it is such a big issue that we need to take drastic action to address it.

When you look at this you can see why Tony Abbott is winning the debate. His approach is rather simple – yes of course he believes in the climate science – he tells as that as much as possible. For people who believe in it, but aren’t really that concerned therefore he passes the test. And then, unlike the ALP Abbott says he provides a solution that will bring very little pain.

So whilst the ALP is banging on about ‘accepting the science’, Abbott is providing people with the solution that fits their mood around the issue at the current time. He has actively managed to tap in to how people feel on the issue, and then use that to his advantage (of course there is some chicken and egg here, as the last three years of debate have also shifted the mood). It’s not therefore that saying ‘we accept the science’ hurts the ALP – it’s that it doesn’t work. It is not an effectively line of attack based on the current political mood.

So how should the ALP react? It is not to bang on about the science, but rather to start to change those numbers. It is not about convincing people that Abbott doesn’t believe in the science – it is pretty clear people either don’t believe that or they don’t care. But it is about making the issue something people would change their vote over again – making it an important issue again.

I’ve talked about how to do this in the past (here and here). But there are a few things the ALP could start doing now. First, they should start drawing the connections between the real life affects of climate change – the bushfires, heatwaves and floods, and attack Tony Abbott when he denies these connections. That makes it a really important issue again, and manages to get in the denier angle as well. And then they start drawing the connections between these real life effects and how Abbott’s plan will do nothing to solve it.

It’s a simple story – climate change is happening now, it’s impacting you, Tony Abbott denies its impacts and is doing nothing about it and our plan is the best way to deal with it. It’s not about ‘the science’, but instead about connecting to people’s values and emotions to make the climate and issue again (or as Ed Butler would tell you to make pollution an issue again) and then to make sure they are the beneficiaries of that.

The ALP can bring back the climate debate, but they cannot do it the way they are trying now. At the moment they are doing what the ALP is does best – buying into the Coalition’s framing and then trying to sell its positions not through emotions or values, but through rationality and facts. And if it continues, once again it is destined to lose.

Simon Copland is a freelance writer and climate campaigner. He is a regular columnist for the Sydney Star Observer and blogs at The Moonbat. This article was originally published on Ausopinion.com.