By Situation Theatre 17/11/2019

This week we learnt that correctly naming the causes of catastrophe, accurately pointing to the perpetrators of those causes, and calling for action to prevent such terrible events in the future is just as bad as speculating on the voting preferences of those killed in the catastrophe.

We learnt this lesson repeatedly from the leading lights of national punditry.

Let’s take just three examples.

Early in the week, man who sleeps most nights in the Insiders studio to save commuting time, Phillip Coorey, “nailed it with common sense” by equating blatant lies and a fetish for ecocide with accurate naming of the perpetrators.

“The latest unedifying series of exchanges has, most probably, again failed to change minds because it has reflected the extremes that have raged for a decade – the Greens and the Nationals – and done the most to stymie political consensus,” he wrote.

Yes, better to take the edifying path towards civilizational suicide.

He continued, “This time, on cue, Greens MP Adam Bandt and Nationals Leader Michael McCormack both over-egged the pudding. Bandt blamed Scott Morrison for the catastrophe while McCormack, in a hamfisted appeal to the base he so needs, decried anyone blaming climate change an inner-city loony.”

I’m deeply saddened by the loss of life. Hearts go out to all affected & to brave firefighters.

But words & concern are not enough.

The PM does not have the climate emergency under control.

Unless we lead a global effort to quit coal & cut pollution, more lives will be lost.
— Adam Bandt (@AdamBandt) November 9, 2019

Some people say we should smell the flowers. Others claim we should cast babies into the maw of a fiery volcano. If only both sides realised the damage they were doing to civil debate in our democracy
— Ben Eltham (@beneltham) November 12, 2019

First of all, Adam Bandt used the exact number of eggs as outlined in the pudding recipe written by climate scientists. Second of all, McCormack didn’t so much over-egg the pudding as go number 2s straight into the mixing bowl.

Now let’s hear from centrist number two.

Condemning a statement of fact by Greens Senator Jordan Steele-John that the major parties were no better than “borderline arsonists” as worse even than those of Michael McCormack and Barnaby Joyce this week, Peter Hartcher wrote this pearl of wisdom in the Nine newspapers:

“The abuse-a-thon between some Greens and some Nationals, while gratifying for them as they indulge their political vanities and excite their cheer squads, merely reminds the community why they are minor parties on the outer edges of the political mainstream. And will remain so.”

Greens senator @Jordonsteele has branded major party politicians 'arsonists' in an incendiary spray on climate policy as catastrophic fire conditions grip NSW. pic.twitter.com/lzsx9TFtwV
— SBS News (@SBSNews) November 12, 2019

What is the right terminology for the Coalition Peter, if not “borderline arsonists”? Because “Government” and “leaders” certainly seem like misnomers at this point.

Every week, Hartcher proves his credentials as the nation’s most insightful columnist whose surname rhymes with “archer”, and this week was no different. He ignores the truth that the fossil-fuelled Coalition should be prosecuted for systematically destroying climate action in this country over a decade, and instead argues that all sides should share responsibility for inaction:

“The Greens share some blame because they could have kept the Rudd government scheme alive but killed it because it was not sufficiently pure. And Labor shares some blame because it preferred to kill its own leader, Kevin Rudd, an elected prime minister, than back him in implementing Labor's election promise to implement such a scheme.”

Because when you’ve got one side which has contributed to these bushfires in 194 different ways over the last 6 years, and the other side which has been campaigning for action to save the planet in line with the science for at least the last 15, it’s pretty clear they all share responsibility isn’t it?

The #bushfire crisis has seen many politicians hesitate to answer questions about #ClimateChange. But now, there's a new program happy to let them avoid the issue - #NotToday. #abc730 @markhumphries @evanwilliams @jonocoleman #auspol @Jan_Fran @DoctorKarl pic.twitter.com/pwGDq02mLQ
— abc730 (@abc730) November 15, 2019

Even Katharine Murphy, still several cuts above most of the rest of the Canberra press gallery, indulged in an infuriating level of “both sidesism” in her Saturday Guardian column.

First, let’s recognise that she did devote 790 words of her article to an accurate critique of the Coalition, including the lines “one political movement more than any other bears the responsibility for Australia’s failure to get on with the necessary transition to low emissions. That’s the Liberal and National parties.”

Yet in a week in which the nation swallowed the bitter fruits of the Coalition’s demolition job on national climate policy, she also devoted 472 words to a critique of the Greens. This included references to the 2009 vote on the carbon pollution reduction scheme and the 2019 anti-Adani convoy, both of which seemed a bit “let’s blame Ralph Nader for Al Gore’s 2000 election loss rather than a deeply corrupt political system, Republican charlatanism, a poor Democratic campaign, or any other factor which actually played a pivotal role.”

In what twisted universe is it fair to devote even a remotely similar amount of critical space to a band of environmental vandals who have marauded their way across the Australian political landscape over the last ten years, and a Greens Party which has consistently opposed this destruction at every turn?

Summing up these centrist lessons of the week, sure the Coalition which is entirely responsible for destroying climate action in this country is bad, but so is the party which has done everything within their power to stop them.