Internationally, opposing governments have agreed the climate crisis must be addressed, .

Bbut the
means by which they will reach the IPCC emission targets is still unknown. Greg Jericho roots himself in
Labour’s targets and accuses the government of ignorance in his opinion piece: “Getting to zero net
emissions in 2050 is going to be tough – but Labour committing to it is a damn good thing” [The
Guardian, 23.02.2020]. However, where Jericho attacks the government’s “tech-over-taxation” policy,
an editorial: “Emissions targets are easy, the ‘how’ is the hard part.” [N/A, N/A]instead slams the
opposition for not providing tangible efforts to reaching said quotas, whereas the Morrison government
has. David Rowe’s [AFR, 23.02.2020] satirical cartoon paints Albanese as a whistle-blower really only
trying to attack the coalition, who hold steadfast in their views, and are largely unaffected.

Audiences concerned with the approach to the crisis are relieved by Jericho in his piece, but the
author himself rallies against the government’s actions. Jericho makes an initial concession that the
Labour’s targets “won’t be an easy task”, and this underdog modesty can be found repeatedly
throughout the article, playing up a model of justice Labour is for making noble action in relation to
what science has deemed. This portrayal of Albanese and his party is used to signify to the audience
who is “right”, pairing it with an image of nobility. Simultaneously, the opposition is belittled with
language playing on pity when Jericho says the government’s 26% target is “woefully below what is
needed”. This informal language cis continued when the author reiterates that Labour’s goals are “a
damn good thing”, which may ensue relief and cause for celebration while also creating intimacy
between reader and write. An opportunity to build trust in Jericho’s contentions. But as Jericho praises
find cause for celebration, the editorial has only scepticism, unimpressed by Labour’s plans. From the
outset a “big rhetorical step” outlines the author’s nonchalant and dismissive beliefs on the matter.
Relating Albanese’s statements to the hollow promises of a child when they compare the UN climate
summit to a “Glasgow express”. Ina more calculating tone the editorial attempts to ground action to
realistic and achievable ideas. Citing “costs and benefits” is an example of how Labor is alike al other
governments that have made similar claims, but never provide any actionable plans. Instead of a
righteous goal setter Jericho portrayed Labour as, the editorial has knocked that image down to build
greater credibility with possibly greater maturity and thus obtain control over the subject.
 Jericho’s editorial does not only praise Labour however, instead it should be a matter of fact,
here, he believes I tis concerning the government continuously refuses to follow suit. ON a topic where
frightening statistics are powerful, Jericho reminds audiences that Australia emitting 532m tonnes of
greenhouses gasses. Indicating that “technology-over-taxation” just will not suffice. By quoting directly
from the IPCC’s quotas, and comparing the insufficient targets of the government, the author allows the
audience to decide whether the government really is making appropriate choices when experts clearly
state otherwise. This idea that the government does not fully grasp the gravity of the situation is
furthered when Jericho ridicules Canavanan’s tweet. If the government can’t fully explicate their own
arguments with a clear understanding od what “net zero jobs” means, Jericho argues they hold no
power over the topic. Going so far as to highlight even Boris Johnson has committed to the targets, the
audience may find it difficult to support the actions of the government and sway to Jericho’s case.
Contrastingly, the editorial argues the blind belief in targets is really blinding audiences from real
technological advancements. In support of the author’s contention that only investment in technology
provides real progress, an extensive list of statistics regarding Australia’s rapid rise in use of renewables
is provided to show where the opposition is missing the point. An air of optimism arises in this where
Australia is noted to be rapidly becoming one of the world’s biggest users of renewable energy. Here a
shift in focus moves away from what governments ought to be doing and instead the initiative and
profound impact of the market. Is highlighted. In an attempt to appear more level-headed, the “heated-
bluster” about a lack of a clear policy is dismissed for examples like Rio Tinton, a possible market role
model, shifting to solar farms. If by these technological and market advancements Australia could reach
50% reduction by 2030 without any new policy, the author has positioned the audience to feel the air of
sensationalism around Jericho’s attacks. Where, in reality, the government is showing true action by
investing in hydrogen power, battery of the nation and Snowy 2.0 etc… If these approaches instead
appear to work, Morrison’s’ bet on applied science may be one the audience prefers the odds on.
 IN support of the editorial’s contention, Rowe’s cartoon shows that Labour, or more specifically
Albanese, makes these baseless targets only to attack the coalition. Albanese’s uptight and Robin Hoo-
desc clothing implies he aims to steal from the rich but cannot give anything to the poor. His targets
toward renewables are set up, but they are only a front to take shots at Morrison and coal mining
businessmen. But its clear that if Albanese only does this for spite as shown, instead of supposed real
belief in achieve these goals, they are effectively redundant to the coalition. Morrison putting an arrow
through the Paris agreement shows his dismissal of it and his direct and smug eye contact with the
audience implies he’s aware of the damage this inflicts on Albanese. Ultimately, Albanese
whistleblowing that the government is not reaching the targets may backfire. Audience’s upon
understanding that may distrust the true intentions o Albanese but still disprove of Morrison’s actions.

How Australia reaches the emission targets is either taxation or technology. Jericho wirtes that although
Labour is notable for committing to it, the government is ignorant for not doing the same, emplying an
accusatory tone. Opposingly, both Rower and the editorial believe in Morrison’s technological approach.
While the cartoon calls Albanese baseless, the editorial chooses to remain level-headed and instead
point out the absurdity of the oppositions claims. In the end, we must reach net zero commissions by
2050.