The morning after the Liberals' election drubbing last May, Senate leader Simon Birmingham was candid about what went wrong.
After losing 17 seats to "teal" independents, the Greens and Labor, Birmingham frankly admitted the "real turning point" for the party was its failure to lock in a climate and energy policy "that could have achieved a degree of bipartisanship". This cost the Liberals "a significant price down the track".
Two months later, when surviving Liberal MPs gathered back in Canberra for the first time, federal director Andrew Hirst and former strategist turned pollster Tony Barry delivered a detailed election debrief.
They backed up Birmingham's point. Climate change was a "critical" issue in the election wipe-out, Barry argued, symbolic of a "deeper values disconnect" with the electorate. The path back to victory would be "very difficult" without flipping some of the "teal" seats.
Yet since then, there's been little sign of any shift on climate policy.
The first opportunity to demonstrate a fresh approach came a few months after the election, when the Albanese government sought to legislate promised climate targets. The Coalition dug in and voted "no".
This week came another chance to send a signal to lost voters that the Liberals had heard the message on climate. Once again, the opportunity was lost.
The Coalition has decided to vote against strengthening what's called the Safeguards Mechanism, the main weapon in the government's armoury to bring down emissions.
Going down a familiar path
The Safeguards Mechanism was originally designed by then Environment Minister Greg Hunt, eight years ago. The idea was to stop big companies continuing to grow their emissions.
But the settings were generous, and hardly a deterrent. Then prime minister Tony Abbott had no interest in slugging heavy emitters with any sort of cost.
Still, the mechanism had been established by Hunt, who always knew it could be ratcheted up into a serious policy down the track. In the lead-up to last year's election, that's exactly what the Business Council of Australia recommended as the best way to achieve the now bi-partisan emissions target of net-zero by 2050.
The BCA called for a Safeguards Mechanism with teeth, to give business certainty. It was a significant intervention.
Labor leapt on it. Here was a way to cut emissions using a mechanism designed by the Coalition, with stronger rules supported by business. Anthony Albanese's hope was to end the climate wars.
Under the plans now before parliament, 215 companies would be required to gradually lower their emissions by almost 5 per cent a year. There's an incentive for businesses to beat their baselines and trade credits. Those who exceed the caps must buy offsets.
The policy won broad support from business and even most environment groups — quite a feat. The Business Council, the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Chamber of Commerce have all been urging the Coalition to get on board.
Instead, the opposition has chosen to go down a familiar path.
"This is a tax that's being imposed — it's three times the tax that Julia Gillard proposed," Peter Dutton said on Wednesday, drawing a direct link to the bruising contest over the Gillard government's carbon price. He's telegraphing his strategy.
The "axe the tax" mantra worked for Tony Abbott more than a decade ago. Dutton appears confident he can revive the scare as cost-of-living pressures bite harder this year.
Not all Liberals are so sure. Once again, it was Birmingham who raised concerns within the shadow cabinet about where this will leave the Liberals.
In the full party room meeting, Senator Andrew Bragg also spoke out. Fellow moderate Bridget Archer says she's "open-minded" about crossing the floor to support the government's changes. But they're in the minority. Most Coalition MPs are happy to rev-up a fresh climate war.
The Greens are also complaining
Dutton has assured colleagues the Coalition will develop a "credible" emissions reduction policy before the next election. Just what that might involve remains a mystery, but the party's spokesman is giving every indication nuclear power will play a central role.
Ted O'Brien is going to great lengths to talk up nuclear (an option the Coalition didn't take up during nine years in office). This week, he wasn't even at the party room discussion on the Safeguards Mechanism. Instead, he posted a video from the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park in Japan titled "Time to Talk Nuclear: What can we learn from Hiroshima".
The answer, surprisingly, is not that Australia should avoid nuclear options at all costs. O'Brien's video makes the case that even Japan, despite the horrors of 1945, is willing to rely on nuclear energy because it's cheap. It will be a big ask for O'Brien to convince his colleagues, let alone the nation, that nuclear power is preferable to a carbon credit scheme that already has such broad support.
Completing the throwback to the early years of climate wars, it's not just the Coalition opposing Labor's policy on the right. On the left, the Greens are also complaining the proposed Safeguards Mechanism changes are too weak and would allow big emitters to easily buy their way out of serious action.
The risk for the Greens is being seen to repeat their own mistakes of the past — making the perfect the enemy of the achievable and frustrating a serious effort at emissions reduction.
For Labor, this is more than frustrating. It might feel it has the moral high ground with a policy broadly supported by business and climate groups. But it needs votes in the Senate to make this plan a reality and achieve its climate targets.
David Speers is the host of Insiders, which airs on ABC TV at 9am on Sunday or on iview, and host of the Back to You Podcast, out Fridays.