It is a fair reflection of Australian society that the Federal Government is having difficulty passing its emissions trading scheme legislation.
There are more positions in the Senate on the Government's ETS legislation than there are political parties - delay, destroy, amend, approve, and numerous combinations of all of the above.
The trouble for both of the major teams is uniting enough of those views to have a political win.
At one end of the spectrum is The Nationals. Many of their voters believe the human-induced climate change to be a con - just look at the results of this week's FarmOnline poll question.
But such is the fervour of persecution that awaits any climate change disbeliever that the party is arguing its position from an economic perspective - there is plenty of evidence to support the claim that the emissions trading scheme will destroy thousands of jobs.
At the other end of the spectrum, the Greens argue the cuts don't go far enough, a view that I'm guessing is probably reflective of most of middle Australia.
However, it is an ideologue's position that fails to address the legitimate concerns middle Australia also holds about economic security - thus many voters are torn as to how the government should respond to the issue.
The governing Labor Party has taken its position somewhere in the middle, trying to appease the economic concerns of the right with low targets, while appearing to take decisive action to appease the left.
While politically sound, it is also destined for failure - in trying to please everybody, it has annoyed nearly everybody.
Then again, failure may be what the Government wants - a trigger for a double dissolution to fight the next election on the issue of climate change and success there would give it a mandate for its policy.
By contrast Malcolm Turnbull, who came to the leadership of the Liberal Party promising a more progressive, centrist agenda, is caught trying to garner support for his attacks on the government by mustering the two extremes of the debate and his party behind him.
His only chance is to argue for big carbon cuts, but via a method that will not destroy the economy.
If he can devise such a method then the game will be his for the taking, but as smart as Malcolm may be, I doubt even he can solve that problem.
The trouble for all parties is that the public is desperately divided on the issue, right from the very core of the scientific substance to the human-induced climate change theory, which in turn governs the very nature of any political response to the problem of a changing climate.
As desperately as the environmental movement wants quick action on the issue, this debate will drag on for some time yet.
Email a friend