Angry MPs insisted on the need for ambitious targets to reduce carbon emissions and rejected Mr Fitzgibbon's controversial call for a "sensible settlement" with the Coalition on climate, saying his position was ill-considered and ill-timed.

Mr Fitzgibbon called last week for the party to wind back its 45 per cent emission reduction target to match the Coalition's policy of a 26 per cent to 28 per cent cut by 2030.

But his own ally from the NSW Right Mike Freelander challenged him on Monday by circulating a motion that rejected his argument on climate change and said he did not speak on behalf of the faction.

The move came amid wider debates within the Left and Right factions on Monday that appeared to strengthen the resolve of MPs on the climate targets ahead of the full caucus meeting in Parliament House on Tuesday.

Dr Freelander, who represents the electorate of Macarthur in south-western Sydney, emailed his NSW Right colleagues ahead of their Monday meeting to propose a formal motion criticising Mr Fitzgibbon's comments on emissions targets.

The first part of the motion stipulated that "Joel Fitzgibbon does not speak for the NSW Right" and the second part said Labor should reach a climate policy based on consensus and with "ambitious" targets to reduce emissions, adding that this meant doing better than the government.

The motion triggered an energetic debate in which Mr Fitzgibbon and others sought to stop the formal motion being escalated to the national meeting of the Right faction later on Monday, arguing that formal motions of this kind were not put to the faction meeting.

While Dr Freelander agreed not to put the motion to the national Right meeting, his concerns were aired and fellow members backed him in the argument with Mr Fitzgibbon over targets.

Dr Freelander would not go into the internal factional debate when asked about his motion by The Sydney Morning and The Age on Monday night but said he believed stronger action was needed to reduce emissions.

"We really are at a watershed moment in the world and Australia needs to deliver climate policies that protect the future for our children and grandchildren," he said. "And we can't rely on the laissez-faire policies of the government."

Victorian Right MP Mark Dreyfus also issued some of the strongest condemnation of Mr Fitzgibbon, according to sources who were in the national Right meeting, with many MPs speaking to the same effect.

The discussion in the national Right meeting grew so vigorous that MPs expressed concerns that word would get out about their argument, but senior factional figure Tony Burke defended the robust debate. "The national Right doesn't leak," he told the meeting, according to two colleagues.

One of the chief criticisms of Mr Fitzgibbon was that he had called for the major policy shift "three minutes before" Labor receives an election review being conducted by Jay Weatherill and Craig Emerson.

Others in the Right faction agreed with Mr Fitzgibbon that Labor had to do better to hold the Morrison government to account over its failures on emissions reduction.

A separate meeting of the Left faction on Monday heard "very grumpy contributions" from members who were "angry" and "anguished" about Mr Fitzgibbon's speech, according to several sources in the room.

The MPs said the meeting had hardened their resolve to ensure the party would take an ambitious target to the next election.

Ten members of the faction spoke in criticism of Mr Fitzgibbon's comments, with none of them supporting his argument for a retreat.

The speakers ranged from shadow cabinet members to the newest MPs but did not including frontbencher Mark Butler, who countered Mr Fitzgibbon last week by saying Labor would not accept the government's emissions target.

"The message we have to fall on right now is that emissions are rising and we need to hold the government responsible for that, and that was a point Joel actually made, albeit not in the best way," one Left MP said.

"Getting it through to Australians that the government is not doing enough to meet its targets is what we have to do and obviously that scenario leads to a greater effort required down the track."

smh.com.au