I think putting the election result down to a single issue is a bit silly. As is the idea that Morrison swept to power and Shorten was soundly rejected by the electorate.
The margin in this election was still relatively fine. Morrison has a very slim majority. And I'd argue that Labor actually lost this election in northern Tasmania and Victoria. Queensland was always going to be a shit show for them (although nobody thought it would be bad enough to lose Longman and be in trouble in Lilley).
What was interesting was the seats that Labor should have held/picked up down south - losing Bass and Braddon, and failing to win Chisolm, La Trobe, and pick up a slightly safer Lib seat like Flinders or Deakin. A difference of just five seats takes Morrison back to 73, and Labor up to 72 where they stand a realistic shot at forming power.
It's easy enough to look at Queensland and bring it back to mining, climate, tax etc. But Victoria? This is the state that elected Dan Andrews in a landslide. Climate was clearly an issue on the agenda, and yet the Liberals held seats they were predicted to lose.
I don't think there is one answer as to why that happened, but I think taxation and the economy was higher on the list than climate in driving Victorian votes, and probably northern Tassie too.