Another week, another national security threat, cooked freshly with local ingredients, News Corp’s signature technique, a lot of aged China-threat cliché, and a hint of unprofessional typo.

This time Sky News proudly presents: economists who dare to question fossil fuel subsidies, as reported by their article “Climate Energy Finance report circulated to Albanese government ministers by think tank with connections to Chinese government”.

The exposé accuses Climate Energy Finance (CEF) of proposing something truly radical — capping mining fuel tax breaks and redirecting the savings to renewable energy.

The evidence of foreign manipulation? A decade-old university donation, a couple of routine business partnerships, and the apparently treasonous act of acknowledging that China manufactures solar panels.

Welcome to McCarthyism for the climate age, where any policy that trims fossil profits gets recast as Beijing’s master plan.

The guilt-by-association game begins with CEF’s supposed “partners linked to the Chinese government.”

At the top of the charge sheet sits the Australia-China Relations Institute (ACRI), partly funded more than ten years ago by Huang Xiangmo, who later lost his visa.

In News Corp’s investigative universe, that’s case closed.

Yet here’s what’s missing: in the past decade, with Liberal governments eager to pounce on anything faintly Chinese, ACRI has continued to operate openly and is treated as a legitimate research body by most Australian media — including, on many occasions, News Corp’s own programs.

If it were truly the sinister Trojan horse they now claim, someone would have noticed earlier. Instead, decade-old details are reheated and served up as scandal.

By this standard, every Australian company getting paid by Chinese client is compromised. Every farmer exporting barley to China is a security risk. Every bank that processes yuan transactions is a laundromat for influence.

And perhaps, by extension, every journalist using China-made iPhones and laptops? Should we trust the information they processed on that supposedly compromised equipment?

The logic collapses under its own weight, revealing less about CEF’s independence than about News Corp’s desperation.

Then comes the “revelation” that ACRI once organised journalist trips to China. In the normal world, study tours are what think tanks do — Washington, Brussels, Beijing, take your pick. Exposure to perspectives, even ones we disagree with, usually makes for better reporting.

But in News Corp’s paranoid storyboard, simply stepping foot in a Beijing meeting room brands you compromised for life.

Tim Buckley, CEF’s founder, gets the same treatment for the unforgivable crime of acknowledging that China leads the world in renewables. These are not “lines from the CCP playbook”; they are facts that appear in IEA and BloombergNEF reports.

In 2024 China installed more renewable capacity than the rest of the world combined. It produces 80 per cent of global solar panels. Recognising these realities is the baseline for honest energy analysis — like admitting Brazil grows soybeans, Saudi Arabia pumps oil, or that much of some “Australian media” is actually the local arm of a multinational giant whose profits depend on countries betting big on fossil fuels.

Yet in News Corp’s retelling, repeating facts is evidence of infiltration. Should analysts pretend China doesn’t exist? Should policy be based on deliberate ignorance of supply chains? If that’s the benchmark, let’s start by banning electric equipment with Chinese components — and News Corp should really lead the way.

And then we arrive at the numbers — where satire writes itself. Sky News solemnly declared that China’s emissions rose by “1,970 tonnes.” Not million tonnes, just tonnes. A rounding error disguised as a revelation.

This is either a typo or a Freudian slip, but either way it’s the kind of mistake that would get a high-school student red-inked. Inflate the drama, deflate the units, and hope no one notices.

The truth is that China’s emissions rose by 1,970 million tonnes, while Australia cut 22.6 million. And the real context, missing from the script, is that per-capita Australians still emit nearly twice as much carbon as the average Chinese citizen.

Even more awkwardly, multiple analysts now believe China’s emissions actually peaked in March 2024, six years ahead of its Paris pledge, with 2025 showing a 1.6 per cent decline.

That doesn’t fit the “skyrocketing” cliché, so it was quietly left on the cutting-room floor.

Lost in the scandal-mongering is CEF’s actual policy. The “Transition Tax Incentive” wouldn’t cost the fifteen affected mining firms a single cent. It would encourage electrification, cut dependence on $50–60 billion in annual Middle East oil imports, and build domestic energy resilience.

CEF circulated the report not only to the Albanese government but also to the entire sector: BHP, Rio Tinto, Fortescue, Hancock Iron Ore. All of them already make the bulk of their revenue from Chinese buyers.

If this is Chinese manipulation, it is the most public manipulation ever staged — posted online, emailed to ministers, tweeted out, and politely handed to journalists.

The real kicker? Even our miners are calling for transition.

BHP’s $60 billion Anglo American bid stressed copper as the “metal of electrification” and tied its future to renewable growth.

The Minerals Council of Australia has urged government to seize the “once-in-a-generation opportunity” to lead in critical minerals. These aren’t Greenpeace pamphlets. These are the very companies News Corp claims are being “hurt” by climate advocates.

If miners want transition, but Sky News screams betrayal, who exactly are they defending? The answer is obvious: not Australia’s national interest, but the stranded assets of yesterday’s energy economy.

And that’s the damage. By turning routine policy debate into a spy thriller, News Corp corrodes trust, stigmatises Chinese-Australian communities, chills academic cooperation, and distracts policymakers with shadows while competitors race ahead.

The actual influence — billions in fossil exports bending domestic politics — never makes the front page. Fuel tax subsidies remain untouchable. Collaboration on solar, batteries, and hydrogen goes begging. The price is paralysis.

Scrutiny of climate policy is vital. Scrutiny of funding sources is vital. But scrutiny by innuendo is just propaganda with better fonts. What we’re seeing here isn’t journalism. It’s fossil fuel cheerleading dressed as patriotism, complete with typos, clichés, and Cold War leftovers reheated for primetime.

Don’t import that junk food to feed Australians, thanks.