There's a memorable scene in 1984 where the official narrative about who the government is at war with changes in the middle of a news broadcast - and it just adopts the new line seamlessly and continues on as if nothing has happened. The same thing seems to have happened in the middle of Gordon Copeland's latest press release on climate change policy. At the beginning of the release, Copeland attacks the government's sustainable land management and climate change policy for suggesting that forest owners pay (either by a flat charge or a tradable permit regime) the cost of carbon released when forested land is converted to agriculture. He then goes on to talk about United Future's new climate change policy, which includes... forest owners paying the cost of carbon released when forested land is converted to agriculture:
"United Future's climate change policies that were announced this morning include a provision that requires the internalisation of all greenhouse gas costs when forested areas are converted to intensive agriculture.
"Where forested land is converted to farming the landowner would bear the Kyoto costs arising from the loss of the carbon sequestration, but would not face a land tax."
Which is exactly the policy he was attacking literally a sentence before. But Copeland doesn't seem to have noticed or care about his contradiction. Oceania has always been at war with East Asia. And United Future has always been in favour of internalising carbon costs.