The impartial Harrabin's wheeze is simple. He reports - without endorsing them - the comments of his greenie mates. But he quotes precisely no one who disagrees with them.
His introduction is that
Environmentalists have expressed fears that the reshuffle makes the government more likely to take decisions against the environment."Against the environment"? Whatever does that mean? If anything?
If it does mean anything, there would be reasons why such decisions were taken - wouldn't there? But we get no hint of this from the impartial Harrabin.
The impartial Harrabin pays particular attention to Owen Paterson.
It was reported in Conservative Home that he wants to end all energy subsidies and fast-track exploitation of shale gas.Oh, and to add to his crimes, Mr Paterson is someone's brother-in-law.
This would shatter any ambition for the UK of keeping to targets for renewables or greenhouse gases.
As MP for North Shropshire, he has also campaigned against plans to expand output from Welsh wind farms because of the impact of pylons on the landscape.
And he is in favour of culling badgers. But Mr Paterson was widely praised by environmentalists for his conservation-minded policy paper on fishing whilst shadow fisheries minister from 2003-2005....
He wants to expand airport capacity, which would also threaten climate targets.
Now why would Mr Paterson hold any of these views? Is it simply that he is wicked, or are there counter arguments? Could it be that gas has got a lot cheaper in the US, making people better off? Don't look to the impartial Harrabin for counter arguments.
But perhaps there is hope for Mr Paterson. According to someone at the (very greenie) Woodland Trust, "Owen Paterson comes with strong rural credentials. He lists trees among his interests".
Phew. Not completely evil then.
How balanced of the impartial Harrabin to report this correctness.