A councillor has warned colleagues that pursuing carbon net zero will be “exorbitant and unaffordable”.
Cllr Thomas Marshall, Conservative representative for Armitage with Handsacre, told a meeting of Lichfield District Council that he had reservations over efforts to address climate change.
It is not the first time he has spoken out on the issue, having previously drawn criticism after suggesting people were “being led up the garden path” when it came to carbon net zero.
He reiterated his views during a debate on the scale of the local authority’s budget that should put towards addressing climate change.
Cllr Marshall said:
“If you understand the principles of a standard deviation curve, then you will know that there will always be outliers at the extreme – I am an outlier when it comes to climate change.
“I will echo the words of someone last week, not a heretic but the boss of the international business INEOS. Jim Ratcliffe said this country was unaware of the likely cost of implementing carbon net zero and that as a country we have underestimated it.
“It’s a concern of mine that the council will also underestimate the enormous cost of implementing it.
“We do need to look at the likely cost as I think it is going to be exorbitant and unaffordable.”
Cllr Thomas Marshall
Cllr Marshall’s comments followed concerns raised by Cllr Miles Trent over the apparent disappearance of a budget for climate change in the medium term financial strategy at the council.
But Cllr Rob Strachan, cabinet member for finance, said that the council would use the £50,000 remaining of a £100,000 investment made four years ago into the exploration of local initiatives to tackle climate change before deciding on where best to direct funding in future.
“Through a combination of the pandemic and perhaps not benchmarking as well as we should have done, we’ve only spent £50,000 so far.
“It is inevitable that this will require more. Cllr Marshall – in one of the few elements I agree with him on – made reference to climate change being immensely expensive to address.
“A piece of work is being carried out that is going to bring forward proposals that will develop their own budget, but at the moment we don’t know what that is.
“We recognise that climate change is an issue and we will address this.”
Cllr Rob Strachan
‘INEOS Group is one of the world’s largest producers and significant player in the oil and gas market’, this is the introductory sentence on the INEOS Group website. Its hardly surprising that Sir Jim is not a big advocate of pursuing policies designed to reduce carbon emissions. The extremes of weather we are now seeing are merely a foretaste of what is to come. The simple truth is that the cost of not doing enough will be far greater than the cost of the measures designed to reduce or at least slow down global warming. Cllr Marshall needs to look beyond the vested interests of the oil and gas industry before parroting their claims.
Hi Ru
I was really disappointed at the full council meeting that councillor Marshall stood up in chamber and used Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s claim that to try to implement carbon neutral is too expensive. After all, Ratcliffe recently spent £1.25billion on a vanity project of buying a bit of a football club instead of something that would have a positive effect on the majority. I recently visited Elford and witnessed the flooding and climate change can’t be denied. I can’t help but feel that we will never progress as a country while people vote for Tories who put personal wealth and themselves rather than the rest of us”.
Cllr Marshall needs to think more about the long term beyond the, let’s face it, relatively short amount of time he’s going be around for. Is it going to be more expensive over the next, 20, 30, 50 years to do things which mean we only mess up the climate a bit more, or do nothing and deal with the consequences of messing up the climate a lot more? I’d bet it’s cheaper to spend money now. Regardless of money, we have the choice of do nothing and let things get worse, or trying to stop things getting worse. If you care about the world the younger people in your life will live in, or even the world you’ll live in in 20 years, try doing something. Don’t listen to anyone involved in the fossil fuel industry, they care only about protecting their business model.
According to the council’s register of interests, Cllr Thomas Marshall worked for A.I.D Fuel Oils Ltd. He represents the oil industry. He does not represent the scientific consensus on climate change. He is an obstacle to the change necessary for the future of our planet and, indeed, humanity. The people being “led up the garden path” are those that voted for him.
As for “exorbitant and unaffordable”, this would be an apt description of the huge profits enjoyed by the oil industry at the expense of real progress on tackling perhaps the most urgent issue the human race has ever faced. If he thinks the cost of implementing carbon net zero is high, he should try educating himself as to the costs of not implementing it. A cost which will be borne by my children’s generation – and which is already impacting many around the world.
Cllr Marshall is not merely an “outlier” on the issue of climate change: he is a self-interested proponent of deliberate and dangerous misinformation.
When coal was “king” (about 1900 to 1970) the amount of carbon and other noxious gas emissions was probably at its highest. Dense fogs and dirty air was a consequence of this along with many respiratory illnesses.
Winters were long and cold and, generally, consistent in nature. So what has changed to create a radical difference? More cars definitely, but catalytic converters mitigate much of the emissions. Gas for heating is much cleaner than coal was, so now fogs are very rare.
Carbon dioxide is a heavy gas and, at low levels, gets washed out of the atmosphere. Acid rain and dirty buildings ensues. Although the aviation industry claims to only contribute 2% emissions (probably underestimated) it is deposited in the high troposphere and stratosphere. It takes very much longer to dissipate out. It is a major cause of greenhouse warming.
It’s exponential growth is part of the cause and effect.
Net zero is a policy with no evidence that it is affordable or even desirable in global terms, no cost/benefit analysis. Just because it is being forced on us by the MSM and activists doesn’t mean it’s right. We in the uk have reduced our emissions to 1990s levels. Look to China or India building coal fired power stations and the disproportionate impact there rather than crippling our industries and our citizens with this globalist agenda. No one mentions China or that our reckless pursuit of zero is an ideology . Exactly whom is this benefiting because it’s not Britain or the climate.
Once again Cllr Marshall shows how out of touch with the residents of this country and this district, his own party and the consensus of Lichfield District Council, who declared a climate emergency several years ago.
Councillor Marshall—-yes a statistical outlier but also just another flat earther.
I suspect there is more than a little profundity in Cllr Marshall’s Council statement, as there no doubt is in BiGs’s & Cllr Galvin’s comments below, but the “we” and the “they” expected to pull this rabbit out of the hat comes down to the “me” and “you” throughout the land.
This year and in recent years, we are likely to exceed a total of £20K on insulation, microgeneration and low carbon heating options, but that has come at the expense of having just 2 weeks holiday in 8 years, hardly eating out since Covid and very rarely drinking alcohol.
At the moment few are willing to make those stark life choices to help progress towards carbon reduction, so if others aren’t, why carp at the way Jim Ratcliffe chooses his leisure spend ?
Our elected representatives are certainly not the best of us.
“If you understand the principles of a standard deviation curve”
Gobbledygook. The normal distribution is sometimes called the “bell curve” and standard deviation is a measure of the shape of that curve. There is no such thing as the “standard deviation curve.”
Seems to me the only curve that applies to Councillor Marshall is the Dunning-Kruger curve (the relationship between competence and confidence), and he’s sitting on the part of it called Mount Stupid (low competence, high confidence).
Further, why does a Councillor with a declared personal interest in selling fossil fuels not recuse himself from discussions on Carbon net neutral policies?
It’s simple . Do what we can that costs nothing such as reduced packaging, increase public transport and feed the starving first. The thought of Mr and Mrs rich smug reducing carbon whilst the world starves sickens me.
The odd thing is Marshall sells fuel to farmers. Farmers are struggling with not enough frost for apple trees. The Central belt gets the same frost as Sussex 20 years ago. Fields saturated with water, unsable for crops for months. At the other end crops lost to wildfires in Summer. You would have thought farming sustainability would be in his interest but he cannot make cognitive connection. A turkey voting for Christmas.
River barriers up at Bewdley every winter, close to maximum 200 year predicted levels. Large number of floods at New Road Worcester in the last 25 years compared to the previous 100.
Why? Well for every 1C rise in average temperature air can hold 7-8% more water. What happens when that now extra water hits a cold landmass and where does it end up? No doubt someone will be along to say down the drain and we need more drains. Where do the drains run to?
Cllr Marshall should be advised to research the subject of climate change – maybe starting with the UN which describes it as ‘one of the major challenges of our time’. Cllr Marshall should then remember he is part of a political party that ‘follows the science’ and prides itself on ‘fiscal responsibility’ – the cost of doing the right thing will be high, but the cost of not doing the right thing now will be higher in the future. He may also like to consider the leadership role public authorities have in persuading us all to do the right thing. After all, if the council can’t be bothered why should we? Cllr Marshall may then like to stand down as the chair of the planning committee as his vested interests in fossil fuels are incompatible with doing the right thing. If he can’t see that it’s to be hoped the leader of the council takes action to minimise the damage he can do.
Why should we listen to someone with no interest in the future beyond their own investment portfolio? Climate change is a terrifying reality for everyone with young children and not some political football to be banded round by “I’m alright jack” geriatrics.
I suspect cllr Marshall’s real contribution to society finished in the 1980s and his own personal future is measured in single figures not generations so why should he care?
Can we please, please get rid of these dinosaurs from commenting, let alone making any decisions on the future of our children?
How much does Cllr Marshall think it will cost to deal with the effects of climate change? Does he not care about the state of the world we will leave to our children and grandchildren? His plan seems to be to let it happen and pay for the consequences later.