Following the publication of this investigation in The Guardian, I give my take.
Few things expose hypocrisy quite as starkly as saying one thing, funding another, and profiting from both sides of the argument. Yet that is precisely the contradiction now sitting at the heart of GB News and its billionaire co-owner Sir Paul Marshall.
For years, GB News has built a reputation as Britain’s loudest broadcaster of climate scepticism, culture-war outrage, and attacks on environmental policies. According to research, the channel aired hundreds of attacks on climate science and climate action around the 2024 general election, with presenters and guests describing global warming as a “climate scam” and warning of dystopian fantasies such as “enforced veganism”.
At the same time, Marshall has quietly channelled at least £28 million into influential Church of England institutions that publicly support climate action, sustainable living, and the Church’s ambitious net-zero goals.
The contradiction could hardly be more glaring.
The Church of England has repeatedly stated that responding to climate change is a moral obligation. It has committed itself to reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2030 and has divested its investment funds from fossil fuels. Church leaders routinely frame environmental stewardship as a Christian duty and a responsibility to future generations.
Yet one of the Church’s most generous benefactors is simultaneously funding and owning media outlets that routinely undermine public understanding of the climate crisis.
Holy Trinity Brompton, one of the most influential churches in the country, received millions from Marshall’s charitable trust. The Church Revitalisation Trust, which has helped establish more than 100 evangelical churches across Britain, also benefited from substantial donations. Marshall himself serves as a director of the organisation.
This raises an uncomfortable question: can institutions genuinely challenge the views of a donor whose generosity has become so significant?
To be fair, there is no evidence that Marshall has directly influenced church policy. Nor is there anything inherently wrong with donating to religious causes. However, influence is not always exercised through explicit demands. Large-scale philanthropy inevitably creates relationships, loyalties and sensitivities that can discourage criticism.
That is why the concerns raised by Christian climate campaigners deserve serious attention.
Rev. Dr. Darrell Hannah of Operation Noah has warned that Marshall’s views are “in direct opposition” to those of the Church of England. More than 120 church leaders, including former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, have also criticised both Marshall’s climate positions and GB News’s treatment of climate science.
Their concerns are not rooted in partisan politics. They are rooted in evidence.
The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human activity is driving modern climate change. This is not a matter of serious dispute among climate scientists. Yet Marshall has suggested the extent of humanity’s role remains open to debate, while repeatedly criticising net-zero policies as economically harmful.
The irony is that major economic studies have consistently concluded the opposite. From the Stern Review onwards, economists have repeatedly found that the long-term costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of reducing emissions.
In other words, the argument being promoted through GB News is not merely at odds with environmental science. It is increasingly at odds with mainstream economic analysis as well.
What makes the situation particularly troubling is the moral language often employed by GB News and its supporters. The channel frequently presents itself as a defender of ordinary people against elites supposedly imposing ideological agendas. Yet climate change will disproportionately harm ordinary people through higher food prices, extreme weather, rising insurance costs and economic instability.
The greatest burden will fall not on billionaires, but on working families.
If Sir Paul Marshall genuinely believes climate action is unnecessary or misguided, he is entitled to make that argument. Public debate depends on disagreement. But he cannot reasonably expect to avoid scrutiny when he simultaneously bankrolls institutions whose official teachings reject the very message being broadcast through his media empire.
The issue is not whether Marshall should donate to churches. The issue is whether Britain’s most influential Christian donor can continue funding climate-conscious religious institutions while owning a television channel that persistently attacks climate action without facing questions about the contradiction.
The answer is no.
Because what we are witnessing is not simply a disagreement over policy. It is a striking example of how wealth can simultaneously support and undermine the same moral cause. And that is the rancid hypocrisy at the heart of GB News.
