Motion or amendment: Green New Deal Bill
Motion or amendment by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .
- MLA
- Mr Eóin Tennyson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 18 May 2022
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Green New Deal Bill
- Assembly identifier
- Document 373528
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Green New Deal Bill
That this Assembly recognises that tackling the climate crisis requires an investment-led, green recovery that delivers on social and economic justice and rapidly decarbonises our economy; and calls on the Executive to deliver a Green New Deal Bill, which will introduce legally binding targets in line with the UK’s commitment to stay within 1.5 degrees of global heating, reverse inequality, protect and restore nature and the environment, implement new measures of progress that prioritise human and ecological wellbeing, change the way the Assembly manages the local economy to enable unprecedented investment in the Green New Deal, end any plans to license new fossil fuel exploration, establish an action plan to transform Northern Ireland’s energy supply, transport system, farming, land management, homes, buildings, green spaces and the way of working, creating thousands green jobs across Northern Ireland; and further calls on the Executive to involve communities, trade unions and workers in the development of the plan, ensuring a just transition by prioritising investment in communities excluded from full participation in the economy as well as those working in high-emitting sectors, and to advance global justice by supporting financial and technological assistance for the global South and by promoting the Green New Deal globally.
206 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.87 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.05 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.05 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:41 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. The text was identical to an already-assessed record, so the same answers were reused.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.