Member's statement: Climate Change
Member's statement by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 12 November 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Climate Change
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4658238
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Climate change was discussed in the Chamber yesterday. COP29 is happening this week in Azerbaijan. We know that the international context for climate change is threatened, because, globally, we are missing our targets, though there is an extraordinary amount of desire to reach those among the public, particularly young people, including those in Northern Ireland, and societies in the developed and developing world that are already facing the impacts of climate change. In the past couple of weeks, we have seen tropical storms in southern parts of the United States. We have also seen huge devastation and loss of life in Spain, specifically Valencia. Climate change is here, and it is not only damaging property but uprooting people's lives and causing loss of life. In Northern Ireland, we have been a laggard in dealing with climate change; that much is clear. We also have been complacent about biodiversity loss and ecological breakdown. Lough Neagh, the largest body of water in the UK and Ireland, is the most shocking example of that. Over the past couple of summers, people have seen the appalling breakdown at Lough Neagh in shocking and almost sci-fi terms. Meeting our climate targets and recovering lost nature and biodiversity should be at the top of the Executive's agenda. It should also be our focus in the Assembly, but progress has been painfully slow. Although it is true that we passed the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, we are far behind on delivering on the Act's commitments. We are far behind the curve not just in meeting its targets for achieving decarbonisation and net zero by 2030 but in delivering the plans to get to those targets. For example, the Climate Change Act called for a set of carbon budgets, enabled by a climate action plan. We are a year overdue on both those things. We had an update from the Environment Minister yesterday, but a lot of what we got was about plans, discussions and the hint of something in the coming weeks that might be placed before the Executive. I think that the Environment Minister is serious about that agenda and he wants to deliver on it, but we need more progress. We need the plans to be brought before the Executive to be agreed and then brought to the Assembly. Where there are difficult questions or challenges and people who need to be brought with us, be they consumers, those in the industry or those in agriculture, we need to be honest. We also need to establish a just transition, which is why I welcome yesterday's announcement on the establishment of the just transition commission, but we need to pick up the pace and start delivering.
452 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging 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 | 0.93 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.06 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:32 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.