Debate contribution: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024
Debate contribution by Miss Michelle McIlveen on .
- MLA
- Miss Michelle McIlveen
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 26 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4677292
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone for her intervention, and I agree with her. I have had the pleasure of visiting the Encirc site to see the incredible work that the company does. Like so many companies in Northern Ireland, it is leading the way on the circular economy. Although we appreciate that there is a role for ambitious and flexible emissions targets and that schemes such as the ETS are driving forward progress, the DUP also wants to see a fairer, not faster, approach to achieving net zero. In this place during the previous mandate, climate legislation was rushed and poorly drafted, and it conflicted with independent scientific advice from the Climate Change Committee (CCC). On this occasion, we note that the changes being introduced in the Order choose to align the cap on allowances with the UK's net zero strategy goals rather than with the CCC's advice, which would have permitted more emissions in the traded sector. That, again, gives us food for thought. Finally, and probably most importantly, we must ensure that what we ask of energy-intensive sectors is fair and deliverable and does not simply result in higher costs for the end consumer.
200 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 (0.91).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | 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 | 0.98 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| 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 11:35 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.