Debate contribution: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024
Debate contribution by Mr John Blair on .
- MLA
- Mr John Blair
- Party at the time
- Alliance 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 4677294
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I intend to speak briefly. I will try to avoid absolute repetition of what has been said, but I will also speak to the greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme. I stress that the UK-wide strategies for environmental protection, such as this scheme, are essential in order to address the challenges of climate change. I express my gratitude to the Minister and his officials for their work on the issue. I appreciate their efforts to keep me and my Committee colleagues updated and thank them for coming to the Committee and answering questions at various stages of the process. As other Members have emphasised, the scheme establishes a framework for trading greenhouse gas emissions. That innovative approach not only encourages major industries to prioritise their environmental impact but aligns with our national and international commitments to combat climate change. By promoting a reduction in carbon emissions, the scheme plays a crucial role in facilitating meaningful action towards a more sustainable future. It is crucial for us to actively support such initiatives, as they play an essential role in enhancing the protection of our environment. By doing so, we not only help preserve our natural resources and ecosystems but strengthen our economy, thus encouraging growth and innovation in order to align with other leading economies. I am therefore content that the Order proceed.
221 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: 0.02 (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).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.33 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 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.