Debate contribution: Carbon Budgets
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 25 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Carbon Budgets
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4675035
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her question. Whilst there are legal obligations in setting the carbon budgets and then moving forward to set the climate action plan, there are also great opportunities for Northern Ireland. One reason why I am doing this job is because I believe in Northern Ireland and have hope for the future. I believe that by driving forward implementation of the climate change legislation, and also, very soon, the green growth strategy that I will bring to the Executive for approval, we can create a future that is about good green jobs. This is about prosperity for the people of Northern Ireland and ensuring that it is a just and fair transition, so that no one is left behind and we include everyone on the road to net zero. That is absolutely key. I am seeing calls from businesses on our taking forward action to drive decarbonisation and their support for net zero. What I want us to do, in this place and beyond, is to travel that course together. Yes, it is about livelihoods but it is also about lives. It is not lost on me that, in recent times, we have seen many examples of lives being lost as a result of the impact of climate change. That weighs heavily upon me, and it is something that we need to tackle in Northern Ireland.
230 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 | 0.52 | 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 | 0.95 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:40 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.