Debate contribution: Climate Action Plan: Update
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 13 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Climate Action Plan: Update
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4738283
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Sinéad, for your question. In this place, we lost a lot of pace in taking action on climate change as a result of the collapse of the Assembly. We lost two years to that, and, before that, we lost years because of stop-go government. That is why we need to have reform of these institutions. Since taking up office, I have been working hard on this. I worked hard to get Executive agreement on the carbon budgets, and I was glad to get support in the Assembly to be able to do that. That was just before Christmas, and very quickly thereafter I met officials to go through the content of the CAP. That is being finalised, which is important and detailed work. I will bring it to the Executive for consultation once that work is complete. I am quite confident about the content and interventions in the first CAP. It is a bit like a marathon: the first 10K is a bit easier than the last, but it is important that we do the first 10K. Collectively, we must take action. My Department and I cannot do it alone: we all need to do take action collectively. I am confident that we can do that in Northern Ireland if we put our shoulders to the wheel. I am massively positive on this. I brought the green growth strategy to the Executive, and I continue to engage with my Executive colleagues to get agreement on it because it is about the benefits associated with decarbonisation, such as good green jobs, with which, hopefully, everyone is on board.
269 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 (0.65).
- 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 | 0.65 | 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 | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:43 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.