Debate contribution: The draft Climate Change (Carbon Budgets 2023-2037) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024
Debate contribution by Miss Nicola Brogan on .
- MLA
- Miss Nicola Brogan
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 10 December 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- The draft Climate Change (Carbon Budgets 2023-2037) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4715583
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As Sinn Féin's spokesperson on the environment and climate, I am happy to speak in support of both motions. Last month, 'The Lancet' countdown on health and climate change report revealed that people in every country face record-breaking threats to health and well-being from the rapidly changing climate. That is why the Climate Change Act is one of the most important Bills that we have passed here. Research found that, last year, people were exposed to 50 more days of health-threatening temperatures than would be expected without climate change. It also found that extreme drought affected 48% of the global land area and that 151 million more people were now experiencing food insecurity. The blame for that was laid squarely at the feet of global Governments, who, 'The Lancet' states, are "fuelling the fire" with persistent investment in fossil fuels, all-time high energy-related greenhouse gas emissions and years of delays in adopting renewable and net zero technologies and practices. The Climate Change Act was our line in the sand and a commitment to no longer fuel that fire. The carbon budgets and interim targets before us today are crucial parts of that Act. They are ambitious but achievable, and they will keep us on track to meet our net zero goals while ensuring that we have the time and space to build in just transition safeguards to protect people, incomes and industries. Nobody will be left behind. I support the motions and commend them to the House.
247 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 (0.74).
- 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 | 0.74 | 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 | 0.74 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.15 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.05 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.05 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:45 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.