Debate contribution: The draft Climate Change (Carbon Budgets 2023-2037) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- 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 4715610
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member for West Tyrone referred to his recollection of weather as a child. Although it was somewhat interesting, it should not be taken as serious policy direction. It not about having some bad weather here or there; most of the hottest summers on record have occurred in the past 15 or so years. There is a pattern here, and that should inform policy and what Ministers and the Executive do. The pattern is one of a hotter planet, with hotter and more dangerous weather. The North's per capita emissions are higher than those of other places, such as the UK, and emissions here are falling at a slower rate than the UK average. There has been a 23·2% reduction in the North, compared with the UK average of 48%. The Minister and Executive need to get on with the job and speed it up. The danger is not just shown in the recent storm on these shores, but in Valencia, in the summer, people died, homes were destroyed and communities were ravaged and wrecked by the climate and the planet's heating up. That, and worse, is what our future will look like.
I will.
I thank the Minister for his intervention, and I agree. We have seen tens of millions of climate refugees across the world. Although we will be impacted in Ireland, England and elsewhere, it is mostly in the Global South where places such as Bangladesh will be submerged. We cannot be selfish: we have to look at other people across the world and make policies that will help them as well as people who live in this part of the world. However, I challenge the Minister somewhat: the North is not pulling its weight in tackling climate breakdown in the UK and Irish context. We are consuming far too many resources — far more than our fair share — in the global context. There has been a lot of discussion over the past few days about traffic problems, mostly against a backdrop of people being encouraged to spend and buy and repeat that cycle of consumerism every day. The North is a climate laggard when it comes to reducing emissions. As a society, we need to stay well below the 1·5°C target in the Paris agreement as a bare minimum. However, it highly likely that the North is close to exceeding that carbon budget, if we have not surpassed it already. We urgently need to transition to a zero-carbon society as quickly as possible. There is no space in that society for fossil fuel infrastructure or exploitation. This is where I challenge the Minister — this is an obvious point that should not need to be made, but has to be. His Department is apparently heading to the Supreme Court to assert its right to plough ahead with the destructive gas caverns project at Larne lough. That is a waste of time and resources. There is utter doublespeak on that point from you, Minister. The Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 contains the reduction target of at least 77% by 2040, as others have mentioned. More can, and must, be done. Minimum targets should not be interpreted as maximum targets. The 2040 target should not be treated as a goal but as a minimum reduction, with a clear intent and concrete plans to go beyond 77%. In reality, we probably need to be looking at net zero by 2030. Business as usual will not cut it when life itself on this planet is at stake.
589 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: 0.04 (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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.03 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.