Debate contribution: Carbon Budget: Emissions
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 30 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Carbon Budget: Emissions
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5043012
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We sit here in June 2025. The Climate Change Act was passed in March 2022. Shortly after that, the institutions did not sit for two years. Those were two years in which the opportunity to implement the legislation was missed as a result of the collapse of the institutions by the DUP. When I brought to the Executive proposals to set the carbon budget and consult on the climate action plan, there was yet more delay. Climate action requires a whole-of-government commitment to decarbonisation. If the institutions had not been collapsed and everyone had put their shoulders to the wheel, we would have had the carbon budget set years ago; the climate action plan would not just have been not just consulted on but agreed and delivered; a Climate Commissioner would have been in place; and a just transition commission would have been up and running. We cannot change the past, but we can change the future. Together, we must grasp the opportunities of decarbonisation. As Minister, I am determined to drive green growth. A draft green growth strategy was compiled by my predecessor, and I am determined to get it agreed. I sent it to the Executive in December of last year, and I will continue to look for its approval because there are opportunities from decarbonisation in Northern Ireland, primarily in reducing people's energy bills and giving them more security on these issues. Northern Ireland cannot afford to be a laggard on these issues.
246 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: 0.11 (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 (0.82).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- 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 | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.82 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.11 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.98 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:00 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.