Debate contribution: Net Zero Policies: Cost-benefit Analysis

Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on 14 April 2026.

MLA

Mr Robbie Butler

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

14 April 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Net Zero Policies: Cost-benefit Analysis

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5482518

Read the official Assembly record

Text

There is no doubt that the motion contains elements that are worthy of discussion. It raises legitimate concerns about infrastructure delivery, particularly the A5; pressures on ratepayers; and the real frustration that communities feel when long-promised projects are delayed. It also, entirely reasonably, asks that policies be properly costed and poses a question about where their impacts are understood and whether Departments are working efficiently. Those points in the motion deserve proper debate in the Chamber, but, unfortunately, due to the nature of the motion, each of us has only a few minutes in which to speak. However, the motion falls fundamentally short in its framing, unfortunately. At its core, it presents a false choice. It suggests that we must choose between environmental ambition and economic progress and between climate responsibility and delivering for our citizens. That is not only misleading but counterproductive

Not at this point. The reality is this: our environment and our economy are not in competition. They are inextricably linked. The agri-food sector — one of the cornerstones of our economy — depends entirely on a stable climate, healthy soils and sustainable water systems. Our ability to attract investment depends increasingly on credibility in the transition to net zero. Our energy security, food security and long-term prosperity hinge on getting the right balance. The Ulster Unionist Party is clear that we do not accept that it is a binary choice. We say that we must do both and must do better, but we have to be honest about where the failures lie. If we miss the targets by 2027 — I suggest that we will — it will not be because of our farmers, builders or businesses; it will be because we were not here. It will be because of the failure of leadership and coordination at the heart of government and, particularly, because of the lack of interdepartmental working. We have had five years out of the past 10 years without ministerial leadership; five years without strategic direction; and five years without setting a clear and collective ambition for Northern Ireland, its environment and its economy. That vacuum has consequences. We see it in the lack of preparedness in Departments. We see it in the failure to support renewable energy, whether it is onshore or offshore, and, in particular, in anaerobic digestion. My party will propose a motion to the House next week on that subject, and I hope that Members will get behind it, because it tackles the problems that we face: food security, energy security and our environmental credentials in this country. That is being solution-focused. We see it in the absence of meaningful progress on afforestation — we will miss that target — in the stagnation of waste management reform and in the slow pace of change in transport, especially when it comes to electric vehicles and active travel. I will let the Member come in.

We need to be clear about this.

Thank you very much. Had the motion said, "We will revise the targets", which is the party position of the Ulster Unionists, because the targets need to be revised, we would. However, withdrawal of the ambition means that we will fail to hit the mark at all. There is nothing wrong with having ambition, but we need to be absolutely honest in the Chamber: we will probably miss the targets. We have to be honest with the public. However, if we remove the ambition completely, we will miss the targets by a country mile. We need to stop blaming Joe Public, the farmer and the agrisector, and we need to work collectively in our Departments to ensure that we are facing in the same direction. Let us scrutinise climate policy. I can assure you that, if any of us are here in 2027 — if we are lucky enough to be elected — we will ensure that the scrutiny that is applied to the next draft climate plan will result in a different figure from what the last one got. However, let us ensure that it is proportionate and deliverable. Let us not pretend that the problem is the ambition itself. The problem is the absence of a coherent plan that works between Departments to actually deliver. The motion rightly identifies some of the symptoms, but it misdiagnoses the cause and, in doing so, makes it impossible for us to support it. A simple change to the wording would have made it credible and deliverable. Does the Member want to come in?

No, you have already come in. Does the Member want to make an intervention?

I remind the Member that the climate Act was brought forward by Edwin Poots. You and I were here, and we all voted for it. We may have a difference of opinion when it comes to our ambition and where we see the climate in respect of the economy and the environment, but, for us, it is about balance. Both things are achievable, and prosperity in that regard is absolutely achievable. I hope that the DUP will join us in that vein and see the linkage between the two. We need to move forward with ambition, realism and leadership, and that means rejecting the false choice at the heart of the motion. We should instead commit to an approach that delivers for both the environment and the economy.

895 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:18 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.

Challenge this classification