Debate contribution: Net Zero Policies: Cost-benefit Analysis

Debate contribution by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on 14 April 2026.

MLA

Ms Sinéad McLaughlin

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

14 April 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Net Zero Policies: Cost-benefit Analysis

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5482540

Read the official Assembly record

Text

It is important that we step back from the framing of the motion and look at the reality of where Northern Ireland is. The argument being made is that climate targets are the barrier and are holding back infrastructure and delivery and placing pressures on public services. However, when you look at the evidence, you see that that is not where the problem is. When the Assembly passed the Climate Change Act, it did so because Northern Ireland was already falling behind. We were behind on emissions reduction, renewable energy and the infrastructure needed to support both. The Act was intended to provide clear direction and a level of certainty that had been missing for far too long. That need for direction has not gone away; if anything, it has become even more pressing. We need to remember that the target of 80% renewable electricity by 2030 was supported by industry at the time. It also had the support of the parties in the Assembly. At the time, the target was not seen as unrealistic; it was seen as achievable, provided that government did what it was required to do to support that delivery. That is where the difficulty has emerged. As I know from my role on the Economy Committee, it is clear that progress on the fundamentals has been far too slow. Legislation that should underpin the transition has not been brought forward at the pace at which it was needed. Decisions that would give clarity to the sector have taken far too long. Key infrastructure has not progressed in line with what was envisaged. Those are the issues that are holding us back. Changing or weakening the targets will not address any of that. It will not speed up —.

Certainly, go ahead.

That is certainly a concern. We have not done what we said that we would do in order to achieve the targets. The barriers are not the targets but those who are in government and are not delivering the key infrastructure needed to carry the targets forward. The motion will not speed up legislation, unblock projects or provide confidence to investors. If anything, it risks adding to the uncertainty. That matters because the direction of travel elsewhere is very clear. Across these islands and beyond, Governments continue to move towards net zero, and investment is following in that direction.

I really do not have any time. I will come back to you if I have time. There is a real risk that, if Northern Ireland begins to step back from the commitments, which were only recently agreed, we are sending a really bad signal that we are not serious about any form of just green transition. Recently, I met energy stakeholders. What was striking was how far their conversations had already moved on. Their focus is not on whether targets should be revisited but on how they will deliver net zero by 2050. They are planning ahead. They are ready to invest. However, they need certainty. They need to know that the policy framework here will be stable and that decisions will be taken in a timely way. At the moment, that confidence is not where it needs to be. It is also important to place the debate in the wider context of what people are experiencing. Obviously, energy costs have risen sharply following the latest developments in the Middle East. Households and businesses are feeling that pressure in a very real way, yet the response from the Executive has not matched the urgency of the situation. Too often, we have seen the focus on shifting responsibility elsewhere rather than on using the levers that we have here in order to make lives better for our people and communities. The Executive are not powerless in that. There are steps that could and should be taken to provide support to give some relief to people who are struggling. Even in that context, the lesson is not that we should slow down the transition but that we should quicken the pace of it. The current system leaves us more exposed than we ever were. Dependence on fossil fuels means exposure to global shocks that really hurt us very much at the heart of where our energy supplies are. If we want greater stability and more secure and affordable energy in the long term, that will come from building a different system. That is what the Climate Change Act was intended to support. Alongside that, we already see the impact of climate change closer to home in increased flooding, as others have said, more severe storms and growing pressure on infrastructure and public services. Each of those events carries a cost. Those costs will only increase if action is delayed. Therefore, my party will not support the motion. In fact, I would say this: let us speed up and move to a green, fair and just transition as soon as possible —

— and get on with the job that we were sent here to do.

839 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