Debate contribution: Net Zero Policies: Cost-benefit Analysis

Debate contribution by Mr Tom Buchanan on 14 April 2026.

MLA

Mr Tom Buchanan

Party at the time

Democratic 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 5482594

Read the official Assembly record

Text

There is nothing in the motion that should not command the support of all around the Chamber, yet all I have heard from the other Benches is hot air, pardon the pun, and an unwillingness to face up to reality. The motion speaks to a fundamental responsibility that we all share, and that is to ensure that the policies that we pass in the Chamber deliver real, tangible benefits for the people whom we represent, not policies that are unbalanced, that cripple industry and that destroy our agricultural community. No one in the Chamber will dispute the importance of environmental responsibility, but when climate change targets become detached from economic reality, from engineering feasibility and from the lived experience of households and our farming community, surely it is the duty of the Assembly to pause, scrutinise and change our course of action. While other parties pursued the net zero by 2050 policy and other unrealistic targets, resulting in the estimated cost of DAERA's draft climate action plan exceeding £1 billion between now and 2027, we continually opposed them and warned of the consequences. Minister, having ambitious targets without proper analysis is not leadership. It poses a risk, and we are now reaping the consequences of that. We are all well aware of the situation around the A5 road upgrade. It is a project that has been in the mix for more than a decade at a cost of millions of pounds, yet it is still sitting in limbo due to unrealistic climate change targets that simply cannot be met. The implications extend much further than that because the A4 Enniskillen southern bypass and other major infrastructure schemes now face similar uncertainties. When legal obligations designed for one purpose end up blocking essential public works, something is wrong.

I will give way to Mrs Erskine.

Yes, I agree fully. We need to look at the facts and the reality rather than burying our heads in the sand and pursuing targets that are not feasible. We also face the perverse situation where a statutory minimum spend on active travel, no matter how well intentioned, is actively preventing investment in basic road maintenance. Our ratepayers expect potholes to be repaired, safe roads to travel on and an infrastructure that delivers, yet DFI is prioritising spending to satisfy a legal formula, rather than a public need. The draft climate action plan compounds those issues, containing proposals that are uncosted, unquantified and unclear in their impact. Farmers already under pressure from volatile markets and rising input costs are being asked to absorb additional regulatory burdens without any transparent assessment of the economic consequences. Householders, who are facing a cost-of-living crisis, are being asked to shoulder higher bills without any clear evidence that those measures deliver value for money. The motion neither denies climate change nor rejects environmental action, but it requests competence and evidence-based analysis and that every Department and arm's-length body conducts a rigorous cost-benefit analysis of all net zero-related policies and funding streams. That is not radical; rather, it represents responsible government and leadership from the Minister who is bringing forward those policies. If a policy delivers environmental benefit at a reasonable cost, it will stand up to scrutiny, but when a policy imposes disproportionate burdens on rural communities, working families or essential infrastructure, the House has a duty and responsibility to acknowledge that and to act accordingly. We cannot continue with a situation where climate policies are developed in isolation from economic reality, have unrealistic targets and are aspirational on paper but obstructive in practice at huge cost to the public purse, with little evidence of benefits flowing from them. Such policies are causing devastation to our industries, our agricultural communities and other sectors across Northern Ireland. I urge the Minister to consider the road that we are on, to change course and to deliver climate change policy that can be worked on and delivered, rather than something that cannot be delivered at all.

662 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