Debate contribution: Net Zero Policies: Cost-benefit Analysis

Debate contribution by Mr Jon Burrows on 14 April 2026.

MLA

Mr Jon Burrows

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 5482716

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I will avoid mentioning the T-word — Trump — lest I get in trouble.

In all seriousness, how we get the balance right between looking after our climate in the long term and how we look after jobs and lives and have the ability to build hospitals, roads and all the other infrastructure that we need is one of the defining challenges of our time. How do we have food security and how do we help with the cost of living, particularly for those who have the least? Often, those who have the most to say about climate live in the biggest homes and have the most disposable income. We need to live in the real world. I read recently that a plane on its journey changes its flight path about every five minutes. When we start on a journey of climate change looking ahead to 2050, it is inevitable that we will sometimes have to change our flight path, because we change with the facts. That does not mean that you throw out your wanting to get to the destination. It just changes the flight path — the way and the "how" of getting there — and the cost that you are prepared to incur in the meantime. We believe in a clean world and a healthy planet, with clean water and clean air. We also believe in our farmers. I will put on record the fact that our farmers in Northern Ireland feed about 20% of the United Kingdom. I am very proud of that; I come from and represent North Antrim, and that is the heartbeat of our constituency. We have to have SMART targets — we all know the acronym: specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and timely — but they should be stretching. Nobody should suggest that we should throw out stretching targets that make us work and flex every sinew, but they have to be achievable. If your targets are not achievable, you will undermine your own cause, because you will fuel the climate change deniers by creating cynicism, and you will get people's backs up as they see the cost of living soaring and projects not being delivered. There is therefore a need for that elusive Goldilocks balance, but we have not got it. There should be no shame in saying that, having passed legislation, you sometimes have to revise it. You might revise targets up or down; you change with the facts.

I will.

We absolutely should revise them. If you fail to make the small, incremental changes as and when, you will end up on a completely different flight path from the one that you intended to go on, and you will crash into a mountain: that is the reality. Let me say a couple of other things. Infrastructure is an issue when it comes to climate. It is not just about setting the targets. There are farmers in my constituency who want to put in a more environmentally friendly facility but cannot do so because of delays in planning, and they cannot access the grid or water. All those things are our responsibility. At times, people in our society and in our politics hammer the farmer and do not take cognisance of the people who are struggling with the cost of living. We need to reduce the cost of things such as fuel but accept that there will sometimes be an offset of that. I will bring this back to the nub of the issue: we need to find balance in life and in law. There is now a need to revise the targets. That is not to say that they should be withdrawn — throwing the baby out with the bathwater — but that there should be sensible revision so that we can build and we can look after food security and so that people can live comfortably today but that, in the future, we will have the cleanest possible planet.

Yes: 100%. Those are the intricacies that the public do not listen to when we are interested in just a TikTok click, a sound bite or in digging at each other. I welcome the Member's intervention. There is much merit in the motion. I am delighted that we are talking about it, because we should be debating these very issues.

I pay tribute to them. Having spoken to more farmers since I started in this place, I am in awe of them. Their knowledge of science and innovation and their desire to innovate and do things differently are amazing. I will conclude —.

I conclude by saying that I welcome the motion, although we have an issue —

— with withdrawal. That is me concluded, Mr Deputy Speaker.

788 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