Debate contribution: Net Zero Policies: Cost-benefit Analysis

Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on 14 April 2026.

MLA

Mr Gerry Carroll

Party at the time

People Before Profit Alliance

Date

14 April 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Net Zero Policies: Cost-benefit Analysis

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5482751

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I do not know what the Communities Minister is mumbling about, but I will give way to him in a second, if he wants to intervene. Let us be honest about what actually causes our crumbling roads and failing infrastructure. It is not climate targets but decades of chronic underinvestment, an over-reliance on private car usage and a catastrophic failure to expand our public transport network. The DUP has been central to the Budgets that have gutted our public services and worsened the cost-of-living crisis for communities. Blaming the Climate Change Act for potholes and delayed road schemes is grade-A spoofing, and people will not be fooled by it. The North was far behind other jurisdictions on reducing emissions before that legislation was enacted. I agree with the Member for Foyle that the problem is not that we have moved too fast; the problem is that the Executive have dragged their feet for 20 years and are now looking for someone else to blame. The DUP tends to blame asylum seekers for the housing crisis, and now it blames limited climate legislation for roads not being built. The mind certainly does boggle. The framing of the cost-of-living crisis in the motion is really cynical. Climate change legislation, albeit limited, is important, and it does not make life financially harder for people. I thank the RSPB for its helpful briefing ahead of the debate on the motion. Its recent polling found that 86% of people here want to the Executive to do more, not less, on nature restoration, and that 89% of people want them to take more, not less, action to protect nature for future generations. Obviously, that includes farmers. It is worth challenging. Farmers are not one homogenous block, and they do not buy the DUP's climate change denial, hook, line and sinker. The public are not asking us to gut climate protections; they are asking us to act. That is unequivocal. Failing to invest now means paying a far steeper price later financially — never mind the human cost — in flood damage, energy insecurity and destroyed infrastructure. It is worth looking at examples of what works. The Garron plateau restoration project delivers £3·90 for every £1 invested, and peatland restoration, in general, reduces the risk of flood by 27%. That is what genuine cost-benefit analysis looks like. The cost of inaction eclipses the cost of action, every time. That, of course, is not mentioned in the motion. The motion also cynically pits investment in our roads against active travel. The Walk Wheel Cycle Trust rightly points out that investment in active travel means wider, safer pavements for disabled people, parents with prams and people who cycle. It is the only form of travel that benefits our health, economy and environment at the same time. A few extra cycle lanes could be beneficial, given the scale of traffic chaos on motorways today. Think about it: the DUP does not want holiday hunger payments, and it does not want more cycle lanes and cycle infrastructure. The mind certainly does boggle. Despite that, active travel funding has already been reallocated to support road repairs and to subsidise street lighting. Finally, I will address the brass neck of the DUP, which tabled the motion. The party that presided over the renewable heat incentive scandal, burning through hundreds of millions of pounds of public money through a shambolic and fraudulent scheme, now wants to lecture us about fiscal responsibility and value for money. That would be laughable if this were not so serious. That audacity is breathtaking. Those are the last people who should be demanding a cost-benefit analysis from anyone.

In recent days, the DUP has been pushing hard for a unionist seat for West Belfast. It is, of course, up to the electorate to determine who gets elected there.

I sincerely ask the DUP this: what good is it having that seat on the Shankill if people on the Shankill and the Falls are under water, given the policies that you advocate? That is the trajectory that you want us to go on. I am happy to give way to the Minister.

I thank the Minister for giving a short speech. There is plenty of money about, Minister. You are able to speak if you want to, but maybe your time would be better spent trying to tackle the housing crisis, which you are failing to do.

Through the Deputy Speaker, I dispute —.

I will answer the question —.

I will answer the question if you will let me speak. Come on. Calm down a wee bit there. You can also speak if you want to. To address the question, I dispute the figures that the Minister has outlined, but I am happy to look at them. I say this quite clearly to the Minister: if we do not act, it will have a financial and human impact. People are dying every single year, probably in your constituency and in mine, because of dirty air. Not acting is costing lives, and it will cost more money down the line. If you want to look at where money can be taken from to tackle the climate crisis, have a look at the amount of money that your Department is spending on subsidising landlords because of huge rents every single year.

There is plenty of money, and there are plenty of options. I urge Members and the Minister to vote against the motion.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:20 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