Debate contribution: Net Zero Policies: Cost-benefit Analysis

Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on 14 April 2026.

MLA

Mr Andrew Muir

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

14 April 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Net Zero Policies: Cost-benefit Analysis

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5482784

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to address the Assembly on the motion concerning the delivery of public services and major infrastructure projects and the call for a cost-benefit analysis of net zero policies. At the outset, I need to be absolutely clear that I fundamentally disagree with the central premise of the motion. It suggests that our climate targets are merely aspirational and that the draft climate action plan should be withdrawn. Climate targets are not aspirational; they are statutory. They were passed with overwhelming support by the Assembly. Every Department has a duty to comply with the Climate Change Act. I have no authority to disregard that obligation or withdraw the climate action plan. The Act requires that a climate action plan be brought forward every five years, and the Executive are already playing catch-up due to the previous collapse of these institutions. Climate legislation is not something that we can opt in and out of based upon short-term pressures. It is a framework that is designed to safeguard Northern Ireland's social, economic and environmental well-being for future generations. Since taking up office as Minister, I have focused on accelerating delivery. We now have our first three legally binding carbon budgets, interim carbon emissions targets and a new climate adaptation plan. We have made significant progress on Northern Ireland's first climate action plan and have been actively working to establish a just transition commission for Northern Ireland, ensuring that fairness is at the heart of this work. The impacts of climate change are here, and they are unmistakable. Ignoring the crisis will not make those events less frequent or less costly. The fact that we have experienced the wettest January in 149 years, major flooding in Downpatrick and Newry, which impacted on homes, businesses and infrastructure, and storm Éowyn, which alone cost Departments more than £17 million and left hundreds of thousands without power, demonstrates that clearly. Such events disrupt public services, damage infrastructure and place enormous financial strain on departmental budgets. They also have a profound impact on the citizens whom we are here to represent. Analysis has shown that public support for climate action remains strong. The existence of a more polarised and negative discourse is not supported by the evidence. For example, the Climate Change Committee and the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) are unequivocal: delaying climate action will cost significantly more than acting early in a planned and proportionate way. The Office for Budget Responsibility warns that climate damages could reduce UK GDP by 8% by the 2070s. Failing to act would undermine the very infrastructure and public services that the motion claims to defend. The motion also calls for the draft climate action plan to be withdrawn. The Act imposes legal duties on all Departments to provide policies and proposals to meet Northern Ireland's carbon budgets. Those budgets were agreed democratically by the Assembly. The draft climate action plan reflects contributions from all Departments. It is not discretionary work; it is statutory work. If Departments fail to comply with their legal obligations, the consequences are clearly known, and the uncertainty that could arise is also very well known. It would help no one, least of all our farmers, households and businesses that need clarity and direction. The motion also cites the A5 judgement and minimum active travel spending requirements. It is important to be accurate about the legal context and the role of the Climate Change Act. I am limited in what I can say about the ongoing A5 legal proceedings, which are currently under appeal. However, climate considerations should not be an obstacle to development. Therefore, appealing the judgement is critical, and I am working closely with the Infrastructure Minister on the issue. It is essential that we clarify the interpretation of the legislation so that it can be fully implemented as intended. Active travel investment does not prevent essential road repairs. Spending on maintaining active travel infrastructure is vital and contributes significantly to making our streets safer and more accessible for some of the most vulnerable groups of road users. Investing in the development of pedestrian and cycling infrastructure helps to provide healthier, safer and more sustainable travel choices, which ultimately reduces congestion, improves air quality and supports economic productivity. The motion further suggests that some proposals in the draft climate action plan are not quantified. It is correct that not every proposal will show immediate emissions reductions by 2027, but that does not mean that the polices lack value — far from it. If we focus only on what delivers short-term emissions savings, we will fail to meet the long-term legal targets and expose Northern Ireland to even greater economic and social risks from climate impacts. Many early-stage policies are foundational. The research, pilots, enabling frameworks and preparatory work will unlock larger emissions savings in the next carbon budget period. Some of the difficult long-term structural changes that are required to meet our second carbon budget, which is a 48% reduction by 2032, need to begin now if they are to be delivered on time. The motion calls for a new system-wide cost-benefit analysis of all net zero policies: that is neither necessary nor proportionate. All policies of the Northern Ireland Executive are subject to the same set of rules, which seek to ensure that public money is not wasted or used inappropriately. That already includes economic impact assessment screening and, if required, business case development. If a policy action involves the allocation of public money, a proportionate business case will be required. All programmes and projects that are delivered to support the policies listed in the climate action plan are already subject to those requirements. Moreover, the Climate Change Committee's analysis shows that the overall benefits of reaching net zero could outweigh the costs by more than three to one. Its latest analysis shows that, once the impacts on households, businesses and the public purse are added up, a single fossil fuel price spike can cost as much as delivering the entire recommended route to net zero.

I will reply to you as an MLA. I am very conscious of the advice from the CCC. I am also conscious of the question that was asked because the answer is very specific to that. I will set out the road map that we are presenting for agriculture, which is fundamental to the sustainable agriculture programme, and we are implementing good measures to support the farming community in Northern Ireland. The draft climate action plan does not seek herd reduction, and it is important for me to clarify that point. I will continue. We must act on the substantial evidence that is already available, rather than create new layers of bureaucracy. I reiterate that delaying action will not save money; it will cost us more, economically, socially and environmentally, in the long run. Over the period 2023-27, capital has and will be invested through the implementation of climate action plan policies and proposals across the Northern Ireland Executive. Not all interventions are new. Some of the costs are already part of the existing programmes and budgets. Section 31 of the Act requires DAERA to:

"by regulations establish a scheme for the administration of a fund to be known as the 'Just Transition Fund for Agriculture'".

It will deliver funding for the capital elements of the policies and proposals for the agriculture sector that are included in the draft climate action plan, and that fund is already established.

It will also support matters, because the motion claims that climate policies place:

"additional burdens on farmers and households during a cost-of-living crisis".

I fully recognise the real pressures faced by both. Farmers already experience the consequences of climate change at first hand through intense rainfall, soil degradation, disease pressures and increased market volatility. Climate action is not optional for the agriculture sector; it is central to protecting farm incomes, strengthening resilience and securing the future of the sector. Public investment in agriculture carries an expectation of environmental delivery, and that is being delivered in spades. Supporting farmers to take practical, proportionate action in climate and nature is essential to maintaining confidence in farm support, demonstrating value for public money and safeguarding that support into the future. We are not proposing to follow the Climate Change Committee's recommended livestock reductions; instead, our focus is on practical measures that help farmers cut emissions while protecting productivity. Schemes within our sustainable agriculture programme, including the beef sustainability package, the Farming with Nature package and the carbon footprinting project, aim to support farmers to do that. For households, climate action delivers clear, practical benefits: more energy-efficient homes; lower energy bills; warmer homes and better living conditions; cleaner air; and greater energy security. That is why climate action is not an additional cost; it is an investment in our society and a shield against future economic shocks. To succeed, the transition must be fair. That is why the principle of a just transition is central to all of this. I am committed to establishing the just transition commission within this mandate to ensure fairness and to support rural communities, workers and businesses through change. The commission will include representation from agriculture, rural stakeholders, industry, academia and civic society. We should be clear about the alternative. Weakening our climate targets or halting climate planning would create uncertainty and leave society, business and our economy regionally and globally isolated. With over three quarters of global GDP now covered by net zero commitments, we cannot afford to be left behind. The motion misdiagnoses the problem and proposes actions that are not consistent with our legislation and are economically unwise. Northern Ireland needs a clear, credible, collective and legally compliant path to net zero. The Climate Change Act requires it, and the climate action plan provides it. I am committed to delivering it in a fair, evidence-based and practical way. For those reasons, I cannot support the motion; instead, I will continue to work across government and with our farmers, businesses and communities to build a more resilient, competitive and sustainable Northern Ireland, one that protects the interests of this generation and, importantly, the next.

1,696 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