Collaborative Proposal Creation
Create, improve and sponsor proposals in a respectful, fully bilingual environment. Grow proposals in the "Hothouse", for promotion to the "Workshop", to become official GPC policy.
- Proposal text
- BE IT RESOLVED that the Green Party of Canada fundamentally challenges the use of carbon offsets as federal policy unless it can be verified scientifically and audited on a case-by-case basis that additional and permanent GHG reductions are achieved that have not already been claimed by another entity and are not associated with significant social or environmental harms. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Party supports bringing the sale of all carbon offsets and credits nationwide under federal regulation and oversight.
- Type of Proposal
- Public policy that the party would represent
- Objective / Benefit
- Since markets for carbon credits/offsets have been largely unregulated, lacking transparency, accountability, and verifiability, a federally regulated credit system with defined compliance protocols may be seen as an improvement toward ensuring that offset schemes truly represent the emissions reductions claimed. However, reliance on this policy tool remains problematic due to: questionable appropriateness of measures that result in temporary carbon sequestration offsetting permanent fossil fuel emissions; emissions trading allows emitters to pay to delay, minimize, or avoid emission reductions, a questionable way to achieve rapid net reductions; predicted emission reductions by the seller often rely on weak forecasting models
- If your proposal replaces an existing policy or policies, which one does it replace?
- The GPC currently does not have a policy on carbon offsets
- List any supporting evidence for your proposal
- https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/a-blueprint-for-scaling-voluntary-carbon-markets-to-meet-the-climate-challenge https://www.cbc.ca/radio/whatonearth/carbon-offsets-might-be-a-dangerous-distraction-from-more-effective-climate-action-experts-say-1.5946764 https://resources.environment.yale.edu/kotchen/pubs/ssirfinal.pdf https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/pricing-pollution-how-it-will-work/output-based-pricing-system/federal-greenhouse-gas-offset-system.html https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2022-111/page-1.html https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/01/10/the-five-biggest-reasons-carbon-offsetting-schemes-can-fail#:~:text=The%20most%20prominent%20reason%20why,which%20were%20never%20in%20danger.
- Does this proposal affect any particular group and what efforts have been made to consult with the group or groups?
- N/A
- Jurisdiction: Is this proposal under federal jurisdiction?
- Yes
- Please indicate the language the proposal is being submitted in.
- English
This proposal has been accepted because:
This proposal has been accepted because:
93% voted in favour of adopting this motion at the 19th General Meeting
96.3% voted in favor of adopting this motion in the post-GM all member (ratification) vote. This motion is now official GPC policy and will be added to the Membership Approved Policy – Green Book.
We're building a new kind of politics. One that is open, participatory, and people-powered
If you believe in what we're doing, please consider making a small donation to help us build it
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Comment details
You are seeing a single comment
View all comments
, agreed, which is exactly why we need a policy. Major greenwashing going on, including in Ontario, Quebec, and California, and there is more to come. An earlier commenter suggested that those jurisdictions have already solved the problem. We disagree. In our opinion, they have not. This is why are proposing that the party policy be to fundamentally challenge the use of carbon offsets as public policy unless it can be verified scientifically and audited on a case-by-case basis that additional and permanent GHG reductions are achieved that have not already been claimed by another entity and are not associated with significant social or environmental harm. So pretty much we are saying what you are saying :)
Loading comments ...