Taxonomy Foundations
Please feel free to answer only the questions that are of the most interest and relevance to you.
1a. The first phase of taxonomy development will focus on climate mitigation. In subsequent phases of the Canadian taxonomy, which objectives should be prioritized? Please select your top choices.
- Climate change adaptation / resilience
- Protection of biodiversity and healthy ecosystems
- Other (please specify)
1b. Specify priority
Circular economy should be redefined as social, non-extractive, profit-limiting, and regenerative economy
It is proposed that the design and implementation of the Canadian taxonomy be informed by the following six principles: Credible; usable; interoperable; dynamic; regionally specific; and prioritized.
2a. Do you agree or disagree with these proposed principles as the foundation for the taxonomy?
Agree
2b. Please share the reason for your answer in the space provided
I am afraid that the "usable" criteria will allow business as usual.
3. Please rate each of the principles below on a scale from “very important” to “not at all important.”
- Credible
- Important
- Usable
- Not that important
- Interoperable
- Important
- Dynamic
- Important
- Regionally Specific
- Very important
- Prioritized
- Not that important
Do No Significant Harm and Minimum Social Safeguards
Please feel free to answer only the questions that are of the most interest and relevance to you.
The proposed taxonomy framework for Canada includes a set of Do No Significant Harm (DNSH) criteria and Minimum Social Safeguards (MSS), which will be designed to ensure that climate mitigation objectives do not adversely impact other environmental and social values, or legal rights. It is proposed that issuers must disclose the extent to which they meet specific criteria for both DNSH and MSS in order to claim taxonomy alignment.
4a. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed partial alignment approach, which would require entities to disclose the extent to which DNSH/MSS criteria are or are not met rather than requiring full alignment with all DNSH/MSS criteria?
Disagree
4b. Please explain your answer in the space below
I think requiring full alignment is essential.
5a. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed scope of objectives to be covered under the DNSH and MSS frameworks?
Agree
6a. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach to grounding the DNSH/MSS frameworks in Canadian legislation and going beyond existing laws and standards where necessary?
Strongly agree
7. In which areas, if any, is it necessary to go beyond existing laws and standards for the DNSH/MSS framework?
Indigenous Peoples rights and nature's rights
8a. Do you agree or disagree that different DNSH/MSS standards should apply to projects or entities of different sizes? E.g. more comprehensive disclosures required for larger projects and/or entities, with more streamlined disclosures for smaller projects and/or entities?
Strongly agree
10. How should the taxonomy operationalize the principles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and, in particular, the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent, in the MSS framework?
Indigenous organisations are not the same as indigenous Nations. Indigenous-owned corporations should be treated as corporations, while Nations should always be able to decide for themselves. The free, prior and informed consent is a step towards self determination. It should be treated as :each Nations is independant and can decide for themselves on their land and should be considered as such.
Section 3: Activity Classification Framework
Please feel free to answer only the questions that are of the most interest and relevance to you.
The activity classification framework proposes that the green category should be limited to activities with zero or near-zero emissions that make a substantial contribution to climate change mitigation or to activities that directly enable zero to near-zero emissions climate solutions (e.g., electric vehicle manufacturing facilities)
12a. Do you agree or disagree with this approach?
Strongly agree
The framework proposes that the transition category should include activities that have materially high emissions today but have the potential to decarbonize sufficiently to align with the green definition (i.e., zero to near-zero emissions) by 2050. These activities are likely to experience stable or growing demand in Paris-aligned representative pathways due to a lack of technically feasible low-carbon substitutes (e.g., major decarbonization investments in steel, cement, and chemicals manufacturing).
13a. Do you agree or disagree with this approach?
Neutral
13b. Please explain your answer in the space below
As long as the transition for these activities is clearly underway.
14a. Do you agree or disagree that the proposed guardrails for the transition category (both for the whole-of-activity and measures pathways) are sufficient to protect the science-based credibility of the category and reduce the risk of carbon lock-in, while supporting usability?
Agree
The report proposes that initial research on the abatement measures category should be conducted in 2027 and include select emissions-reduction measures for activities that have high Scope 1 emissions today and are unable to achieve the life cycle emissions reductions necessary to align with Paris-aligned pathways (e.g. major decarbonization investments in the upstream production, refining, and distribution of oil and gas). These are activities that are highly likely to experience declining demand as the world transitions to clean energy and alternative technologies.
15a. Do you agree or disagree that the taxonomy should include a third “abatement” category, as proposed, that covers demand-decline activities?
Strongly disagree (i.e., disagree on fundamentals)
15b. Please explain your answer in the space below
I don't think that activities that are polluting, extractive and that will need to decline should be included in the taxonomy. This opens the door to greenwashing and will limit the investments into the other categories. Another taxonomy should be made for those types of investments. Maybe a "extractive, planet destroying activities undergoing arm reduction" taxonomy. 😉
The report proposes an illustrative list of guardrails for the abatement measures category that, if formally developed and finalized, would be designed to prevent carbon lock-in and ensure the abatement measures category remains credible within a Paris-aligned framework. When thinking about the taxonomy’s credibility and usability, please provide feedback on this illustrative list of guardrails.
Section 4: Technical Screening Criteria
Please feel free to answer only the questions that are of the most interest and relevance to you.
18a. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach for developing technical screening criteria?
Agree
19. Please rate each of the proposed elements for the screening criteria on a scale from “very important” to “not at all important.”
- Forward-looking wherever possible
- Important
- Include sunset and/or sunrise dates where relevant
- Very important
- Revise as necessary during regular review periods
- Very important
- Primarily use quantitative metrics
- Not that important
- Primarily focus on Scope 1 emissions but address Scope 2 and 3 emissions where feasible and/or material
- Important
- Informed by a range of robust methods
- Very important
Final questions
22. Overall, how satisfied are you with the proposed sustainable finance taxonomy framework?
Very satisfied