Global events once again confirm the need for a strong security policy. Unfortunately, soft, democratic policies have not worked, as a result of which we have in recent years seen armed aggressions, acts of terrorism, and the outbreak of full-scale war in Europe. This once again underlines the need for a clear response, solidarity on the issue of collective security and peace, and a strong position on defense and security policy, as well as the evolution of the NATO alliance.

Global events once again confirm the need for a strong and cooperative security policy.

For years the Baltic States and Poland have raised their concerns about a potential Russian invasion, which were mostly ignored and dismissed as paranoia. After the terroristic and fascist Russian regime, led by Vladimir Putin, annexed Crimea and the de facto occupation of the Donbas and Luhansk regions in 2014, the Baltic States and Poland increased their military spending to at least 2% of the GDP. Following this, however, the majority of NATO member states, particularly those situated further away from Russia, there were no discussions of increasing their military spending to 2% of their GDP as mandated by NATO statutes. For example, Germany has pledged to increase their spending to 2% of its GDP until 2031, which is way past the 2024 deadline.

Unfortunately, soft, democratic policies have not worked, as a result of which

While Western countries continued flirting with Vladimir Putin just to continue importing Russian fossil fuels, those countries which had previously been exposed to the horrors of Russian imperialism, started preparing for the worst, while continuing to support Ukraine from Russia's war against them.

we have in recent years seen armed aggressions, acts of terrorism, and the

Moreover, Germany kept building the Nord Stream 2 fossil gas pipe from Russia to Germany, while Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic States were opposed to it due to increased Russian influence. The partial Russian occupation of Ukraine had almost completely disappeared from the public eye until Russia started yet another invasion in early 2022.

outbreak of full-scale war in Europe.

Furthermore, many NATO and EU countries continued to export their weapons to Russia after the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014. Germany and France exported weapons worth more than 270 million euros. France's exports to Russia even increased significantly in 2015, a year after Russia annexed the Crimea peninsula. Czechia, Bulgaria, Italy, Slovakia, Finland, Spain, and Croatia also continued to export weapons, spare parts, and vehicles to the Russian military.

This once again underlines the need for a clear response and solidarity on the issue of collective security and peace, for strengthening the Eastern flank of NATO at this moment, and also starting developing a strong common European defense capacity.

The Ukrainian resistance held up against the relentless terroristic onslaught of Russian occupiers. Despite Ukraine’s heroic resistance, without the influx of new weaponry, Ukraine cannot hold. It is thus necessary that Ukraine will be supplied with weapons to continue its counter-offensives against the Russian war criminals. Sadly, a big part of NATO countries, especially Germany, are unwilling to aid Ukraine. Since the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russian troops have launched missile and air attacks on military and civilian infrastructure. People around the world asked NATO member states and Ukraine-friendly countries to close the airspace over Ukraine to improve air and missile attacks and protect civilian cities in Ukraine. However, this request was ignored with the argument “if NATO closes the skies over Ukraine, it will consider the alliance's step into the war”

For years the Baltic States and Poland have raised their concerns about a

The lack of a collective regulatory mechanism has allowed individual NATO members to exploit the alliance for their own interests, which in turn has resulted in criminal actions in the Middle East and other counties. Now this has led to weak support for Ukraine, provoking a difficult political and security situation for countries in Eastern Europe, the Baltics, and the Nordic countries, which are close to Ukraine and the Russian Federation

potential Russian invasion, which were mostly ignored and dismissed as paranoia.

The Baltic States and Poland have been the biggest supporters of Ukraine during this invasion, this may be attributed to their military budget exceeding the 2% baseline set by NATO. Estonia has provided Ukraine military support of about 0.8% of their GDP, Latvia 0.7%, Poland 0.2%, and Lithuania – 0.1%, while Germany has given only 0.01% of their GDP in military aid. This means the Baltic States and Poland are the 4 biggest contributors of military aid to Ukraine in NATO.

After the terroristic and fascist Russian regime, led by Vladimir Putin, annexed

Even though FYEG acknowledges the war crimes committed by NATO countries in the Middle East and in other countries, we call for the strengthening of NATO as a defensive organization to protect its eastern flank. Therefore, we call for NATO member states to increase their military spending to 2%, not only to assist Ukraine in its war against the war criminals and terrorists from Russia but also to properly protect countries that are under the biggest threat of Russian imperialism. Moreover, FYEG supports Finland and Sweden’s wishes to join NATO, as that will make the Baltic Sea region safer.

Crimea and the de facto occupation of the Donbas and Luhansk regions in 2014,

FYEG understands that NATO as an intergovernmental alliance is an organization that has the power to defend countries from Russian (or any other) aggression and the possibility of a full-scale world war, prevent the threat of a nuclear attack that would cause irreparable disaster to the world, and thereafter control the non-use of weapons of mass destruction. In an unstable world situation, threatened by full-scale war, we must use all mechanisms to ensure peace and global collective security

the Baltic States and Poland increased their military spending to at least 2% of

For now, NATO is not capable of providing peace and of reacting in an adequate way to threats to global security, therefore we demand the creation of a strong institution in the alliance system that focuses exclusively on conflict prevention and resolution as well as ensuring peace and global security. That's why we are also in favor of fair regulatory mechanisms for NATO that will prevent the USA or any other country from taking one-sided decisions, as well as ensuring democratic ways of resolving internal problems and conflicts. We believe that a strong structure and regulatory mechanisms will also enable us to control the level of militarization of countries and avoid subsequent wars and armed conflicts. One of the core values of the Greens is non-violence, so we believe that with the great threat of aggression from a Russian (or any other) imperialist government, we must first defend peace in all countries.

the GDP. This was not followed by the rest of the NATO member states. This left Baltic States and Poland feeling isolated and alone in managing their defense. Unfortunately NATO was the only viable defense mechanism available to these countries. We need to show true European solidarity and support Eastern European countries in their need for safety.

Moreover, FYEG understands Finland and Sweden’s wishes to join NATO, as that will make the Baltic Sea region safer and condemn any obstruction and manipulation by others in realizing the right of these countries to join the alliance.

While Western countries continued flirting with Vladimir Putin just to continue

importing Russian fossil fuels, those countries which had previously been

exposed to the horrors of Russian imperialism, started preparing for the worst,

while continuing to support Ukraine from Russia's war against them.

Moreover, Germany kept building the Nord Stream 2 fossil gas pipeline from Russia to

Germany, while Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic States were opposed to it due to

increased Russian influence. The partial Russian occupation of Ukraine had

almost completely disappeared from the public eye until Russia started yet

another invasion in early 2022.

Furthermore, many member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and member states of the European Union (EU) continued to export their weapons to

Russia after the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014. Germany and France

exported weapons worth more than 270 million euros. France's exports to Russia

even increased significantly in 2015, a year after Russia annexed the Crimea

peninsula. Czechia, Bulgaria, Italy, Slovakia, Finland, Spain, and Croatia also

continued to export weapons, spare parts, and vehicles to the Russian military.

The Ukrainian resistance held up against the relentless terroristic onslaught of

Russian occupiers. Despite Ukraine’s heroic resistance, without the influx of

new weaponry, Ukraine cannot hold. It is thus necessary that Ukraine will be

supplied with weapons to continue its counter-offensives against the Russian war

criminals.

The Baltic States and Poland have been the biggest supporters of Ukraine during

this invasion.

Estonia has provided Ukraine military support of about 0.8% of their GDP, Latvia 0.7%, Poland 0.2%, and Lithuania – 0.1%, while Germany has given only 0.01% of their GDP in military aid. These discrepancies in the support for Ukraine standing up against the Russian invasion are worrying and are an expression of lacking European solidarity.

In order to strengthen European solidarity and with the aim to build European defense capacities, in particular to protect Eastern European countries against aggressions of the Russian Federation, FYEG calls to urgently build a strong and resilient European Defense Mechanism. It would be articulated by strengthening the cooperation between military forces of European countries and by providing defense support to the countries exposed to the most immediate threats.

Given the atrocities committed by forces under NATO command in the past, the reliance on NATO of some European countries for their defense is not sustainable, yet we acknowledge the current dependence on NATO as a defense mechanism for the countries most threatened by Russian aggression.

FYEG therefore demands that the European defense mechanism is set up as quickly as possible as an alternative defense solution to the NATO. Whereas the EU could play an essential role, it is vital that this mechanism is not limited to EU member states, but is open to every European country except for the Russian Federation.

The lack of a collective regulatory mechanism has allowed individual NATO

members to exploit the alliance for their own interests, which in turn has

resulted in criminal actions in the Middle East and other counties. Now this has

led to weak support for Ukraine, provoking a difficult political and security

situation for countries in Eastern Europe, the Baltics, and the Nordic

countries, which are close to Ukraine and the Russian Federation.

We acknowledge there is a need in NATO for fair regulatory mechanisms that prevents the USA or any other single country from taking one-sided decisions as well as ensuring democratic ways of resolving internal problems and conflicts. At the same time we demand the creation of a strong institution in the future European defense mechanism that focuses exclusively on conflict prevention and resolution as well as ensuring peace and global security.

We believe that a strong structure and regulatory mechanisms will also enable us to

control the level of militarization of countries and avoid subsequent wars and

armed conflicts. One of the core values of the Greens is non-violence, so we

believe that with the great threat of aggression from a Russian (or any other)

imperialist government, we must first defend peace in all countries.

Corporations should be accountable for the space pollution they are making, as well be accountable for the destruction of space discovery potential, especially with global systems like Starlink. Therefore, we demand that every global scale project is implemented in collaboration with scientists not to reduce the scientific potential in space discovery.

3.4 Election of candidates

3.4.1 Electoral system

FYEG uses a Single Transferable Vote (STV) electoral system with a standard droop quota. Mathematically, this is the next integer larger than V / (n+1) when V = the total number of valid votes and n is the number of positions available. Specifically recommended is the Scottish STV system.

3.4.12 Principles

3.4.23 Procedures

1 – The candidates who have reached the quota (i.e. election threshold (an absolute majority)threshold) are elected.

2b - If one or more candidates are ineligible to be elected due to quota regulations, these candidates are removed from the election. The ballot-papers that ranked this/these candidate(s) as their first (remaining) preference are redistributed according to their second preference. The process is then restarted (1).

2c2b – If one or more candidates have reached the election threshold, that/those candidate(s) are elected in order from highest to lowest vote count. The process

2d2c – If no candidate reaches the threshold in this way, the candidate with the lowest amount of votes is removed from the election. The ballot-papers that ranked this candidate as their first remaining preference are redistributed according to their second preference. The process is then restarted (1).

2d - If, following the calculation of the election result, one or more candidates is elected who is ineligible due to election threshold regulations, these candidates (who had the least number of votes) are removed from the pool of candidates and the entire election is recalculated. That is to say, the election is recalculated, and each time the ineligible candidate would have received a preference vote, the vote instead goes to the voter’s next preference.

3.4.34 Exceptions

Results will be announced within one week after the closing of the vote and include detailed information.

3.7 Tiebreakers

3.7.1: Tiebreakers on points of substance

In the case of a tie between two points of substance, the vote shall be held again. If the result is once again a tie, the body voting may choose to vote once more, table the discussion to later in the meeting, or decide by some form of chance. Note that this paragraph is not intended to apply to ties between “yes”, “no”, or “abstain” where some point of substance requires a majority to pass.

3.7.2: Tiebreakers relating to elections

If the tie occurs between two candidates in an election, and only one may be elected, a vote shall be held to decide between them. If the result is once again a tie, the body voting may choose to vote once more or decide by some form of chance. At any point during this, either candidate may choose to withdraw.

2. 3. The continued strong denouncement of authoritarianism, the breach of rule of law and human rights in the region, particularly recently in Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and through Indonesia on Western New Guinea, and the continued urging for the immediate and unconditional release of

violence and repression and towards prevention and cooperation as tools for dealing with conflict in our societies. Defunding the police would lead to this structural change by refocusing public money towards social good.Redirecting funds of the police in order to facilitate civilian oversight agencies with enforceable accountability mechanisms, with an emphasis on acts of police brutality and crimes disproportionately affecting marginalised peoples; civilian corps of unarmed first responders; trainings on implicit bias, cultural competency, crisis intervention and de-escalation, adolescent development, and interaction with people with mental and physical disabilities; access to counseling and mental health services for officers; diversification of officers; and direct community engagement by incentivising officers to live and work in the communities they serve are among the necessary steps for this structural change.

Global events once again confirm the need for a strongcooperative security policy. Unfortunately, soft, democratic policies have not worked, as a result of which

outbreak of full-scale war in Europe. This once again underlines the need for a clear response, solidarity on the issue of collective security and peace, and the development of a strong position oncommon European defense and security policy, as well as the evolution of the NATO alliancecapacity.

the Baltic States and Poland increased their military spending to at least 2% of the GDP. Following this, however, the majority of NATO member states, particularly those situated further away from Russia, there were no discussions of increasing their military spending to 2% of their GDP as mandated by NATO statutes. For example, Germany has pledged to increase their spending to 2% of its GDP until 2031, which is way past the 2024 deadline., an indicator FYEG criticizes for being overly simplistic and for encouraging unsustainable growth.

Moreover, Germany kept building the Nord Stream 2 fossil gas pipepipeline from Russia to Germany, while Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic States were opposed to it due to

Furthermore, many NATOmember states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and EU countriesmember states of the European Union (EU) continued to export their weapons to Russia after the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014. Germany and France

supplied with weapons to continue its counter-offensives against the Russian war criminals. Sadly, a big part of NATO countries, especially Germany, are unwilling to aid Ukraine. Since the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russian troops have launched missile and air attacks on military and civilian infrastructure. People around the world asked NATO member states and Ukraine-friendly countries to close the airspace over Ukraine to improve air and missile attacks and protect civilian cities in Ukraine. However, this request was ignored with the argument “if NATO closes the skies over Ukraine, it will consider the alliance's step into the war”

The lack of a collective regulatory mechanism has allowed individual NATO members to exploit the alliance for their own interests, which in turn has resulted in criminal actions in the Middle East and other counties. Now this has led to weak support for Ukraine, provoking a difficult political and security situation for countries in Eastern Europe, the Baltics, and the Nordic countries, which are close to Ukraine and the Russian Federation

The Baltic States and Poland have been the biggest supporters of Ukraine during this invasion, this may be attributed to their military budget exceeding the 2% baseline set by NATO. Estonia has provided Ukraine military support of about 0.8% of their GDP, Latvia 0.7%, Poland 0.2%, and Lithuania – 0.1%, while Germany has given only 0.01% of their GDP in military aid. This means the Baltic States and Poland are the 4 biggest contributors of military aid to Ukraine in NATO.. Estonia has provided Ukraine military support of about 0.8% of their GDP, Latvia 0.7%, Poland 0.2%, and Lithuania – 0.1%, while Germany has given only 0.01% of their GDP in military aid. These discrepancies in the support for Ukraine standing up against the Russian invasion are worrying and are an expression of lacking European solidarity. In order to strengthen European solidarity and with the aim to build European defense capacities, in particular to protect Eastern European countries against aggressions of Vladimir Poutin’s regime in the Russian Federation, FYEG calls to urgently build a strong and resilient European Defense Mechanism. It would be articulated by strengthening the cooperation between military forces of European countries and by providing defense support to the countries exposed to the most immediate threats. Given the atrocities committed by forces under NATO command, the reliance on NATO of some European countries for their defense is not sustainable. FYEG therefore urges not only national governments to find alternative defense solutions to the NATO, but also demands that a European Defense Mechanism is set up as quickly as possible. Whereas the EU could play an essential role, it is vital that this mechanism is not limited to EU member states, but is open to every European country except for the Russian Federation.

Even though FYEG acknowledges the war crimes committed by NATO countries in the Middle East and in other countries, we call for the strengthening of NATO as a defensive organization to protect its eastern flank. Therefore, we call for NATO member states to increase their military spending to 2%, not only to assist Ukraine in its war against the war criminals and terrorists from Russia but also to properly protect countries that are under the biggest threat of Russian imperialism. Moreover, FYEG supports Finland and Sweden’s wishes to join NATO, as that will make the Baltic Sea region safer.

FYEG understands that NATO as an intergovernmental alliance is an organization that has the power to defend countries from Russian (or any other) aggression and the possibility of a full-scale world war, prevent the threat of a nuclear attack that would cause irreparable disaster to the world, and thereafter control the non-use of weapons of mass destruction. In an unstable world situation, threatened by full-scale war, we must use all mechanisms to ensure peace and global collective security

For now, NATO is not capable of providing peace and of reacting in an adequate way to threats to global security, therefore we demand the creation of a strong institution in the alliance system that focuses exclusively on conflict prevention and resolution as well as ensuring peace and global security. That's why we are also in favor of fair regulatory mechanisms for NATO that will prevent the USA or any other country from taking one-sided decisions, as well as ensuring democratic ways of resolving internal problems and conflicts.In parallel, we demand the creation of a strong institution in the future European Defense Mechanism that focuses exclusively on conflict prevention and resolution as well as ensuring peace and global security. The United States of America or any other single country must be prevented at all costs from using the future European Defense Mechanism for their own purposes and democratic ways of resolving internal problems and conflicts must be guaranteed. We believe that a strong structure and regulatory mechanisms will also enable us to

denouncing the war, a wave of solidarity has risen in Europe, with thousands of European citizens mobilizedhaving mobilised to welcome and help the Ukrainian refugees, including through donations and the provision of accommodation.

Although this wave of solidarity is admirable and has helped hundreds of thousands, it sometimesis developed jointly with a problematic discourse: indeed, we have heard that this immigrationthese refugees would be of “quality”, and that our proximity with the Ukrainian people justified the welcoming efforts, as they are

this can no more be the main discourse in the European media, as the FYEG has previously done, with the #NoDiscriminationOnMigration.

Furthermore, we must acknowledge the various marginalised groups made invisible and swept under the rug in our discourse on asylum. In the Ukrainian context alone, people of colour, immigrants, ethnic minorities and LGBTQIA+ refugees faced disproportionately high obstacles in fleeing. In the broader asylum context, systemic, systematic and social discrimination and obstacles are faced on the grounds of religion, beliefs, cultural and ethnic origin, gender and sexual orientation and identity, disability and class. The asylum system within Europe needs exhaustive and comprehensive reform in order to guarantee the right to asylum for all peoples.

European Greens calls on the European Union and the governments of all European States to:

• To welcomeWelcome and helpguarantee the right to asylum to all refugees, with special consideration to the extra obstacles faced by marginalised minorities whether they come from Ukraine or from any other place in the world, and to accommodate for these obstacles.

• To stopStop all deportationpushbacks at bordersthe border as well as the deportation of those who have crossed the border, acknowledging the necessity of humanitarian duty instead of the construction of "Fortress Europe".

• Replace Frontex and the concept of “Fortress Europe” with a humanitarian alternative focused on saving and welcoming refugees.

• To immediatelyImmediately stop the criminalizsation of people and non-governmental and civil society organisations devoted to welcoming and helping refugees and facilitating the movement of these peoples across international waters, and to finally support themthese organisations.

• Rather than the persecution of refugee traffickers, combat refugee trafficking by providing real and legal alternatives to traffickers for refugees to flee to the EU, especially for refugees fleeing conflicts, or refugees for whom the journey is too costly and dangerous.

• End as soon as possible EU refugee cooperation treaties with Turkey and Libya as well as the externalisation of the EU border regime via such treaties and the funding of autocratic regimes in Africa to stop migration corridors, which keep out refugees on the basis of their background and which put the most vulnerable refugees in even more dangerous situations.

• Facilitate and ensure the provision of basic rights and needs to those seeking asylum such as humane accommodation pending approval of their asylum process and Europe-wide coordinated processes to ensure asylum seekers are not left in limbo for years in camps.

• Continue this facilitation and guarantee of basic rights and needs upon having their application processed and the refugee relocated including but not limited to language, housing, humane temporary accommodation in facilities, right to work, healthcare and mental healthcare.

• Within the EU, implement an EU-wide framework truly based on the principles of solidarity and responsibility sharing for the shared funding, processing and relocation of asylum seekers and refugees, wherein the Dublin regulation is abolished, Member States with the most resources live up to their commitments to relocate refugees with an enforcement mechanism to ensure this, as well as mechanisms that provide funding for the processing of asylum seekers and coordinate the relocation of refugees in a manner that is finally fairly and justly divided between Member States based on their capacity.

• The EU needs to re-design its trade and foreign economic policies, to ensure that when receiving crucial resources such as metals to enable the green economic transition, both EU firms and countries, and those countries that provide the EU with the natural resources needed are appropriately compensated. This would entail expanding and ensuring protections and compensation of workers in countries where the resources are extracted, through setting greater worker rights requirements on natural resource products that enter the EU single market. The EU should support investment to construct natural resource processing infrastructure to ensure that they gain larger shares of the value-added in the global product value chain. Finally, in the process of creating or expanding natural resource extraction projects, the communities affected by these projects should be involved in the decision-making processes in an equitable manner.

The Climate emergency, environmental degradation and economic inequalities are intimately linked. Let's fight against all three at the same time, let's tax the rich!

• The Climate emergency, environmental degradation and economic inequalities are intimately linked. Let's fight against all three at the same time, let's tax the rich!

• The EU needs to reduce and potentially phase-out in the short- to medium-term the use of carbon offsets to compensate for carbon emissions by both the private and public sector. The use of carbon offsets can ameliorate the effects of cap-and-trade, such as when polluters double count an emission reduction. In the case of carbon offset programs deemed necessary such as the UN’s CORSIA scheme the EU needs to ensure that the necessity and use of carbon offsets is reduced. Furthermore, that the carbon offsets are part of EU certified projects, that the EU makes sure that they have little to not externalities, that land prices do not rise disproportionally, that the offsets are able to actually offset the carbon in the short- to medium-term, and that any groups and communities affected from the carbon offset projects are not excluded from the decision-making processes.

1. To further expand its economic cooperation with ASEAN, including:

1. 1. The acceleration of the conclusion of the current negotiations for bilateral trade agreements with individual ASEAN member states, and eventually the establishment of a region-to-region (EU-ASEAN) free trade agreement,agreement,

We support the full legalisation and regulation of soft drugs across Europe, while increasing prevention measures, as well as the decriminalisation of the use of hard drugs while keeping the production of hard drugs illegal. Drug legalisation would deprive organised crime structures of a lucrative source of income. Tax revenues from drug sales should be used to fund the healthcare and prevention sectors and social services. To prevent further hazardous waste detrimental to the environment and dangerous to local communities, anonymous dumping points will be created for drug waste such as used injections. Furthermore, we call for the facilitation of drug consumption rooms and other intiatives that allow drug users to consume drugs safely with the oversight of health professionals, and to easily receive accessible help.

with a strategy of growth in the aviation sector that is in clear contradiction with the need for decarbonisation. Once again, theThese are consequences of our economic powerssystem and elitespolicies that are based on the exploitation of people and the environment. In this system, corporations are making profit at the expenses of our rights to live in a healthy environment.

justice. When these principles are compromised and lives are at risk, the international community must come together to end the conflict. To this end, we call on the EU for the rapid deployment of interoperable EU military forces with the aim of peace enforcement and civilian protection, and to restore the legal borders of Ukraine with Crimea and Donbass, granted in the Budapest Memorandum in 1994.

justice. When these principles are compromised and lives are at risk, the international community must come together to end the conflict. To this end, we call on the EU for the rapid deployment of interoperable EU military forces with the aim of peace enforcement and civilian protection, and to restore the legal borders of Ukraine with Crimea and Donbass, granted in the Budapest Memorandum in 1994.

tech giants, and a tax on financial transactions (see Glossary 162) (see Chapter 4 – Fiscal policy). The European Union may levy taxes in certain areas based on the principle of subsidiarity. This will reduce the dependence on Member States' contributions and will allow for more effective taxation in certain areas than a Member State could do on its own. When establishing these Europe-wide taxes, the economic differences between Member States must be taken into account, whereby a Europe-wide tax must not increase inequality between Member States or hit poorer Member States harder.The EU should also be able to issue bonds to contribute to its budget. We call for deepened European defence cooperation and in the long

increasing inequalities. We support the introduction of public housing quotas by city and by neighbourhood. To prevent pressure on the housing prices on the private market, cities with large student populations need sufficient and quality student housing. Investments should be increased in public funding of student housing, and money should divested away from private housing corporations that exploit students.

and raising social and environmental standards dramatically. The wealthy don’t save the world. They destroy it. Capitalism relies on the exploitation of workers and nature and creates these massive inequalities. To fight inequality at its root cause, we need to fundamentally change our economic system. Taxing wealth can only be a first step in creating an equal society.

• sure that polluting activities are not simply moved to other parts of the world, which would increase environmental inequalities. The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism would be a first step in the right direction, but needs to be complemented by policies for other types of activity.Carbon offsets are not a solution and should be phased out. Firstly, they come with the inherent risk that they are used by the wealthy as letters of indulgence; having the financial means to be able to buy carbon offsets, those wealthy can thus continue their carbon-intensive lifestyles. Secondly, carbon offset projects have very frequently negative impacts on the local and regional level. For carbon offsets in the Global South for example, forests frequently become inaccessible to the local population, so that tree growth is not hindered. Whilst such projects can have a positive value on the environment, they must be a sufficient balancing of the individual and collective rights of peoples, especially marginalised peoples. Only when the reliability of the carbon offset project is verified by an independent external organ and evaluated on the basis of minimum human rights standards, can its operators sell their commodified carbon certificates. Such balancing is necessary in order to ensure these practices do not induce the poorest to have to pay for the carbon emissions of the wealthy

The Secretary General is elected for a two year mandate at the GA. Candidates who already held this position cannot be reelected. (cf. 3.4) For requirements for the application cf. 7.2.3.

• European countries should close their airspaces to private jets. The Single European Sky initiative should support this prohibition.European countries should also close their ports to luxury private yachts.