The state Senate on Monday unanimously approved allowing Alaska to seek extra revenue via the carbon credits market, which essentially would involve leaving vast amounts of carbon-absorbing areas such as forests undisturbed. The approval came despite strongly voiced concerns by a couple of members.<\/p>\n
Within hours the bill authorizing the state to enter such agreements<\/a>, introduced by Gov. Mike Dunleavy, received its initial consideration by the House Finance Committee during a late-night meeting, part of a series of moves aimed at resolving differences among the House, Senate and governor before the session is scheduled to adjourn Wednesday. Part of the plan involves the House passing what many lawmakers are calling the “trees bill” in time for the Senate concur with any changes.<\/p>\n “We’re trying to work for the governor on one of his priorities,” said state Rep. Neal Foster, a Nome Democrat who co-chair the committee, after Monday night’s meeting.<\/p>\n The bill would also allow legislators to state they are creating a new source of sustainable revenue as part of a long-term fiscal plan, the proposed elements of which are one of the prime causes of division this session.<\/p>\n Dunleavy’s proposal seeks to expand on the sorts of agreements three Alaska Native corporations have entered into since 2016, including Sealaska Corp., which claims to have earned more than $100 million by agreeing to leave forest land unharvested for 100 years.<\/p>\n Generally purchasers of carbon credits are pollution-emitting companies looking to decrease their “net carbon footprint” and environmental entities seeking overall reductions in climate change impacts.<\/p>\n Dunleavy claimed when introducing the bill the state could potentially earn billion-dollar sums annually within a few years, although subsequent reports generally project considerably lower amounts. A fiscal analysis<\/a> by the Department of Natural Resources estimates it will incur about $137,000 in staffing and other costs annually, but avoids predicting income for the carbon offset and leasing programs.<\/p>\n “Revenues are not specifically estimated for either program due to timeline uncertainty and potential project variations,” the analysis states.<\/p>\n