Who’s Behind Dunleavy’s Carbon Plans?
Contributed by Chuck Campbell
Last month, I gave a brief overview of Governor Dunleavy’s carbon-sequestration plan – what it was, the contradictions surrounding it, the embarrassing sketchiness of the carbon-capture industry itself, and why this plan is offensive to sound principles. This month, I’ll be looking into some of the organizations that have supported or weighed in on Dunleavy’s plan.
Something that caught my attention while reading through a January 28th article in the Anchorage Daily News was that environmentalist groups are pitching this plan to us in very economic terms, promising millions in store. That, by itself, raises questions. If this is an economic, rather than environmental, project, why are so many environmentalist or environmentalism-adjacent organizations supporting it? If it is an environmental project, why are the environmentalists, rarely subtle about their goals, being so careful to speak in economic terms?
One organization quoted in the ADN’s article, Wild Heritage, doesn’t show up in the usual sources, but a casual search of the name turns up an “about” page hosted by another group, the Berkeley, California-based Earth Island Institute, where Wild Heritage’s description speaks for itself: “Wild Heritage works to keep these forests free from industrial activity, and fights for the restoration of degraded forests so that over time they begin to recover their primary-forest values.”
Earth Island Institute, meanwhile, has a much higher profile. It is close kin to the John Muir Project, an anti-logging organization named after the founder of the Sierra Club, and has an entry on InfluenceWatch… where it turns out to be a hardline anti-logging organization.
One California anti-logging group turns into three all-but-identical faces. Suddenly, a possible motive appears.
To give credit where it’s due, Wild Heritage’s chief scientist, Dominick DellaSalla, does admit that the idea of continuing logging while reaping millions from carbon-offset schemes is “pie in the sky.” Will anyone listen? Will Dunleavy listen?
Another outside organization supporting Dunleavy’s plan is the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. According to InfluenceWatch, it is the successor to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. But when speaking to Alaskans, they speak economically: “There’s a real potential market out there, if you can show and verify that you are making real emissions reductions.” Compare their homepage: “Our mission is to secure a safe and stable climate by accelerating the global transition to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and a thriving, just, and resilient economy.” Again, to Alaskans, they treat the money as the goal, with the environmental side as the means – even though their purpose is obviously environmentalism with a side of social activism.
But these are just organizations that support Dunleavy’s plan. What about the firms that have been hired by the government to study it? One, which issued a report for the Alaska Department of Natural Resources last year, is Anew Climate. If their name doesn’t give it away, their buzzword-laden website, which entices the prospective customer with “climate solutions as a service,” will: they are an activist company. Is our legislature “talking past the sale” here? Can we trust them to deliver an unbiased view of a project this close to their cause?
Another company involved in the process is worth a closer look because of their frequent use by Dunleavy and the legislature: Gaffney, Cline & Associates (GCA), AKA GaffneyCline. Their website, while not as obvious as Anew, still shows adjacency to the environmental movement (“We are actively engaged in the energy transition, assisting clients to measure, report, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions''), though this seems to be a relatively recent development.
More interesting is a GCA executive who spoke at a Senate meeting on March 3rd, 2022. His name is Nick Fulford, he comes from the United Kingdom, and he currently works as GCA’s Director of Gas and Energy Transition. As befits his title, his LinkedIn profile shows that he is on board with “net zero” (a euphemism for hard-throttling productive activity) and “Environmental-Social-Governance” practices (the force turning major corporations into far-left activist groups). His bent toward environmental policy combined with a long history in oil & gas make him the perfect candidate to sell this dangerous plan in Alaska. Unfortunately, he’s not done: he’ll be the mainstage presenter at the Juneau Economic Development Council’s Innovation Summit, right around the time this paper goes to print.
The other GCA executive who spoke at that meeting, Director of Corporate Strategy Mike Cline, keeps a much lower profile on LinkedIn, but shows interest in “The Net-Zero Circle” and engages occasionally with pro-carbon-capture posts.
An aside: money is not the basis of a healthy economy. Production, which naturally initiates the flow of money, is the basis of a healthy economy. To base an economy on nothing, or, in the case of carbon offsets, on deliberate non-productivity, is to guarantee stagnation and failure.
So don’t be fooled by promises that carbon offsets or sequestration can bring millions to Alaska without harming our existing industries. These projects, backed by anti-development groups and by consultancies that aid & abet industrial throttling by another name, will absolutely block badly-needed new production, as is likely their purpose. Once established, they may be used against existing production as well.
Alaska needs real jobs and real production, not carbon offsets that pay us not to use our natural resources.