SB 48-CARBON OFFSET PROGRAM ON STATE LAND  4:19:08 PM CO-CHAIR Giessel reconvened the meeting and announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 48 "An Act authorizing the Department of Natural Resources to lease land for carbon management purposes; establishing a carbon offset program for state land; authorizing the sale of carbon offset credits; and providing for an effective date." 4:19:37 PM CO-CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony on SB 48. 4:19:59 PM TODD LINDLEY, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 48. He warned that the bill would increase forest density in order to compete in the carbon market. He took issue with a presentation and testimony he heard in a House committee because the expert testimony came from NGOs that are directly affiliated with the world economic forum. He reported that one company is incorporated in Columbia and has a 90 percent fraud rate. He questioned the reason for letting such people do business in Alaska. He continued that the company Anew was commissioned by the Dunleavy administration using taxpayer money to identify the carbon potential for offsets. He noted that during the election cycle there was no mention that carbon offset would be a strategic policy for the state. He opined that instead of debating the policy, the legislature should be investigating collusion between the administration and foreign NGOs. 4:21:37 PM KEN HUCKEBA, representing self, Wasilla, Alaska, stated opposition to SB 48. He maintained that Alaskans were being asked to finance a risky venture with their lands and resources. He highlighted the study presented in August 2022 that was paid for with public funds to the company Blue Source, which became Anew. He said a key point in the report was that offsets are verifiable and registered on an approved offset registry, which is another partner organization. He suggested the legislature should investigate the administration for collusion with the aforementioned NGOs. He maintained that if the bill becomes law, the administration will cede power to the partner NGOs, which will exclude future legislative oversight and control. 4:23:28 PM LYDIA SHUMAKER, representing self, Wasilla, Alaska, stated opposition to SB 48. She said it's not clear what the bill will cost but she is aware that 25 percent of the revenue will go to a third party such as Anew or Vera. Another 18 percent of the revenue is supposed to go to insurance and 60 percent will go to Alaska. However, none of the fiscal notes list any revenue. She pointed out that language on page 9, line 15 precludes Alaskans from implementing regulations for this industry. She also pointed out that decision-making by the commissioner has no legislative oversight. She continued that the main reason she opposes SB 48 is that it deprives future generations in favor of elite technocrats. 4:25:24 PM KASSIE ANDREWS, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, stated opposition to SB 48. She said the basis of the legislation is about creating revenue, but the revenue line in the fiscal note is blank. She opined that the concept does not need to be fast tracked before the real risks are understood. Another reason for concern is that Vera, a nonprofit incorporated in Columbia, approves three-quarters of all voluntary carbon offset projects that have been found to have fraud rates of more than 90 percent. She said the investigation by Guardian found that only a handful of Vera's rainforest projects showed evidence of reduced deforestation. Ninety-four percent of the projects were found to have no benefit to the climate and should never have been approved. She emphasized that no additional revenue should be spent on this proposal and urged removing the bill from consideration. She asserted that SB 49 had similar issues with fraud. 4:27:08 PM BERT HOUGHTALING, representing self, Big Lake, Alaska, stated opposition to SB 48. He described carbon credits and carbon capture as a Ponzi scam that ensures that special interests get richer and everybody else gets poor. He took issue with the fact that Alaskans were not informed about this notion earlier. He said the administration describes carbon offset in rosy terms, but he wants the public to remember who will ultimately pay for it. He predicted that nobody in the room could provide any data that supports what he believes to be a money-grabbing scheme. He said the bill relies on theories and feelings and he does not support anything related to carbon credits and carbon capture. 4:29:37 PM GEORGE PIERCE, representing self, Kasilof, Alaska, stated opposition to SB 48. He called carbon capture a joke and expensive failure. He cited examples of carbon capture failures in Texas and New Mexico and the monetary losses. 4:32:12 PM KEN GRIFFIN, representing self, Wasilla, Alaska, stated opposition to SB 48. He described the bill as a clear boondoggle. This idea had not been shown to be profitable anywhere. He asked how this would grow the economy, get citizens to work, or protect state sovereignty. He said it won't. He questioned the wisdom of locking up large swaths of land for 55 years in the hope that the credits would be valuable at the end of that time. He maintained that this cedes power to the UN because that's who came up with climate goals. His belief is that the sovereign power should be held at the state level. He said the bill provides for recreational activities on this leased land but what matters is the ability to develop the land. He restated opposition to SB 48. 4:34:40 PM CO-CHAIR GIESSEL closed public testimony on SB 48 and held the bill in committee.