From THE DAILY SCEPTIC

by Chris Morrison

Achieving Net Zero in 25 years would need a “complete transformation” of the UK’s agricultural and food system that would in effect mean a diet devoid of beef, lamb and all dairy products, according to the latest work from the Government-funded UK FIRES. Look at the research that governing elites commission and read, not what they say. UK FIRES takes an absolute view of Net Zero and bases its work on existing technologies, not the pie in the sky inventions still to come and the whacky schemes that cannot reach economic scale. UK FIRES is an influential body since it takes a rare honest approach to Net Zero. Among the horrors outlined in its latest report is a future reliance on highly-processed food – industrial test-tube sludge in other words. Using labs to produce just 0.4% of the projected demand for meat in 2030 would involve a capacity “20 times that of the current pharmaceutical industry”, observe the authors.

The need to collapse the existing agro-food system is said to present opportunities for the creation of “hybrid” food products. Animal fat, presumably from non-belching beasts, can be processed to give “definitive flavour and mouth feel of meat” and these can be combined with plant-based ingredients. Alternative proteins (not detailed, but there is much support elsewhere for fly larvae and mealworm flour) might be used in highly processed foods. In future, notes UK FIRES, processed plants might include ingredients from precision fermentation or cultivated fats. These are all held together by half of the chemistry lab including stabilisers, colourings, E numbers and preservatives – though UK FIRES inexplicably fails to give the detail on this. And not forgetting masses of salt and sugar, a common staple of so-called healthy processed foods designed to give them a semblance of pleasant taste.

Utterly disgusting – readers might prefer to lay in stocks of the dog’s kibble as a healthier and more appetising alternative.

The land currently occupied by productive and generational farmers would see “radical shifts”. The required changes to achieve absolute Net Zero emissions from food systems “would present many opportunities”, argues UK FIRES. There would be competition for “environmental services” and this presumably would include such “opportunities” as nature-destroying wind turbines and solar dead zone parks. Rewilding and carbon capture or sequestration are mentioned. Planning and support for land use “transformation” is said to be needed, and it is said to carry the promise of “large social and environmental benefits”. At this point, it might be observed what a grand start the current anti-farmer Labour Government has made by slapping a recent 20% death tax on small family farms that are passed onto the next generation, or not as the case may now be. That should help clear a bit of space for the new enclosing aristocracy, the subsidy-hunting windmill rentiers.

UK FIRES is funded by a £5 million Government grant and its team of academics is led by Professor Julian Allwood, Professor of Engineering and the Environment at Cambridge University. In the past, its absolutist work forecast a world where Britain would lose 75% of its energy, where flying and shipping along with beef, lamb and dairy would be banned, while bricks, concrete and glass would almost cease to exist. These are all reasonable forecasts if hydrocarbons are suddenly removed from a modern industrial mix. But the academics’ brutal appraisals scare the horses at a time when the British Prime Minister is telling porkies that Net Zero will not affect people’s lifestyles.

The message has probably gone out to tone it down a bit on the banning front, so the latest report on agricultural and food supply is more nuanced. So it is more that we can transform food supply, it will all be a great adventure and economic opportunities will be created everywhere – that sort of guff, straight out of the Ed Miliband songbook. Slashing farmland acreage but boosting pharma-food is supposedly meant to reassure, although such reassurance is unlikely to survive when confronted with reality.

However as we have seen, the authors behind UK FIRES are Net Zero absolutists and the message is still that all greenhouses gases must be removed from agriculture. UK FIRES says this is a complete transformation, which is one way of describing a societal and economic disaster in the making. Artificial fertilisers which use hydrocarbons to add nitrogen to the soil have massively boosted crop yields around the world over the last few decades. Without their use, food supplies would halve, leading to mass starvation and death. With restrictions on the use of imported goods that have connections to hydrocarbons, Britons would gradually starve to death in their millions. Net Zero fanatics, which sadly include many British legislators, somehow draw other conclusions, the better we assume to sustain their virtuous egos.

Meanwhile they are unlikely to be interested in the science around nitrous oxide, the gas produced by the fertiliser. It has warming properties, which in common with other greenhouse gases tend to ‘saturate’ at certain levels, a natural process in the infra-red spectrum that has helped regulate the Earth’s climate over the last 600 million years. A recent paper from four distinguished scientists noted that the atmospheric concentration of N₂O was only 0.34 parts per million (ppm) and it was growing at just 0.00085 ppm a year. The entire global food supply is being put at risk for warming identified by the scientists at 0.064°C per century.

Interestingly, the press release accompanying the UK FIRE report highlights the complete elimination of greenhouse gases from British agriculture by 2050, but the actual work fails to address a world without artificial fertiliser. This is somewhat surprising given the vast increases in plant vegetation that will be needed for the new food labs. A number of gas-eliminating technologies are mentioned but it is admitted that they are not currently feasible, while more precision fertiliser application is noted. As if this latter action has not already occurred to commercial farmers. The UK FIRES of old would have made a no-nonsense banning statement, but it seems the current authors, like most other Net Zero cranks, simply ignore the issue.  There is of course a good reason for doing this since there are no solutions, except human hunger.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

From MasterResource

By Kassie Andrews

“The proposal includes Renewable Energy Credits, a pseudo carbon tax wherein co-ops buy credits instead of building renewable projects; a wind-energy bonus multiplier of 1.25x for large projects; and a Fine reinvestment option to force renewable projects. This mandated energy transformation locks Alaskans into unreliable and politically favored renewables, whether the market (or the people) like it or not.”

For decades now, Alaska’s energy policy has come to be shaped not by the will of the people but by nefarious outside influence. The long track of intrusion has been led by climate activists and their NGOs (nongovernmental organizations).

Back in 2010, renewable energy targets were snuck into Alaska energy policy, laying the groundwork for today’s clamor for the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Most Alaskans don’t realize how much of this policy was written by and for self-interested, Leftie NGOs. 

The same activist networks that roamed the halls of Juneau back then never left. These groups continue to steer government toward their ideological ends, co-opting Alaska’s representative republic in the process. None of this is organic; it’s the result of calculated pressure from groups that have little concern for Alaskans but plenty of appetite for power.

A Renewable Portfolio Standard is back on the agenda in Alaska for the third time. Gov. Mike Dunleavy backed the original version in 2022, and now Republicans are out of the majority.

Renewable Portfolio Standard #3

“An Act relating to generation of electricity from renewable energy resources; relating to a renewable portfolio standard; relating to power cost equalization; and providing for an effective date” (House Bill 153) was introduced by Rep. Ky Holland (I-Anchorage) on March 24, 2025. Per his presentation:

An RPS is a requirement on retail electric suppliers… to supply a minimum percentage or amount of their retail load… with eligible sources of renewable energy. HB 153 sets the following targets: 40 percent by 2030, 55 percent by 2035. 

The 2023 RPS proposes 25 percent by 2027, 55 percent by 2035, and 80 percent by 2040. Currently, the Railbelt (the grid serving 85 percent of Alaska’s load) is only at 15 percent renewable. Hydropower dominates, suppling ~90 percent of the renewable electricity statewide in 2023. According to the sponsor, 40 percent by 2030 from 15 percent today is “modest,” and 55 percent is a “realistic” cap.  

Although the legislation allows for hydropower, activists behind the bill have simultaneously called for the removal of the Eklutna Dam, which provides about 14 percent of the Railbelt’s total renewable share. With that, it becomes obvious what sources the co-ops will be forced to adopt: intermittent sources like wind and solar.

House Bill 153: Problems Aplenty

Then-candidate Holland was provided with information on just how unreliable wind can be when Alaskans need it the most. During the 2024 cold snap, wind at Fire Island fell to zero for a prolonged period, with the average at just 20.3 percent for the week—100 percent unreliable.

The legislation penalizes member-owned co-ops who fail to meet the targets with fines of $45/MWh, adjusted annually for inflation. The fine, as proposed in 2023, was $20/MWh, and while co-ops couldn’t technically recover it through rates, there was no realistic way for them to pay it otherwise. But this bill is completely different, and they don’t even try to hide it. 

When asked by committee member Rep. George Rauscher about who pays the price, Shaina Kilcoyne, Holland’s staffer, admitted that “ultimately the ratepayer would pay.”  

In a larger scale scenario, such as a hospital using 10,000-15,000 MWh/year, the fines at a 20 percent shortfall would be more than $100k annually. For residential homes, it is in the hundreds of dollars, and it only escalates for both as the push to electrify everything—heat pumps, EVs, public transit, industrial process heat. This does not include the intermittency factor or the higher cost of renewables themselves that the co-ops will undoubtedly need to increase your base rates to account for. 

This proposal includes Renewable Energy Credits, a pseudo carbon tax wherein co-ops buy credits instead of building renewable projects; a wind-energy bonus multiplier of 1.25x for large projects; and a Fine reinvestment option to force renewable projects. This is a mandated energy transformation with sharp, big sticks aimed directly at ratepayers’ wallets. It locks Alaskans into unreliable and politically favored renewables, whether the market (or the people) like it or not.

Activists, Operatives, Dark Money

The credit for the RPS legislation this round goes to staffer Kilcoyne, who presented the sectional analysis to the House Energy Committee on April 1, 2024. Kilcoyne co-led the implementation of the Anchorage Climate Action Plan under Mayor Ethan Berkowitz. She is listed as the Energy Transition Program Director for the Alaska Venture Fund. Alaska Venture Fund is a project of the New Venture Fund, the flagship nonprofit of the many organizations managed by Arabella Advisors. The Alaska project received $10 million in 2021 from the Bezos Earth Fund to advance former President Joe Biden’s unconstitutional Justice40 in Alaska.

No surprise, the same old cheerleaders for past RPS bills were invited by the committee for testimony. This included blogger Erin McKittrick who is on the board of REAP and the Chief Energy Officer from Hawaii, plus one new recruit: Alaska Public Interest Research Group, AKPIRG.

AKPIRG claims to be Alaska’s only non-governmental, nonpartisan consumer advocacy group- yet they testified in support of the RPS. Hard to imagine a bigger hypocrisy: backing a policy that punishes ratepayers and consumers. The claim of nonpartisanship made during testimony, as well as in the written presentation, is especially interesting. 

The presenter, Energy Lead Natalie Kiley-Bergen, is a registered Democrat. Their website dons a land acknowledgment and states that they use the Jemez Principles for Democratic Organizing, used exclusively by anti-capitalist radical environmental justice groups that promote fossil fuel bans.  

According to their 2024 report, this “nonpartisan” group proudly celebrated a four-month sabbatical for their executive director and locked in a permanent four-day workweek, complete with a paid wellness day every single week. Apparently, dismantling the economy is exhausting work, even for the nonpartisan crowd. Proudly displayed in their 2024 annual report is the list of donors, the typical blend of left-wing policy, climate, and electoral influence networks. The climate and energy transition funders include the 11th Hour Project, Hopewell Fund and Tortuga Foundation. The Hopewell Fund is also part of the Arabella Advisors network.

Grand Deception

For years, Alaska’s RPS was pushed by activists and policymakers as a solution to climate change. But as skepticism has grown—especially during the Trump administration, which is now actively pulling the rug out from under the climate agenda and slashing Green New Deal funding—the same players have simply shifted tactics. With the climate narrative losing traction in Alaska, they’re now repackaging the RPS as a response to dwindling Cook Inlet gas reserves and the supposed threat of expensive gas imports. Biden’s U.S. Department of Energy helped them with that.

It’s the same mandate, just a new fear campaign, swapping the “climate crisis” for a “gas crisis” to force through costly, unreliable energy policies driven by far-left climate NGOs. 

This is the trap of an “all of the above” energy approach. Dunleavy has repeated this mantra multiple times. This approach is an excuse for doing a little bit of everything and none of it well. Enormous amounts of state resources and effort were poured into Energy Security Task Forces and Sustainable Energy Conferences. There was even a technical committee stood up by former Anchorage Mayor Dave Bronson to advise the Southcentral Alaska Mayors on the gas crisis. A report on their investigations has yet to be issued. The net result for Alaska is centralized planning, green banks, carbon capture and RPS mandates designed to force wind and solar onto the grid. 

Alaska needs leadership that stops hiding behind “all of the above” and moves to all of the sensible instead. Last September, I suggested an RPS to Holland when he was running for office, a Reliable Portfolio Standard. But here he is now, pushing the complete opposite—backing a policy that guarantees unreliability and skyrocketing costs. Alaska deserves power that works, not politics that don’t.

HB 153 Hearing

Public testimony on HB 153 was held April 10. Public testimony clearly rejected the RPS. Ratepayers came out in force, and most speakers were firmly against. Everyday Alaskans made it clear they don’t want unreliable energy forced on our grid. 

Meanwhile, nearly all the support of the RPS came from those set to financially profit from the bill, led by Chris Rose of Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP), who conveniently got over three minutes to make his pitch compared to our two. It was heartening to see the citizens do so well against the 15-staffed REAP and other government and Left environmental organizations out to have Big Brother implement bad energy policies.

Looking Ahead

The Committee claimed there will be more hearings next week, but nothing is scheduled yet. The bill still has to move through House Resources and House Finance after Energy. Unfortunately, those committees are dominated by Leftists, and with the majority lost in 2024, the bill is likely to pass. 

The thin hope is that the governor feels the heat given Trump’s latest executive orders. Signing the bill would be political suicide given the replacement of the Biden regime. But we know Dunleavy’s game — if he doesn’t veto, and simply lets it sit for 20 days, it becomes law quietly. 

The governor has the Sustainable Energy Conference at the end of legislative session for a reason, and Shaina Kilcoyne, who carried this bill, is a speaker (coincidence?).  Alex Epstein and Daniel Turner are featured speakers as well.

One very important point raised in testimony:  Rep. Holland is a conflicted lawmaker. He’s a founding member of Alaska Version 3, an organization dedicated to moving Alaska away from its oil economy and into renewable mandates. As they put it in 2021:

Ky wanted to start a conversation about Alaska’s future…. Recognizing that its oil economy has beneficially driven state growth, but is now in a mature state and can no longer sustain us. What comes next?

The answer, clearly, is this bill — and it serves his ideological agenda, not Alaska’s energy security.

Speak out. Letters and opinions can be emailed to House.Energy@akleg.gov

———————

Kassie Andrews is an energy expert on Alaskan politics and resource development. A lifelong Alaskan, her career in energy has involved project management, construction, and finance. Her prior analyses from a free-market perspective can be found here.