Oklahoma hasn't had a single county vote for a Democratic presidential candidate in 24 years. All statewide elected officials are Republicans, and Republicans hold a 4-1 supermajority in both chambers. Former President Donald Trump led the state by 35 points. Despite this staunchly conservative profile, Oklahoma's Republican leadership has allowed significant farmland and ranch land to be used for foreign land acquisitions related to solar and wind energy projects. The move comes despite Oklahoma rejecting the administration behind the Green New Deal. So what does that give?
Last week, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt announced An agreement with the Danish ambassador allows Danish companies to purchase large tracts of land in Payne County. The company plans to build solar, wind and biomass energy projects, along with power lines, on farmland and ranches in central Oklahoma. Mr. Stitt's enthusiasm for these projects underscores the state's broader push for Green New Deal-style energy initiatives under the guise of job creation.
The green energy challenge is a doubling down on folly, putting both energy reliability and food security at risk.
“I just signed historical memorandum “There is a growing understanding between Denmark and Oklahoma State,” a giddy Stitt announced. “This partnership will focus on developing affordable and reliable energy for our community. Oklahoma powers the world!”
He's right. Oklahoma has enough oil and gas to fuel most of the world. The problem is that the memorandum of understanding he signed does not promote reliable energy. Instead, it relies on unsustainable land acquisition, misdirects resources like cattle feed, and uses inefficient and heavily subsidized energy sources like solar and wind that harm the local environment. Prioritizing form. Additionally, the memo emphasizes “decarbonizing” the aviation industry, a goal that directly contradicts his stated support for oil and gas as part of an “all of the above” energy strategy. .
The agreement with Denmark focuses on two key elements under the broad banner of promoting “economic growth and sustainability”. The first is to build solar and wind farms in pristine landscapes. The second involves the construction of transmission lines, methanol plants, and data centers powered by these renewable energy sources, located in areas designated as “National Interest Transmission Corridors.”
Under public pressure, Stitt joined other heads of the Land Office on Wednesday. Reject a solar power project. However, complementary green energy projects on the agenda were approved to move forward. The vote had the support of the governor, lieutenant governor and secretary of agriculture, while conservative state auditor Cindy Byrd was the lone dissenting vote. The project is expected to receive final approval by March 2025 through a public vote by commissioners.
The transmission routes associated with this plan should concern all Americans, not just Oklahomans. The National Interest Transmission Corridor, expanded under Biden's infrastructure bill, gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the power to overrule local governments in the placement of transmission lines to facilitate the delivery of solar and wind energy. The proposed corridor would stretch from northwest Oklahoma to Little Rock, Arkansas, and would be 4 to 18 miles wide and 645 miles long. This development would likely require prestigious land that would occupy important farmland and ranch land for biofuels, solar, wind, and carbon capture projects.
result? Rising food and fuel costs support less reliable and more expensive energy instead of taking advantage of Oklahoma's abundant oil and gas resources, which require less invasive infrastructure and protect agricultural land. It's the most anti-environmental idea possible.
Beyond land grabbing, “e-SAF” and biofuels divert land from growing fruits and vegetables and directing cattle feed to fuel production. These fuels rely on subsidies and mandates to survive, even though they are neither wanted nor needed. This misallocation of resources increases cattle feed costs for ranchers and puts their land at risk. In the process, the green energy agenda compounds folly, putting both energy reliability and food security at risk.
Environmentalists often tout wind and solar power as harmless natural sources that can power everything on your property. The reality is much different. Users are typically far away from “natural” energy sources, and these energy sources require large areas of land for transmission lines. This setup requires extensive high-voltage infrastructure spread over an area larger than many countries. The constant need for repairs, replacements, and upgrades makes the system costly and unsustainable. No rational policy maker with good intentions would ever come up with an idea like this.
Democrats understand that getting the Green New Deal into red states is the key to transforming America. According to new york times80% of green energy projects go to Republican districts. This distribution has led many short-sighted Republicans to quietly seek to strengthen the law while pretending to oppose it.
in interview andIn the Times, Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama's first chief of staff, emphasized the importance of speeding up the construction of power lines to implement the Green New Deal, stating that the Green New Deal “is primarily about decarbonization. “built around investment” and strengthened by Biden's infrastructure bill. Emanuel sees this as a strategy for the Democratic Party to make a political comeback. Ironically, deep-red state governors like Mr. Stitt seem eager to support this effort.
Red states need an energy revolution that avoids overregulation of viable energy sources while refusing to subsidize unviable energy sources. Solar and wind energy projects should no longer consume vast amounts of land.
For example, in the beautiful region around Lake Eufaula in eastern Oklahoma, 900 turbineswhich includes some of the world's tallest windmills. This misuse of resources and land is sacrificing our heartland for harmful lies based on unhealthy energy practices.
If deep red states cannot reject the Green New Deal, a policy as destructive as it is unpopular, it means that Democrats, not Republicans, are successfully building a durable political majority in this country. may indicate.
