Oklahoma hasn’t had a single county vote for a Democratic presidential candidate in 24 years. Every statewide elected official is a Republican, and the GOP holds overwhelming 4-1 majorities in both legislative chambers. Former President Donald Trump carried the state by 35 points. Despite this staunchly conservative profile, Oklahoma’s Republican leadership is allowing vital farmland and ranchland to be used for foreign land acquisitions tied to solar and wind energy projects. This move comes even as Oklahomans rejected the administration behind the Green New Deal. So what gives?
Last week, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt announced an agreement with Denmark’s ambassador, granting a Danish company the ability to purchase large sections of land in Payne County. The company plans to build solar, wind, and biomass energy projects, along with transmission lines across farmland and ranchland in the heart of Oklahoma. Stitt’s enthusiasm for these projects highlights his broader push for Green New Deal-style energy initiatives under the guise of creating jobs in the state.
The green energy agenda is a force multiplier of stupidity, jeopardizing both energy reliability and food security.
“Just signed a historic memorandum of understanding between Denmark and Oklahoma,” a giddy Stitt announced. “The partnership will focus on developing affordable and reliable energy for our communities. Oklahoma fuels the world!”
He’s right. Oklahoma has enough oil and gas to fuel much of the world. The trouble is the memorandum he signed does not promote reliable energy. Instead, it prioritizes inefficient and heavily subsidized forms of energy, such as solar and wind, that depend on unsustainable land acquisitions, misdirect resources like cattle feed, and harm the local environment. Additionally, the memorandum emphasizes the “decarbonization” of 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 broader banner of promoting “economic growth and sustainability.” The first involves constructing solar and wind farms on pristine landscapes. The second includes building transmission lines, methanol plants, and data centers powered by these renewable energy sources, situated in areas designated as “national interest electric transmission corridors.”
After public pressure, Stitt on Wednesday joined other commissioners of the Land Office in voting to reject the solar project. A complementary green energy project on the agenda was approved to move forward, however. The vote saw support from the governor, lieutenant governor, and agriculture secretary, while conservative state Auditor Cindy Byrd cast the lone dissenting vote. This project is set to return for final approval by March 2025 in a public vote by the commissioners.
The transmission corridors associated with this plan should concern all Americans, not just Oklahomans. Expanded under the Biden infrastructure bill, National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors now give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority to overrule local governments on power line placement to facilitate the delivery of solar and wind energy. The proposed corridor would stretch from northwest Oklahoma to Little Rock, Arkansas, ranging from four to 18 miles in width and 645 miles in length. This development would likely require eminent domain, seizing critical croplands and ranchlands for biofuels, solar, wind, and carbon capture projects.
The result? Higher food and fuel costs, all to support unreliable and expensive energy, instead of utilizing Oklahoma’s abundant oil and gas resources, which require less invasive infrastructure and preserve farmland. It is the most anti-environmental idea imaginable.
Beyond the land-grab, the push for “e-SAF” and biofuels diverts land away from fruit and vegetable farming and redirects cattle feed toward fuel production. These fuels rely on subsidies and mandates to remain viable, despite being neither wanted nor necessary. This misallocation of resources increases cattle feed costs for ranchers and endangers their land. In the process, the green energy agenda is a force multiplier of stupidity, jeopardizing both energy reliability and food security.
Green grifters often tout wind and solar power as some innocuous natural source that can power anything on-site. Reality is far different. These energy sources require vast amounts of land for transmission lines, as users are typically far from the “natural” energy source. This setup demands extensive high-voltage infrastructure sprawling over areas larger than many countries. The ongoing need for repairs, replacements, and upgrades makes the system costly and unsustainable. No rational policymaker with good intentions could have devised such an idea.
Democrats understand that embedding the Green New Deal in red states is key to transforming America. According to the New York Times, 80% of green energy projects have been allocated to Republican districts. This distribution has led many shortsighted Republicans to pretend to oppose the law while quietly working to cement it.
In an interview with theTimes, Barack Obama’s first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, highlighted the importance of expediting transmission lines to implement the Green New Deal, which he described as “primarily built around decarbonization investments” and reinforced by Biden’s infrastructure bill. Emanuel sees this as a strategy for Democrats to make a political comeback. Ironically, deep-red state governors like Stitt appear to be working diligently to aid this effort.
Red states need an energy revolution that avoids overregulating viable energy sources while refusing subsidies for those that cannot sustain themselves. Solar and wind energy projects should no longer consume vast amounts of land.
For example, the picturesque area around Lake Eufaula in Eastern Oklahoma is set to host 900 turbines, which will include some of the tallest windmills in the world. This misuse of resources and land sacrifices our heartland for a harmful lie built on unsound energy practices.
If deep-red states cannot reject the Green New Deal — an agenda as destructive as it is unpopular — it might signal that Democrats, not Republicans, are successfully building a permanent political majority in this country.