Top Left Link Buttons
  • English
  • German

Mary Jane Freeman

Author Archives

Great Leap Backwards: the Green New Deal

How Much of U.S. Must Be Covered by Windmills and Solar Panels To ‘Decarbonize’ the Nation?

Feb. 27 (EIRNS)—According to a 345-page study called “Net-Zero America,” released on Dec. 15, 2020 by a team from two environmental centers at Princeton University, land-based windmills and solar farms might have to cover some 231,660 square miles of U.S. territory by the year 2050, for the U.S. economy to be net-zero in emitting “heat-trapping gasses.” Think of it: An area slightly larger than the combined states of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois, covered over by inefficient energy technologies from the 14th century which have a well-proven track record of failing when most needed.

City of London weekly The Economist carries a 3,500-word monster article this week, discussing the ins-and-outs of “Decarbonising America: Joe Biden’s Climate-Friendly Energy Revolution,” promotes the Princeton study, and particularly its most solar- and wind-dependent proposal.

The study details five different “pathways” through which to reduce the U.S. economy to net-zero emissions, and brags that it is the first study to lay out options with great “granularity,” by which they mean, proposing very specific ideas for every geographic area of the country (e.g. maps showing where solar and wind farms might be located around different cities). Barack Obama’s anti-science advisor John Holdren explains in his Foreword to the study, that the intent of detailing the “multiple plausible and affordable pathways available” for decarbonizing the economy, is to induce Americans to fixate on discussing details of what kind of energy technology should go where (Rhode Island or Washington, D.C. would have to be covered with solar panels, in order to provide enough electricity for people to live and work there; but then, they couldn’t live or work there), and drop all debate over how the entire scheme itself means economic suicide and Malthusian population reduction. As Holdren puts it, with this report, “the societal conversation can now turn from ‘if’ to ‘how’ and focus on the choices the nation and its myriad stakeholders wish to make to shape the transition to net-zero.”

EIR has not read every “granular” detail of the study, but its summary reports that all five “pathways” assume that the share of electricity from “carbon-free sources” will have to roughly double from around 37% today to 70-85% by 2030, and reach 98-100% by 2050. Wind and solar power are to be the dominant source of energy in all their scenarios, with wind and solar farms providing about half of all U.S. electricity by 2030—up from 9% in 2019. Miles and miles of new transmission lines would be needed to shift the unreliable electricity supply around; the Princeton crew estimates that high-voltage transmission capacity would have to jump by 60% over the course of the coming decade. Naturally, we will have to pay through the nose to kill ourselves; the study authors estimate at least $2.5 trillion in additional capital investment will be needed over the next decade. See EIR’s special report,

Great Reset/Green New Deal

One Houston Home’s Electricity Bill Hits $9,340—for One Week

Feb. 27 (EIRNS)—A family in Chambers County, Texas, a suburb of Houston, has filed a class action suit against the electric company Griddy. Under the “variable rate plan,” one of the disastrous results of the deregulation which gave us Enron and more, the electric company was allowed to jack up the price almost without limit when the system nearly shut down. The family said that their normal monthly electric bill was $200 and $250. But during the collapse, they were charged $9,340 for seven days!

According to a news release, Mont Belvieu resident Lisa Khoury said the company engaged in “unlawful price gouging” during the storm and the breakdown caused by the freezing of the windmills and related breakdowns. “Griddy charged Khoury in the middle of a disaster,” the complaint said. “She and her husband mostly were without power in their home from Wednesday, February 17 to Thursday, February 18, 2021. At the same time, Khoury hosted her parents and in-laws, who are in their 80s, during the storm. Even then, she continued to minimize any power usage because of the high prices.”

Griddy’s response: “The lawsuit is meritless and we plan to vigorously defend against it.”

COVID-19: new tool in the arsenal to defeat it.

Johnson & Johnson One-Dose COVID-19 Vaccine Passes FDA Advisory Board Unanimously

Feb. 27 (EIRNS)—The U.S. Food and Drug Administration Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) passed the Johnson & Johnson one-dose vaccine unanimously on Feb. 26, the company announced in a press release today. The vaccine has a 72% efficacy in the U.S. and 64% in South Africa. Against severe cases, globally, it was 85% effective. The vaccine is for those 18 years and older. It is stored at regular refrigerator temperatures.

The vaccine is the first one-dose vaccine to be approved. It can be a very important part of the fight, especially where logistics are difficult. Johnson & Johnson expects to produce and send out 20 million doses for the U.S. by March 31, and 80 million more doses by June 30. Assuming that the company gets around 25 million of the 80 million out in April, the U.S. would have vaccine doses for some 195 million Americans by the end of April—or 75% of the eligible population. Once those vaccines get into arms, the country would be in the range of herd immunity.

Dr. James Hildreth, CEO and President of Meharry Medical College, tweeted: “I am pleased to have been part of VRBPAC for review of the vaccine.  We must not let a narrative take hold that this is a ‘lesser’ vaccine than the mRNA vaccines. This vaccine prevents severe disease and death and in the crisis we are in that [is] the most important thing.” For more on Dr. Hildreth’s analysis of the COVID-19 pandemic, see the Feb. 1, 2021, Schiller Institute’s Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites interview. 

Beethoven: Sparks of Joy!

Beethoven: Sparks of Joy — Opus 110 well-known, presents a gamut of settings, much like a great drama.

Opus 110 is the most popular of Beethoven’s late sonatas. The opening is lyrical and warm, and is followed by an exuberant Scherzo, whose themes were borrowed from two folk tunes – “Unsa Kätz häd Katzln ghab” (Our cat has had kittens) and “Ich bin lüderlich, du bist lüderlich” (I’m a dissolute slob, and so are you). The specific force of the allusions may not be felt, but their boisterous, comic character is clear.
However, it is the extraordinary third movement that dominates discussion of this sonata. Its principal elements are an Arioso dolente  (lamenting song) and a three-voice fugue, which unexpectedly loses heart and gives way to a second Arioso even more despairing than the first. Suddenly, the fugue is repeated, but this time the theme is turned upside-down, and it ends on a note of triumph with a flourish of arpeggios.
Seong-Jin Cho was just 17 years old when he performed this sonata at the Tchaikovsky Competition in Moscow. [Notes by Margaret Scialdone.]

To Go To Mars, We Need Nuclear-Powered Rockets

NPR Gets It Right, for Once: To Go To Mars, We Need Nuclear-Powered Rockets

Feb. 25, 2021 (EIRNS)—National Public Radio reported yesterday on comments by Roger Myers, an independent aerospace consultant and co-chair of a panel convened by the National Academies to study nuclear propulsion. “If we decide to send humans to Mars, nuclear propulsion is likely to be central to that journey,” Myers stated. A new report just issued by Myers and colleagues says that spending by NASA is “going to have to be ramped up significantly if we’re going to hit 2039” for a nuclear-based mission.

NPR explained, “The idea of using nuclear reactors for propulsion dates back to the earliest days of the U.S. space program. In the 1950s and 1960s, scientists with what was then called the Atomic Energy Commission developed a series of nuclear rockets. The program was conducted in collaboration for NASA and developed working prototypes. But it was cancelled in the early 1970s, after it became clear the missions for which it was needed, to travel to Mars and the Moon, were unlikely to go forward.

“Nuclear-powered rockets are needed both to minimize the travel time to Mars, as well as to reduce the amount of time astronauts would have to stay there before being able to return. Under normal fuels,” astronauts would be required to stay on Mars for 500 days while waiting for a planetary alignment that would let them get back to Earth using as little propellant as possible. Nuclear power, by contrast, could allow the mission to be completed with less fuel and in a shorter amount of time. Because of the extra thrust provided by nuclear rocket motors, astronauts would be able to take a shortcut back to Earth by spiraling around the Sun and Venus. The mission would also mean a shorter first stay on Mars of only about a month, as opposed to 500 days.”

Great Leap Backwards: the Green Deal Swindle

Soaring European “Carbon” Market Encourages London, but Worries Remain that U.S Is Not Securely on Board

Feb. 25, 2021 (EIRNS)—London’s The Economist magazine on Feb. 24 hailed the 60% surge in prices on the European carbon-emissions trading market since last November as a sign that the market is finally “Coming into Its Own,” as it headlined its report. The European market is far-and-away the biggest carbon trading operation in the world. The Economist points to the entry of some 230 “investment funds” into the trading—speculators like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and big hedge funds—as signalling that the market is “joining the financial mainstream.” And they are entering, because “carbon seems like a one-way bet.” The European Union’s Dec. 11th order to increase the required cuts in emissions by 2030 to 55% of 1990 levels, instead of “only” by 40%, combined with the entry of the big speculators, sent emission “allowance” prices soaring, with bets that the price will rise (“long positions”) doubling since November.

The Economist has spent much of the past week, however, in various articles, including a monster piece of over 3,500 words, ruminating about how to ensure that the United States joins the murderous decarbonization frenzy in the way it must, if London is to have a shot at imposing this scheme upon the entire world. “While few question Mr. Biden’s sincerity to turn things round, America’s ability to keep to its word on climate change looks vulnerable to the next Republican election win,” one article warned. Another reminded readers that the U.S. Congress has not passed any overall climate legislation since 2009, which forced Barack Obama to impose the desired messages by executive orders, which, however, were then overturned by President Trump. If Biden is unable to impose a sufficiently aggressive decarbonization program, no matter how strong John Kerry is, The Economist warns in its typically British way, the United States will lack “the license to persuade, shame, and where appropriate, bully” other countries—such as China.

While it presents many a suggestion, scenario, and order as to how to handle U.S. politics to secure London’s goal, the rag’s controllers make clear that they are pinning their hope of cracking opposition, on tightening the cut-off of financing to any who don’t play ball. Republican business donors being squeezed by “asset managers,” can be lined up behind “Biden’s” net-zero carbon plans. A January statement of support for a “durable climate policy” with “well designed market mechanisms” from the American Chamber of Commerce, once considered “an implacable adversary” to the Green fraud, is viewed as another hopeful sign that pressure from the corporate sector might break Republican and conservative Democrat opposition.

Beethoven: Sparks of Joy!

Beethoven: Sparks of Joy — Wonder and human ingenuity got us to Mars, and this Beethoven song reflects upon such human qualities.

The ongoing exploration of Mars by scientists of three nations leads one to ponder the true nature of mankind and our exciting prospects for the future.
One of Beethoven’s most beautiful songs is  Abendlied unterm gerstirnten Himmel (Evening Song Under a Starry Sky), which describes the effect on the soul of gazing into the night sky and contemplating the immensity of creation. In the first strophe, the thousands of stars in the night sky make the soul feel immense, lifting it out of the dust. In the second strophe, the soul feels as if it is looking “zurück ins Vaterland” (back into the fatherland), while in the next two strophes the soul soars heavenward, finally reaching “Meine Leiden schönen Lohn” (the beautiful reward of my suffering). 
It’s sung here by Peter Schreier, with text in Spanish, English, and German. [Notes by Margaret Scialdone.]

Beethoven: Sparks of Joy

Beethoven: Sparks of Joy — Op. 109 is the predecessor to the Hammerklavier.

The Opus 109 sonata is a much smaller work than its immediate predecessor, the “Hammerklavier”. It has a fantasy-like first movement followed by a quick prestissimo, and the whole is capped with a marvelous theme and variations, which Beethoven instructed was to be played “song-like, with the most intimate expression.” Here Daniel Barenboim performs. [Notes by Margaret Scialdone.]

Beethoven: Sparks of Joy

Beethoven: Sparks of Joy — Op. 106, “Hammerklavier,” enfolds soul-wrenching drive with those unknown last moments of a Mars landing.

The Opus 106 “Hammerklavier”, Beethoven’s 29th sonata, is one of the most demanding works in the entire keyboard repertoire. Magnificent in scope, enormous in length, it contains a soul-wrenching Adagio movement and ends with an incredible double fugue. One might compare the finale to NASA’s “seven minutes of terror” as the Mars spacecraft makes its final descent and landing on the Red Planet!
Beethoven remarked to his publisher Artaria that this sonata would be “a hard nut to crack”, and that it would have pianists gnashing their teeth for the next 50 years. In fact, Beethoven’s London publisher released only the first three movements (rearranged so that the Scherzo followed the Adagio) because it was felt that England had no pianists at the time capable of playing the finale.
Although Beethoven had already used the term “Hammerklavier” for the Opus 106, it has become universally accepted as the name for this immortal work. Here is a superb performance by Vladimir Ashkenazy. [Notes by Margaret Scialdone.]

Beethoven: Sparks of Joy

Beethoven: Sparks of Joy – Op. 101 begins his “late period” sonatas.

The Opus 101 is generally regarded as the first of the “late period” sonatas, in which Beethoven takes advantage of the expanded range  and sturdier construction of the “Hammerklavier” to produce works of extraordinary power and richness of effect. In fact, in the Opus 101 Beethoven uses the low “E” for the first time – a note that didn’t exist on earlier instruments.
This is emphatically not a “Romantic” work. The Romantic movement was unleashed after the Congress of Vienna in order to supplant artistic rigor and replace it with “anything goes” licentiousness, in order to corrupt the musical tastes, and hence morality, of the public. Beethoven was  always a Classical composer.
The sonata, which Beethoven jokingly suggested be called “the difficult-to-play A major sonata” is performed magnificently by Emil Gilels. [Notes by Margaret Scialdone.]

Page 19 of 23First...181920...Last