National Association of Manufacturers Volunteers 10% Energy Efficiency Boost
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 04.24.08
Officials of The National Association of Manufacturers, or "NAM" have apparently met with USEPA Administrator Johnson and as a result have agreed to "try to" reduce energy use in the industrial sector by 10 percent or more. We don't know if what was agreed to was verbal and sealed by executive handshake; or if the agreement is documented; nor do we know if individual NAM members are, by reference, all supporting a 10%+ energy efficiency improvement goal.
However, the memorandum of understanding between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Association of Manufacturers sets no deadlines for reaching that goal, nor does it set any penalties for failure to do so.On cue and as expected, the featured on item on the NAM website is "NAM and ACCF Unveil New Study Highlighting the National and 50-State Economic Impacts of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change BillStill, it is the first-ever such agreement between the EPA and the nation's oldest and largest industrial trade association, EPA officials said. The industrial sector uses one-third of the energy consumed each year in the United States and is responsible for nearly that percentage of carbon dioxide emissions.
See...cap and trade regulations aren't needed. 'Nothing to see here Congress:...move along."
Looks like the very same economic impact study being cited by the AstroTurf coal front, which we wrote about in: "American Council for Capital Formation: Panzer Attack On Cap & Trade Bill."
That would be the economic impact study done by a major US Government contractor, SAIC. Sweet.
Via::UPI, "EPA, industry agree on energy cut goal" Image credit::NAM
"We don't know if what was agreed to was verbal and sealed by executive handshake; or if the agreement is documented"
"...the memorandum of understanding between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Association of Manufacturers..."
You answered your own question.
=== author's response follows ====
Agree that the post could have been worded more clearly. What I should have said is more like: 'we don't know exactly what is expected, of whom, and under what terms, until we see the actual document and who signed it.'
10% is pathetic. 10% year on year is very much doable. And that is from an electrical engineer who designs consumer electronics. Life cycle energy usage must also be included. We need hard, long term, goals that increase every year and ban the junk