th comments
Andrew said: "eek. she just keeps getting scarier. However, I would love to see these kinds of things about the democrats (whom I plan on voting for). ..." [read]

eden hertzog said: "Thanks Christine - for writing such an informative and diplomatic article. I'm impressed. And for those that have followed this thre..." [read]

John Taylor said: "I think the photo tells a big story to Treehuggers. Sarah Palin wanted to remove Polar bears from endangered species protection and open A..." [read]

Dan said: "Agreed, great idea. They do attract mice however. Any ideas on how to control mice populations around chickens?..." [read]

said: ""Can you please provide a link that substantiates your claim? JL" -Its well known in the auto industry that the makers of diesel motors did..." [read]

National Association of Manufacturers Volunteers 10% Energy Efficiency Boost

by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 04.24.08
Business & Politics

NAM-ACCF%20study%20graphic.jpg 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.

Still, 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.

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 Bill

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

Comments (2)

"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.'

jump to top gl says:

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

jump to top EE says:

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

th ads
th top picks
th ads