Manufacturers continue to set ambitious goals for their sustainability programs. Last month, International Paper, announced 12 voluntary sustainability goals which included:

• 15% improvement in energy efficiency in purchased energy use;
• 20% absolute reduction in global GHG emissions associated with production; and,
• 15% global increase in third-party certified fiber volume.

Other goals focused on philanthropy, safety and water use. These benchmarks were part of International Paper’s 2011 Sustainability Report which also highlighted achievements such as an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Climate Leadership Award, improvements in worker safety and sustainability accolades from Fortune Magazine and the Ethisphere Institute.

In a press release, Chairman and CEO John Faraci stated, “At International Paper, sustainability is more than a business practice. Environmental, social and economic performance has been at the core of our company for more than 110 years. Stewardship of the forestland and surrounding habitat is ingrained in our company’s DNA.”

We applaud International Paper’s efforts and look forward to tracking the company’s progress as it works to achieve these sustainability goals.

The National Association of Manufacturers was cited several times in the House floor debate Thursday on H.R. 910, to prevent the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), Congressional Record, Page H2370:

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, we are here today because the EPA has continued to push this effort to pass a national energy tax. It was tried through cap-and-trade over the last year and a half. That bill went through the legislative process and was defeated in a bipartisan way. This is not a Republican or a Democrat issue when we’re talking about preventing the EPA from running millions of jobs out of our country, and that is literally what’s at stake here.

Believe me, as people look through the letters of support and as we comb through the days of testimony that we’ve had on this over the last 2 years with regard to this concept of the EPA’s regulating greenhouse gases, Madam Chair, we are talking about a proposal by the EPA that, according to the National Association of Manufacturers, would run 3 million jobs out of our country.

Now, we should all be here working feverishly to create jobs. In fact, our legislation, the National Energy Tax Prevention Act, will create jobs because it will remove the uncertainty that exists today where so many employers, so many of our job creators, are scared to death of the threat now of regulation coming over; because, again, Congress rejected their proposal for the national energy tax through cap-and-trade in a bipartisan way.

The analysis Rep. Scalise is referring to is, we presume, the earlier NAM-ACCF analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill. EPA regulation of greenhouse gases could have even greater economic consequences than that cap-and-trade legislation, which as negotiated legislation included many exemptions, subsidies, delays and deals intended to minimize the harm and job loss. EPA regulation can evade the same policy and political compromises, exacerbating the uncertainty that Rep. Scalise is right to emphasize.

Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), chief sponsor of H.R. 910, also inserted an NAM-cosigned letter into the record (page H2372): (continue reading…)

The Akron Beacon-Journal this week published an op-ed by Ward J. Timken Jr., chairman of the board of directors of The Timken Co., “EPA regulations weigh down the economy“.

The Timken Co. is a leading global manufacturer of highly engineered bearings, alloy steels, and related components and assemblies. Ward Timken Jr. is a member of the National Association of Manufacturers’ executive committee. He wrote:

Timken has a U.S.-favorable trade balance, with jobs in Ohio and throughout the U.S. supporting growing demand around the world. It requires us to keep costs down and drive efficiency to optimal levels.

In our Canton, Ohio, steel plants, we are continuously reducing our energy consumption and carbon intensity using highly efficient electric-arc-furnace technology and the most advanced manufacturing methods. We often collaborate with government to develop energy-saving technologies and balanced policies across party lines.

Understanding that the aims of economic and environmental progress are not mutually exclusive, I encourage you to join me to make our voices heard. Please contact our representatives in Congress and ask them to preserve jobs and the democratic process by putting a stop to the EPA’s regulatory overreach.

This week’s legislative activities in Congress to achieve that goal — stopping the EPA’s regulatory overreach — produced a mixed result. The House on Thursday voted 255-172 to pass H.R. 910, to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

The same legislation in the form of the McConnell Amendment failed Wednesday in the Senate on a 50-50 vote. However, in votes on four amendments, a majority of Senators expressed opposition in one form or another to the EPA’s current plans. As Politico summarized: “All of them failed, but 17 Democrats broke with their party and president to support measures that rein in the greenhouse gas regulations on varying levels….In all, 64 senators voted to block or delay the climate regulations, which Senate Republicans were more than happy to note.”

The NAM is certainly going to continue the fight against the EPA’s attempt to take over the making of environmental, energy and economic policy. See our website: www.NoNewRegs.org.

The House just voted 255-172 to pass H.R. 910, to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The vote reflect bipartisan support for Congress exercising its responsibilities in setting energy, environmental and economic policy.

We’ll post the roll call vote when it becomes available.

UPDATE (3:18 p.m.): That was quick. The roll call vote is here. It shows 19 Democrats joining 236 Republicans in voting for passage.

UPDATE (3:30 p.m.): Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee issues a statement, “U.S. House Puts Families First, Approves Bipartisan Bill to Stop EPA From Driving up Gasoline and Energy Prices, Harming Job Creation.” Included are comments from Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY).

The release also notes the NAM’s support for the bill. Thank you for the mention.

From Politico Pro, “Message Sent? Democrats cross over to smack down ‘rogue’ EPA”, via Sen. Jim Inhofe’s EPW Press Blog:

Rep. Dennis Cardoza, a California Democrat, told POLITICO earlier this week that there’s growing opinion among Democrats that EPA is becoming a “rogue agency,” adding that the White House needs to take action to curb the agency’s power. “I think the president’s out of step on this one, and he’s going to have to get his agency under control,” he said.

In the Senate on Wednesday, even Democrats who are typically backers of the Obama administration – like Max Baucus of Montana, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Carl Levin of Michigan – jumped on the anti-EPA bandwagon to endorse Democratic amendments to curtail the agency’s power. Those amendments were aimed at allowing vulnerable Democrats to take slaps at EPA that could protect them in upcoming elections.

The votes from Wednesday, April 6, on amendments to S. 493:

Sixty votes were needed for adoption of Sen. McConnell’s amendment to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Among Democrats, Sens. Manchin, Pryor, Landrieu voted aye. We thank them. (UPDATE: 9:45 a.m. Thursday: And Sen Ben Nelson (D-NE). Thank you, as well.)

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine was the only Republican to vote no.

Very sorry to see Senators from energy and manufacturing states vote to surrender the Legislature’s energy and environmental policy-making responsibilities to the Environmental Protection Agency. Their vote not only will lead to higher energy costs and fewer manufacturing jobs, but a continued centralization of power in the Executive Branch.

Over at the EPA, they’d be popping champagne corks, except, you know, that would emit carbon pollution. Guess they’ll have to settle for the pleasures of unrestrained regulatory authority.

From The Hill’s E2 Wire energy blog, “OVERNIGHT ENERGY: Senate, House climate votes on tap“:

LATE BREAKING: The Senate will vote on a GOP-backed plan to kill Environmental Protection Agency climate change rules Wednesday afternoon, according to Democrats and a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Lawmakers will vote on McConnell’s amendment to small-business legislation, as well as several Democratic alternatives. The amendments need 60 votes to pass.

Votes on the amendments to S. 493, the small business reauthorization bill, begin at 4 p.m.

Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute explains what the vote signifies in a post at BigGovernment.com, “Senate to Vote on EPA’s Power Grab: Does the Rule of Law Still Matter?”

The Senate will, one presumes, finally vote either this week or next to block EPA from imposing President Obama’s ‘other way to skin the cat’ of Kyoto-style energy rationing, by using the Clean Air Act – a law that EPA’s own public filings inescapably acknowledge was never intended for such purpose. What will be at stake is little less than the rule of law itself.

Policy sanity also stands to take a beating, or else gain a new lease on life. The United States derives over 80% of its total energy from the three fossil fuels now being regulated by the Clean Air Act on the basis of EPA’s Endangerment Finding, which by design strangles our ability to use them. Further, the Obama Administration has in effect decided that the EPA knows how to run the U. S. economy.

With über-green Germany, even nuke-happy France, appearing set to ramp up their coal use in the wake of Japan’s nuclear incident, the first rational response would be to call off EPA’s war on coal. Not to fight like mad to preserve and advance it.

Got up and opened the window to a bright and beautiful morning, took a deep breath and exhaled carbon pollution.

Watered the plants on the window sill, applauding my courage because that greenery had been consuming so much carbon pollution it was bound to be toxic.

Forgot to reset the toaster and burnt the toast. Had to scrape off the carbon pollution, but it was still edible.

Took a shower, creating the most potent greenhouse gas known to man, water vapor. Breathed a sigh of relief, knowing it wasn’t carbon pollution. But then felt bad about breathing.

In other serious lines of argumentation, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), March 31, Congressional Record, Page S2013:

Jeez. Carbon dioxide causes strokes? Now I feel really guilty.

The National Association of Manufacturers today sent a “Key Vote” letter to House members calling for their support for H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which would block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. A House floor vote is scheduled for Wednesday.

Excerpt from the letter.

At a time when our economy is attempting to recover from the most severe recession since the 1930s, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, with no guidance from Congress, will cost jobs and slow economic growth.

The Energy Tax Prevention Act seeks to ensure a healthy and productive discussion in Congress on harmonizing our nation’s energy, environmental and economic needs before the EPA regulates GHG emissions from stationary sources, including manufacturing facilities. Congressional debate and consensus on this issue is especially critical, as the Clean Air Act was never intended to regulate carbon.

As consumers of roughly one-third of our nation’s energy, manufacturers in the United States support a comprehensive, federal climate policy within a framework that will cause no economic harm while granting sufficient time to deploy low-carbon technologies.

The White House has issued a veto threat, making its argument on the deceptive conflation of greenhouse gas emissions with pollutants: We need EPA regulation of carbon dioxide in order to prevent asthma and bronchitis. It’s as if supporters of EPA regulation, including the Administration, lack both the intellectual and political confidence to argue the true substance of the legislation. They instead fall back on the specious “carbon pollution” claims.

You can understand a power-seeking Executive Branch arrogating legislative authority to itself, but why would Congress permit it? Yet Senate leadership still will not allow a floor vote on the McConnell-Inhofe amendment — the companion to the House bill — asserting the legislative branch’s policymaking prerogatives. The Hill’s E2 Wire reports the twists and turns and abdications in a round-up of Capitol Hill energy news, “OVERNIGHT ENERGY: House mulls rules of engagement on climate battle.”

Marketplace Morning Report does a brief story this morning on the National Association of Manufacturers’ ad campaign against EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emission. (See www.NoNewRegs.org) In the competing sound bites, Frank O’Donnell musters his usual attention to fact and detail.

Association lobbyist Alicia Meads.

Alicia Meads: Profit margins are extremely tight right now and we feel that these regulations are hurting that more and will cause job loss.

Frank O’Donnell heads the environmental group Clean Air Watch. He says the EPA regulations would save manufacturers money. They would have to be more energy efficient. That means lower power bills.

Frank O’Donnell: To hear these crazy horror stories from the business community just makes my head spin because it’s like a bizarro world.

Well, it’s not the NAM that claims higher energy prices saves manufacturers money and lowers power bills. Talk about Bizarro.