About Us

teamThe No Cap-and-Trade Coalition is an alliance of organizations concerned about the devastating impact that a cap-and-trade scheme could have on American families, businesses and the faltering US economy.

At the onset, cap-and-trade is projected to cost the average family over $1,700 per year in new energy costs, growing to over $6,000 per year by 2035. Independent analyses of cap-and-trade proposals project the loss of millions of additional jobs and trillions of dollars out of the nation’s GDP.

The U.N. climate treaty being currently debated proposes a massive shift from American taxpayers to third-world countries by forcing the U.S. to make payments of billions of dollars in “climate debt”. In addition, increased energy costs will drive manufacturing out of the United States, resulting in the loss of millions of jobs.

Objectives

The Coalition intends to become a leading voice against state and federal cap-and-trade schemes, energy taxes and the Copenhagen Climate Treaty.

We will achieve our goals through public education, grass-roots organizing, paid media campaigns and direct lobbying efforts. Specifically, the coalition will:

  • Sponsor a new website (NoCapAndTrade.com) where visitors can sign a petition against the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill and the UN’s proposed climate treaty expected to be debated in Copenhagen this December.
  • Run radio and television ads in major markets.
  •  Bring a localized educational program to all areas of the state, featuring the new global warming documentary film, “Not Evil, Just Wrong.”
  • Educate policymakers on the economic ramifications of proposed cap and trade schemes being currently debated.
  • Organize and motivate the grassroots to provide a high-profile citizen voice against these proposals.

 

Coaltion Members

Current members of the coaltion include:

If your organization is interested in joining the coalition, send an email to: membership [at] nocapandtrade [dot] com.

46 Responses to “About Us”
  1. jennifer says:

    what evidence do you have that Baptist and Theologians support Cap n Trade? Because that’s not the message I hear at my Baptist church.

  2. Dan McGrath says:

    “Baptist Pastors and Theologians” is an organization that may not have connections to your particular church. That’s the name of that non-profit.

  3. Eric OLSON says:

    You’re ignorant retards!

  4. Tom Ogden says:

    I understand the truth about global warming and applaud your effort. It isn’t possible for me to contribute financially at this time in our troubled ecconomy but there is a truth that you should know. The electricity produced in Minnesota is the cleanest in the country and perhaps in the world. Even by the lunatic Global Warming Cult followers standards, our electricity costs will increase very little if any with Cap & Tax. We have a huge amount of Nuclear energy, wind and hydroelectric, none of which create the deadly carbon footprint they want to stop. The answer for the population outside of Minnesota, start living in poverty and buy lots of warm clothes before the tax is enacted.

  5. Paul P in MN says:

    What is wrong with you people? Do both the polar ice caps need to MELT before you wake up and smell the coffee!!!

    Cap and trade has been, is and always will be GOOD for the economy. It’s GOOD!!!! It is creating green jobs right NOW, wake up people, cap and trade is what God and Jesus want, it is what we need!!!

    “Our Father who art in Heaven, ………….Thy will be done….!!!!!”

    • Al in MN says:

      Unfortunately the “green” jobs that “Paul P in MN” mentions will mostly be in China under the C&T approach. There are many other ways that we can go green, create green jobs, etc. than to go with a bill with political motivations and baggage.

    • toeser says:

      So how many years have polar bears been on earth? 100,000? 1,000,000? 5,000,000? Whatever the number is, don’t you think they as a species have seen some pretty huge fluctuations in the earth’s climate, and managed to survive?

      Liberals have two favorite arguments they apply to everything. 1) The earth will be destroyed by man because of ______________ (fill in the blank). 2) If you disagree with me, you must be a racist.

      Please do yourself a favor and do some serious study on the subject, and serious does not mean attending an Al Gore movie. The earth has warmed for about 150 years after a major cold spell. We are just back to the 3,000 year average as documented by a group of scientists studying sediments in the Sargasso Sea. In the last ten years, the earth has actually been cooling. 31,000 scientists have rejected man-made global warming theories, yet politicians continue to say there is no informed opposition. Man-made global warming is politics, not science.

    • shooshmon says:

      Paul S seems to think there is a giant black storm cloud of co2 reigning lightning bolts of co2 down on the ice caps.

    • Larry Butler says:

      Paul, the ice caps melt EVERY summer and refreeze EVERY winter. Japanese scientists of the JAXA satellite system have been plotting it for you since 2002. http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm Please notice each year’s minimum except for an anomaly caused by the Jet Stream in 2007 draws right over the other years. 2009 drew on top of 2006. Every December, including 2007, the lines of the chart all converge at virtually the same values. To listen to the Global Warming Religion, each line on this chart should be lower and lower since 2002 and NEVER intersect. It’s a lie.

      Go here: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi
      Now, look at the SAME DAY in every year from 2002 to 2010, say Jan 5th. See the ice simply disappear the later you get? No? Why not! You must need glasses! Anybody can see the whole arctic ice sheet has just disappeared from Jan 2002 to Jan 2010. Of course, I’m being sarcastic. You can watch the change from year to year. Many charts from very respected places are a lie because the truth isn’t “on message” to tow us into global taxes from a global government.

      Algore just bought a multimillion dollar condo in downtown San Francisco very near to the classy wharf area that will be 25 feet deep in seawater if what HE tells you ever comes true? Why would he waste $Millions like that if he actually believed the lie? What more proof do you need?

  6. Jan says:

    Are you sure that the Wall Street Journal should be on the boycott list? I find it hard to believe that they support Cap and Trade.

  7. Jan says:

    What about Apple and Ben and Jerrys? Shouldn’t they be on that list or did I miss them somewhere?

  8. ken karnack says:

    What the hell is this all about?

    can someone please explain ?

    thanks

  9. Ed says:

    When the Republican party started ignoring science, it started losing this conservative’s vote. I’m religious and I believe in the beautiful world that God created and I believe it’s right to protect it. I believe in profit for farmers and businesses, but when respectable business groups join forces with irresponsible deniers of science to ignore the clear climatic data I don’t have sympathy for them. Good business has always been about adapting to market forces or being obselete. Our planet is changing and I give my business (and my votes) to those who respect science.

    Also, NoCapAndTrade.com uses incorrect facts about the number of scientists who recognize the effects of global climate change. The people in charge of this organization are clearly smart enough to know that, so they are now knowingly misleading us. Again, as a conservative, I feel disrespected by this kind of advertising by people who claim to be acting in the conservative interest.

  10. Brad Arnold says:

    I am definitely against cap-and-trade, since I think it would not give the results it was suppose to, but I would normally be for a carbon tax, since I believe in global warming and the role mankind’s emissions play. BUT, this is mute since there is an emerging clean energy technology that produces electricity significantly cheaper than that produced by fossil fuel (1 cent/kilowatt hour).

    The reason I’m leaving this message is that this new technology makes cap-and-trade legislation unnecessary, since the free market will soon cut mankind’s emissions dramatically because it is a cheaper energy production technology that happens to be clean:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1iqa0dSJO0

    Check out above link to a 2 and a half minute youtube video of a CNN report. What are the odds that the independent testimony below is fraudulent (not bloody likely unless you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist)? Here is a silver bullet technology: clean cheap and abundant energy.

    In a joint statement, Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary, Rowan University Meritorious Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Dr. Amos Mugweru, Assistant Professor of Chemistry, and Dr. Peter Jansson P.E., Associate Professor of Engineering said, “In independent tests conducted over the past three months involving 10 solid fuels made by us from commercially-available chemicals, our team of engineering and chemistry professors, staff, and students at Rowan University has independently and consistently generated energy in excesses ranging from 1.2 times to 6.5 times the maximum theoretical heat available through known chemical reactions.”

    Also, check out this article: http://green.venturebeat.com/2008/05/30/blacklight-power-claims-nearly-free-energy-from-water-is-this-for-real/

  11. John McGuire says:

    I saw the video. Maybe you should subdue your excitement somewhat. There seems to be more people skeptical about it than think it”s for real. If I had a buck for every wonderful new technoligy that I”ve seen reported thru the media since I was a kid, that never came to pass, I could buy My own power plant.

  12. will says:

    I am from the UK, just wanted to show my support in this email. and in return feel free to visit http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx and count yourself out of this poll , not sure you can from America but give it a go.

  13. Brian says:

    It seems like the ammo of choice in these debates are scientists and research. I stopped reading articles concerning the scientific “proof” for or against climate change a while ago. There’s loads of both, so it comes down to a bunch of laypeople (like us) screaming “My Science is better than Your Science!”. The meaning of pointless. If you trace the funding for the “scientific” studies on both sides, they’re nearly always linked to a political agenda.

    Those who are koolaid drinking GW/CC believers latch on to the science that reinforces their beliefs, while casting any dissenting research aside. And GW/CC deniers do the same, only moreso. It’s the definition of Confirmation Bias and Tolstoy Syndrome.

    So, unless you are an expert climatologist yourself, and you have conducted research that is so thorough and watertight that it blows all the other scientific research out of the water, you are just parroting the beliefs that jive with your already made-up mind.

    Meanwhile…one thing that I do know is that exponential growth and feedback loops are a scary thing. If climate change deniers are wrong (and I’m not saying that they are), we are in for some frightening things that will make the economic hit caused by C&T look like a tiny blip on the radar.

  14. Kip says:

    In response to what Tom Ogden said above that: “The electricity produced in Minnesota is the cleanest in the country and perhaps in the world. Even by the lunatic Global Warming Cult followers standards, our electricity costs will increase very little if any with Cap & Tax.”

    Tom – you are severly misinformed. Well more that 50 percent of Minnesota’s energy supply is from COAL – the main target of cap-and-trade. A cap-and-trade tax would cripple many of this states business’ and families due to extreme increases in monthly energy bill amounts. And whoever said that Cap-and-Trade would be good for the economy is way off base. It would be good for one economy – China’s! It would devastate ours.

  15. Glenn Woods says:

    SUIING, TO END THE CO2 DEBATE
    By Glenn Woods
    Talk host on the Basin Radio Network and author (novelist).

    As I interview Republican’s in congress on the Cap & Trade debate it seem that they are approaching the legislative fight with the attitude that the passage of Cap & Trade is an inevitability, and so they must do what they can to lessen the blow on the American people. But, in the long run, lessen the blow is something that they cannot do, because, history shows us that what the Democrats will simply passed what they can now, and wait, to pass the rest later. There is not stopping Cap & Trade, once that snowball gets rolling down the hill.

    But fighting Cap & Trade need not been seen in this way. It, and hundreds, if not thousands of other such environmental legislation, from the local level to the federal, can be stopped, with one solid blow. The answers is to Sue in court, forcing a national debate, and thereby forcing those in favor of such legislation to prove, in a court of law, that CO2 is both a pollutant, and the cause of “climate change.” It would be the trial of the century and the debate the people like Al Gore do not want to have. Add to it that the press would have no choice but to cover they story with the both sides of the issue out in the open as the debate occurs before the court.

    Recently I had Mr. Jeff Davis, a reprehensive from the “No Cap & Trade Coalition” as a guest on my show for a very interesting conversation about how to fight the issue, and I asked him about the idea of just such a lawsuit. My heart sank as Mr. Davis informed me that the U.S. Supreme Court had already ruled that CO2 was, in fact, a pollutant, and the primary cause of Climate Change.

    After the interview I thought about this a moment and went to look up the case and the courts decision. What I found made me more sure than ever that such a lawsuit would be worth perusing.

    The case in question involved the EPA and the Bush Administration’s refusal to enforce environmental laws that had been written under the CO2 pollution assumption. The court ruled that the EPA was to enforce the laws as they had been written, and could not ignore them.

    But writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said that the only way the agency (EPA) could “avoid taking further action” was “if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change.” With this quote in hand from Justice Stevens a clear door is open to file such a suit.

    There is an opportunity here. While liberals see the courts as a venue to write legislation that they cannot pass on its own merits (unconstitutional) we have an opportunity here to end legislation that has as its foundation – JUNK SCIENCE. This would be a proper and Constitutional use of the courts. Add to that, a chance deal a deathblow to such international treaties such as the Copenhagen Climate Conference proposal.

    Environmentalist say that we have just a few short years, if not months, to make sweeping changes, world wide, or we are all doomed. Therefore, we on the other side of the argument have just a few short years, if not months, to push back, or we are all doomed.

  16. Pat Griffith says:

    The real purpose of the so-called Cap and Trade Legislation has nothing to do with the environment, CO2, carbon, ar even science. The real purpose is Power and Control of the American people.

  17. Glad to see this website
    Well done

    I guess you’ve heard the latest from the Senate on the Kerry-Boxer
    bill that some of them are coming round to looking at simplification
    which just sets power station emission limits etc

    Cap and Trade is of course pointless,
    the “No Goldilocks Solution”,
    as we have seen here in the EU (and as pointed out several times in NY Times articles),
    where the problem with carbon prices is they
    are either too low and so cheap and meaningless as in recession times,
    or too high to lead to any reduction at other times, when evasive
    action for example involves paying off third world emitters (who
    according to a recent Economist article can simply be set up to rake
    in cash ie would not be emitting otherwise), or tree planting
    exercises of dubious effect, which may in any case be fast growing
    non-native trees which changes local ecosystems.

    An artificial market will always be an artificial market.
    Notice the lack of logic in having a market to AVOID dealing with emissions anyway
    (given that it may be relevant to deal with most emissions anyway, for all else they contain,
    whatever about CO2 reduction efforts effect on actually stopping global warming, or not)

    Emission Trading (Cap and Trade)
    http://ceolas.net/#cce5x
    Basic Idea
    Offsets — Tree Planting — Manufacture Shift — Fair Trade — Surreal
    Market — Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs — Allowance Trading —
    Companies: Business Stability + Cost
    In Conclusion

  18. G Dub says:

    I believe in simplicity and therefore submit that the Climate bill was incocrrectly named: Cap & Trade.
    More appropriate would be: Crap & Tax.

  19. G Dub says:

    make that: incorrectly

  20. Leslie McCarthy says:

    Wonderful website. Thanks so much for putting it together.

  21. Dan McGrath says:

    You have this much right: Greed IS what this is all about. It’s about big global interests, a small cabal of “scientists” getting hoardes of grant money and of course, it’s about political power. Cap and trade will create a new industry like real estate worth TRILLIONS of dollars – trading subleases on AIR. The “peer-reviewed” scientists yoyu so much respect have been caught “green handed” manipulating the data, suppressing scientific research and viewpoints that don’t fit their predetermined warming outcome, destroying years and years of temperature data, and generally committing fraud and racketeering. Oh, and the warmist scientists control their own “peer review” process. It’s all BS.

    There’s is tremendous evidence that global warming is a financial and political fraud, but hey, it could be true, so let’s give the fraudsters TRILLIONS of our dollars, just in case. You also may have won an internet lottery. Just give me your bank account number and mother’s maiden name and I’ll transfer your winnings of $700 million to your account. Before you deny me, saying “that’s fraud,” consider this: What if you’re wrong?

  22. JD H says:

    Grabbed the “sticker” and put it on my website. Favorited and shared the add on Facebook. Way to go!

  23. Rah a says:

    Just to let you know, that I just got an email reject “undeliverable” bounceback message when your system sent my petition & comment to my Dem Senator Klobuchar (D, MN) via this address: enewsletter@klobuchar.senate.gov …BECAUSE her “mailbox IS FULL !!!

  24. David Middleton says:

    Before the world goes rushing into a massive income transfer (otherwise known as cap and trade), I think the proponents of AGW should prove that CO2 causes global warning. Consensus of a bunch of scientists who all have a big monetary interest in AGW existing does not constitute proof. It is merely one theory of global warming among many others. All it takes is one person to prove that global warming is caused by something other than CO2. If we proceed along the current path without any proof, we could be destroying our economies for no reason other than income redistribution.

  25. Hello,we both wanted to acknowledge the website,–and my opinion is that if there are no specific energy needs talked about–and it is a generic tax with no debate I agree with you…Why didn’t you show this point more? What philosophy were you trying to get at?
    can give basic email.

  26. Peter says:

    Cap and Trade is a fraud: http://www.storyofstuff.com/capandtrade/.

    A Carbon Tax however properly reimbursed to the public can work. See James Hansen’s “fee-and-dividend” model: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07hansen.html

    • Dan McGrath says:

      Carbon tax, cap and trade – it’s all a fraud. Here’s how to tell: Does party A pay money to party B? Did party B lie to get party A to pay the money? If the answer to both is yes, it’s fraud. Since the notions that man is causing global warming and that man can control the world’s climate are both lies, it doesn’t matter what specific mechanism is used to fleece the people out of their hard-earned money – IT’S ALL FRAUD. And, by the way, Hansen is a proven liar with a long history of lies and distortions.

      • Peter says:

        I disagree. Cap and trade is a hidden tax: or your “lie”. A fee-and-dividend approach is simple, visible and honest.

        “Cap-and-trade is the antithesis of this simple system. Cap-and-trade is a hidden tax, increasing energy costs, but with no public dividend. Its infrastructure costs the public, who also fund the profits of the resulting big banks and speculators. Cap-and-trade is advantageous only to energy companies with strong lobbyists and government officials who dole out proceeds from pollution certificates to favoured industries.”

        “The entire fee collected from fossil fuel companies should be distributed to the public. In this fee-and-dividend approach people maintaining a carbon footprint smaller than average will receive more in the dividend than they pay via increased energy costs. The monthly dividend, deposited electronically in their bank account or on their debit card, will stimulate the economy and provide people with the means to increase their carbon efficiency.”

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/27/james-hansen-copenhagen-agreement-opportunities

  27. Henk says:

    Thank you for confirming what Europeans already surmised about the majority of Americans. Your God will give you what you deserve.

  28. Shayne Edwards says:

    To see a nice rebut to Al Gore’s film, check out the trailer for a real piece of truth for the upcoming documentary called “An Inconsistent Truth” here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHQJyJcyUGA

  29. Jack H says:

    We would be very interested in helping you with pre-trial jury research should this go to trial. It will be very important for you to be able to identify biased jurors who, being imposters, posers, and fabricators (like Obama and the rest of the democrats) will try to get on your jury to sabotage the Verdict in your favor. You will need a way to identify such jurors without relying on the obvious bias questions, as you can expect the brainwashed to lie to get on the panel.

    In the interest of seeing this matter tried in a court of law, I would suggest you make more videos and include more or the AGW liars. — The more of them you can bait into a lawsuits, the better. You might also wish to review your files and the blessed emails to see if there isn’t already grounds for libel /defamation suits against the LIARS of AGW.— From the sample of emails I’ve read, it seemed like various scientists were libeled and defamed (to other scientists) and caused them to suffer damages. Libel /defamation lawsuits would give you the Discovery you’re hoping for. So why wait for the LIARS/Fraudsters to file. Take the war to the enemy.

    There should also be grounds for Qui Tam lawsuits: These liars received U.S. Govt. Funds to conduct scientific research. What they did instead was attempt, under the color of science, to defraud the entire country, indeed, the entire world.

    The nice thing about Qui Tam suits is that you could force the universities to pay the damages for sponsoring these fraudulent “scientific” activities.

    The challenge in a Qui Tam suit would be find people in the Govt. to go along and accept the case. — You might have to wait until the 2012 for the Qui Tam solution, when the Justice Department has been cleansed of all the Obama-Nazis.

  30. The reason for cap and trade legislation has nothing to do with reducing carbon emissions or energy efficiency. I worked for Honeywell in the mid seventies when the government gave them 300 Million dollars to study solar energy. Quote from the results of the study ” the most effecient use fo solar energy is to grow trees and burn the wood”!

    The purpose of the cap and traade bill is to raise the cost of energy in order to make the return on investment in alternative sources look more attractive.

    I have 35 years in energy and 8 to 10 year return on investment for alternate sources are not acceptable. Think about it, the majority of companies want areturn on investment of less tan One Year. Fromaa residential standpoint most people do not own the same home long enough to get a return on their investment.

    Itt is like thee increase in fuel mileage, the claim is that though is cost more for the car over the life of the vehicle it is pays off. What is the life of the vehicle? How many people keep the same car long enoough to see the return? If anything this will lead people to purchase used vehicles where the loss of the upfront cost have been absorbed!!
    Wake Up America stop trusting these idiots and study thee issues so they cannot fool yoy.

  31. 899 says:

    I have a suggestion:

    I like your video, and there’s another song which you might use as well: The Candy Man Can

    http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/c/candymanvarious.shtml

    Taking proper artistic license, you could cook up a dandy new video!

  32. automation says:

    Climate change is a global problem, and yet each one of us has the power to make a difference. Even small changes in our daily behaviour can help prevent greenhouse gas emissions without affecting our quality of life. In fact, they can help save us money!

  33. Justine Villanueva says:

    We need more people who care for the environment. This is not just for us but also for future generations! Think of the kind of planet you want your kids to live in the future.

  34. Amawi says:

    @Justine you are right we have to stand tall for saving environment and there is nothing we can do if we don’t have man power.

  35. John Frederick says:

    If only the groups opposed to governmental responses to global warming would devote more time and thought to devising free market responses — rather than denying or distorting the findings of science, and defaming scientists like Michael Mann. It didn’t have to be this way.

  36. There’s is tremendous evidence that global warming is a financial and political fraud. Thanks for sharing.

  37. Michael says:

    Capping is a nice way for the government to get money. But a more effective way for everyone to prosper is to acknowledge the facts and use it to your advantage.
    Energy is VERY dirty today. Uranium reactors, coal, oil. All this makes deadly chemicals, either in the air or just as radioactive waste sludge.
    But Thorium energy is a new, cheap way of making lots of energy at low prices.
    Using this new technology, you could bypass emission caps completely, and make the energy and electricity for less total money.
    That means you get rich, you help preserve the environment and you provide lots of electricity to the world.

    A new age is blooming. You can either run from the facts and let them crush you utterly, or you can stop running and turn the other way in order to deliver the cunning death blow.

    Science.

    It is too late to go back to the stone age, so we can only keep marching forward.

    Thorium power is the key. Use it.

  38.  
Leave a Reply

*