Ah, yeah... I'm not demonizing the deniers, just admitting that they're likely more rational and politically savvy than environmentalists give them credit for. More scientific studies (and certainly IPCC announcements) are not going to change that no matter how much you rub their faces in it.
So anyone trying to "save the world" by cutting down carbon footprint will just have to do that much better to pick up the slack. Probably even more to make up for all the coal-rollers trolling them.
We have the benefit of watching this play out in Southeast Asia before it's politically expedient to do anything here. Having lived in Bangkok for a few years, the effects of pollution witnessed by average americans here in the US is a joke. We have a loooonng way to fall before we might have to even consider implementing things like China's One Child Policy. But legislation is reactionary, not proactive. No one is really going to do anything or even legislate anything until the shit really hits the fan. Which, even by the most dire global warming projection, isn't going to be that severe even 100 years out. So this is really going to be a blame game to see if they can spread some of the guilt around to people who don't really have a conscience about this sort of thing anyways.
The problem is even with global warming, the shit will never really hit the fan in a way that fault can be directly tied back to the polluters, and even if it was, good luck getting them to pay for the damages. Higher pollution will erode our health slightly. Sure lots of low-lying population centers will be wiped out, but those events will occur after hurricanes or tsunamis, and migrating the refugees will be part of some humanitarian rescue operation. I bet that even around that time, there will be more government intervention passed to stop the influx of refugees migrating to higher ground than there will be for government intervention to limit pollution.