It amazes me the lack of logic. It seems consistent that when A -> B -> C, people get lost somewhere between A and B, policticians latch onto "Let's talk about 'A'", while anyone who starts to talk about B gets shouted down as some kind of egghead.
If climate models are correct, a leveling off or small reduction in emissions won't do anything to help
That's a very big "if", based on a very black and white interpretation of reporters sensationalist reporting on science, and a stretch on "won't do anything". At best, I would say "If climate models are correct, a leveling off or small reduction in emissions may have very little effect"
While economic incentives can help move things in certain directions, this won't really do that much and mostly will serve to enrich those that play the exchanges (see Wall Street).
This blows my mind. THE WORLD CONSUPTION OF FOSSIL FUELS IS BUILT ON ECONOMICS. people don't burn fossil fuels because it's fun, they burn them because they need to burn them to participate in their local economies. Shifting economic incentives could be all that's needed to make an enormous long term difference.
... climate change advocates ...
There is no such thing. Nobody is advocating climate change, except maybe people planning the North West passage.
AGW, Anthroprogenic Global Warming. The theory that global temperatures are being altered by humans.
"cap and trade" your usage, you don't actually have to decrease the amount you use...
Cap and trade is economics. If you don't understand it, just stop talking about it. The free market sets the price on emissions. Increasing the price of emissions means that an incentive is created to reduce your emissions.
Cap and trade acts as a counterbalance to the problem that environmental controls cost money. The companies with the greatest energy efficiency are naturally penalized in the current economy. The controls cost more than the energy savings, so those without the controls outcompete in the market.
You can legislate local controls on emissions, but that affects your international competitiveness. China doesn't need to implement environmental controls, so they burn the fuel faster, negating any carbon emissions benefit that your local controls had in the first place.
Maybe crap in a bucket and dump it outside...
The problem with your crap in a bucket strawman is that climate science isn't like house repair. If you extend your analogy, we don't have other houses to compare ours with. Nobody's built a house before. Nobody's knocked down a house before. Only a handful of people have stepped on the lawn of the house, and nobody's sure if there are any other houses anywhere that we could live in. Also, all your food is grown inside your house, your water is contained inside your house, we're decades from figuring out how to put our crap in a bucket to throw our crap outside. Our windows don't open, we've got an air quality issue, and there are 6 billion people inside.
Do people mod this stuff up just because it suits their political opinions?