There is an alternative to cap/trade: Revenue-neutral carbon fee or tax. The Carbon Tax Center has posted our reasons for concluding that Wax-M isn't good enough.

One point you didn't mention: ACESA would create a $2 trillion carbon market that would be mirrored by an unregulated derivatives market. If you think that global warming can be solved by another financial crisis, ACESA is your bill. But if you think that kind of chaos might just push climate policy off the table, this one's too risky.  

I agree with you that we must oppose Waxman-Markey.  But one of the biggest reasons for doing so, which I don't believe you list in your post, is that it is just plain bad policy.  The excessive provision of international offsets and the possible utilization of the strategic allowance reserve mean that emissions could continue to rise at BAU rates for at least the next decade.  Also, EPA and other independent analyses have shown that the Waxman-Markey RES will not lead to any new renewably energy deployment above the business as usual rate.  Hello!!!!! What the hell is the point of an RES if it doesn't actually increase renewable deployment?

See an excellent analysis conducted by the Breakthrough Institute (http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/waxmanmarkey_climate_bill/), much of which has been confirmed or corroborated by EPA, CBO, and others . 

Let's hope environmentalists heed your call.  We need a real solution, not a sham bill like Waxman-Markey. 

If we did one, here's what it would come down to:

Cost of Climate Catastrophe Alone > Action To Bring CO2 Down to 350ppm

Cost of Climate Catastrophe Alone < Action To Take CO2 to 450ppm or Higher

It's that simple. Why? Think about it? If we don't take CO2 down to 350ppm, then all the money CBO says we will spend (the $100+ per citizen per year) will be money flushed down the toilet. That's because we'd reach tipping points anyways and so we'll still incur the cost of climate catastrophe alone because natural systems will be the ones driving climate change (due to dying forests, oceans holding no more CO2, permafrost melting, etc. etc.).

In the end, this will mean the cost of climate catastrophe plus the cost of leaving CO2 at 450ppm or so. In that case, why not let CO2 go to 550ppm or even 1000ppm. Is there really a difference? If our goal is to not reach 350ppm, we should then spend money on figuring out how we can adapt to climate catastrophe, especially in vulnerable areas of the world. PERIOD.

Where are the common sense economists when we need them in Washington?

Pinning hope on a "sweeping last-minute drive by humanity to save our collective asses". 

That is just about the craziest thing I've ever heard.

Understand this: once the climate catastrophes start to mount, it will be too late.  The impact of GHGs go on for decades after their release.  When we see the catastrophes mount, we won't be able to stop them no matter what we do.

I wish the people weighing in on this subject actually understood the science.

Likewise with understanding politics - domestic and international.

The bill can be passed now, and improved later. If it doesn't get passed, there will be no carbon pricing in the US for several years, and Copenhagen will be a colossal failure.

I just hope you can live with yourself if it dies...

To think that we can get down to 350 ppm by opposing carbon pricing legislation is magical and delusional thinking.