Let's begin with three quotes and a link...
The death-knell of the republic had rung as soon as the active power became lodged in the hands of those who sought, not to do justice to all citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and for its interests as opposed to the interests of others.
Theodore Roosevelt, Labor Day speech at Syracuse, NY, Sept 7, 1903 ("Theodore Rex" - Edmund Morris)
26th president of US (1858 - 1919)
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money
Alexis de Toucqueville
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. Sell not liberty to purchase power.
US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 - 1790)
And here's that link.
The relevant passages:
...the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty is to set up a transnational "government" on a scale the world has never before seen.
The "scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention" that starts on page 18 contains the provision for a "government." The aim is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.
Here's a link to the document thus referenced.
And that which is quoted in the WSJ isn't the really bad aspects of this draft treaty, this is:
The new agreed post-2012 institutional arrangement and legal framework to be established for the implementation, monitoring, reporting and verification of the global cooperative action for mitigation, adaptation, technology and financing, should be set under the Convention. It should include a financial mechanism and a facilitative mechanism drawn up to facilitate the design, adoption and carrying out of public policies, as the prevailing instrument, to which the market rules and related dynamics should be subordinate, in order to assure the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention.
That's in Annex I, paragraph 36. That's page 18 in the linked-to PDF file.
Market rules are subordinate to whatever these people think and plan: that in and of itself is a recipe for disaster, one that will take decades to develop.
Are these people really that stupid? Collectivism doesn't work, regardless of how much you want it to: it's like a Christian Scientist praying when he has a burst appendix. That should have been the lesson of the 20th Century: guess that history will be repeated, most definitely this time as farce. It would be funny except for the catastrophe coming.
Reading the actual document is painful: it is full of alternative languages that make reading it like reading a thesaurus, and which means that we won't know the actual language until it's probably too late. Actually, it is too late: this should have never reached this stage. This is the takeover of the world by the Watermelon People.
Further from the WSJ:
The reason for the power grab is clear enough: Clause after complicated clause of the draft treaty requires developed countries to pay an "adaptation debt" to developing countries to supposedly support climate change mitigation. Clause 33 on page 39 says that "by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year]."
And how will developed countries be slugged to provide for this financial flow to the developing world? The draft text sets out various alternatives, including option seven on page 135, which provides for "a [global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties." Annex 1 countries are industrialized countries, which include among others the U.S., Australia, Britain and Canada.
To be sure, countries that sign international treaties always cede powers to a U.N. body responsible for implementing treaty obligations. But the difference is that this treaty appears to have been subject to unusual attempts to conceal its convoluted contents. And apart from the difficulty of trying to decipher the U.N. verbiage, there are plenty of draft clauses described as "alternatives" and "options" that should raise the ire of free and democratic countries concerned about preserving their sovereignty.
Now you understand why I put those three quotes up at the top. Let's rephrase them:
The death-knell of the UN had rung as soon as the active power became lodged in the hands of those who sought, not to do justice to all countries, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and for its interests as opposed to the interests of others.
The effectiveness of the UN will endure until the day it discovers that it can bribe the world with the developed nation's money
When the technocrats find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the UN. Sell not liberty to purchase power.
The effectiveness of the UN will end when those who pay the bills realize that they are paying not the bills for the UN, but rather have paid for their own enslavement. Technocrats - this is obviously their grab for power - don't understand that the UN is not inviolate and is doing its level best to make itself into that previous failure, the League of Nations.
So where is it all heading?
Towards a world reverting to power politics (which, given the nearness to Chicago Politics, makes this very popular with the Obama Administration), reverting to a pre-WW1 situation of Great Powers jockeying for position. We know that this was the major reason for the secret treaties that made WW1, the most ruinous blood-letting of Europe's long and bloody history, inevitable. The world will revert to this because this is what will doom the UN: there will be a reaction to this treaty, if signed, that will result in it being rejected, ignored and broken at best. Worst case: the UN finds a way to enforce this treaty.
Fear not so much for yourself: fear for your children. If the AGW is allowed to try to scare you with the premise that your children will suffer based on their models, then I can scare you by pointing out that collectivism of any kind simply doesn't work. It is based on the fallacy that the expertise of a few - the collective's leaders - is vastly better for everyone than what we now know is the wisdom of the crowd. A thoroughly disproved and discredited theory: one that has killed more people than any other ideology in humankind's history (add up the deaths from Soviet and Maoist collectivism, they number in the hundreds of millions).