
We can only hope that world leaders will do nothing more than enjoy a pleasant  bicycle ride around the charming streets of Copenhagen come December. For if  they actually manage to wring out an agreement based on the current draft text  of the Copenhagen climate-change treaty, the world is in for some nasty  surprises. Draft text, you say? If you haven't heard about it, that's because  none of our otherwise talkative political leaders have bothered to tell us what  the drafters have already cobbled together for leaders to consider. And neither  have the media. 
Enter Lord Christopher Monckton. The former adviser to  Margaret Thatcher gave an address at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota,  earlier this month that made quite a splash. For the first time, the public  heard about the 181 pages, dated Sept. 15, that comprise the United Nations  Framework Convention on Climate Change—a rough draft of what could be signed  come December. 
So far there have been more than a million hits on the  YouTube post of his address. It deserves millions more because Lord Monckton  warns that 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. 
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. 
Lord Monckton himself only became aware of the  extraordinary powers to be vested in this new world government when a friend  found an obscure U.N. Web site and searched through several layers of hyperlinks  before discovering a document that isn't even called the draft "treaty."  Instead, it's labelled a "Note by the Secretariat." 
Interviewed by  broadcaster Alan Jones on Sydney radio Monday, Lord Monckton said "this is the  first time I've ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be  set up under that treaty as a 'government.' But it's the powers that are going  to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening." He  added: "The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from  the start—that's even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way  that these entities inevitably always do."
Critics have admonished Lord  Monckton for his colorful language. He has certainly been vigorous. In his  exposé of the draft Copenhagen treaty in St. Paul, he warned Americans that "in  the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom,  your democracy and your prosperity away forever." Yet his critics fail to deal  with the substance of what he says. 
Ask yourself this question: Given  that our political leaders spend hundreds of hours talking about climate change  and the need for a global consensus in Copenhagen, why have none of them talked  openly about the details of this draft climate-change treaty? After all, the  final treaty will bind signatories for years to come. What exactly are they  hiding? Thanks to Lord Monckton we now know something of their  plans.
Janos Pasztor, director of the Secretary-General's Climate Change  Support Team, told reporters in New York Monday that with the U.S. Congress yet  to pass a climate-change bill, a global climate-change treaty is now an unlikely  outcome in Copenhagen. Let's hope he is right