"Same goes for your other proposition"

No, actually, it would not.  What you'd have is an NGO (Non-governmental organization) that implements the tax on 'nearly every product' on behalf of the member state.  That is, the member state invites the NGO to implement the tax on their nation's behalf.  The member state would not be required to have the centralization necessary to control over its resource production.  All it would have to have is the level of centralization necessary to enforce fines on non-compliant businesses (those businesses which are caught withholding or misreporting tax income or those which don't charge the tax at all).

"
"States which possess the power to limit their resource production will have other excessive powers as well,"
What is the difference with today? They can cut it down any way they choose."

I know.  And that's the problem with the global economy.

""which will lead to abuse of power in other ways, never mind corruption."
It inevitably will. But still, it would be easier to control the production then indirectly count all energy costs."

To claim "it will be easier" to simply allow states the control over their resource production, is to claim it will be "easier" to just allow and tolerate perpetual corruption, easier to just allow the oppression of the majority by the elite minority; "easier" to merely tolerate the stagnant development of social, cultural, living, health, and educational standards.

Additionally, I don't know if it would be easier.   Repairing or recuperating from the effects of corrupt, centralized, abusive governments is probably more difficult and more costly than what I'm proposing.

""Also, it cannot be implemented internationally, as some states will simply not control their resources as others might, resulting in a rather messy politically-charged world economy."
That is what is going on with opec. But the same is true for your plan. All govs need to participate in order for it to work. Whilst the energy-resource providing countries is a smaller list."

Not all governments would need to participate.  Member states would form trade agreements with other member-states.  In addition, member states would naturally place according tariffs on imported products produced via non-renewable energy sources.

"Why would a tax at the resource be more pain for the free market system as one on nearly every product?"

Taxing the resource directly is a top down measure, making centralized, powerful governments a necessity.  I simply don't agree that that approach is conducive to free, transparent societies.

"This whole Copenhagen summit is a continuance of the age old attempt of the so called elite to reign in the free-market system for their continued benefit."
I agree with that, but indirect taxes will make it worse i.m.o."

Not if it is administered by a not-for-profit NGO.

Ok, so the summit is over. 

Basically, the developed world forks over some chump change (which is about all it can spare) to developing countries, and, in exchange, China, India, etc, are left to do whatever they please.

Frankly, I don't see why developing countries value our currencies so much.  I mean we're in debt up to our eyeballs, and inflation is running rampant.  Why do they even want our money?

or because inflation in developing countries is often very high or at least higher as our currencies.
...but that is off topic.

"What you'd have is an NGO (Non-governmental organization) that implements the tax on 'nearly every product' on behalf of the member state.
  That is, the member state invites the NGO to implement the tax on their nation's behalf.  The member state would not be required to have the centralization necessary to control over its resource production.  All it would have to have is the level of centralization necessary to enforce fines on non-compliant businesses (those businesses which are caught withholding or misreporting tax income or those which don't charge the tax at all)."
The western worlds leaders would never allow an other organization to have this much power. The amount of power and money would soon corrupt any organization anyway. Next to that it is nearly impossible to calculate the energy cost of a product and leaves room for much speculation about it. Note how 2 products who are exactly the same could have very different energy costs. Every factory has his own production methods and production costs. As a lot of factories produce a great variety of products, its hard to calculate the energy cost.  Every product has its own history of shipment. Note how a products energy cost increases over time when it for instance needs to be stored in a cool area. Its insanely expensive to count every product energy's cost and it can only be remotely accurate.

It is far easier to count the barrels via an international organization composed of members of different countries.

your gonna pay anyways. if you dont pay for environmental inititives, then your gonna pay for welfare recipients who cant work due to environmental reasons.

social services gives millions to people(especially in NY state) who cannot work.  if the climate gets worse, the strain on the job market is going to get worse... the only people that argue against global warming and climate control belong to two groups:

group 1: people who invest in fossil fuels or may lose money because of global climate control.

group 2: people listen to propaganda that origionated from group one.
__________
truthfully, if the human species values wealth and power more than planet earth, we deserve to die off!, maybe the next intelligent species that evolves on earth wont be as stupid!