The "plan" contains a remarkable and odd collection of false assumptions, impractical ideas, and anti-democratic ideas. Namely.
False assumptions in the plan:
The controversy about climate change is "crisis oriented." False. The crisis exists mostly in the rhetoric of the contrarians who keep shouting that the scientists of the world are creating a false crisis. In fact scientists are trying to present us with information so that we can take steps to avoid a real crisis in the future.
The science is of climate change is "uncertain." False. The only uncertainties about climate change are in matters of degree and details. There is ample evidence of warming and man's responsibility for it. For summaries see these sites from NOAA and NASA:
from NOAA and NASA
Virtually every organization of scientists on the planet and every scientific publication agrees. There are only a handful of contrarians. You may wish to consider the opinion of the British Royal Society
And the opinion of the editors of Science Magazine
Impractical Ideas in the "plan"
Renewable energy generation is "potentially cheaper" than generation with fossil fuels.
This is impractical except maybe in the very long run. There is no evidence that renewable energy is going to become cheap within our lifetimes.
Put aside politics to accomplish the plan. Impractical. Politics is the process by which governments function. There is no alternative method available. We can't just join hands and sing. Elected representatives of citizens need to meet exchange ideas and goals, and reach compromise solutions. There have always been arguments among competing factions. We have mechanisms to deal with the arguments and resolve them (see U.S. Constitution and Federalist Papers #10 - James Madison).
Anti-democratic ideas in the "plan."
Creation of a "World Energy Authority" is probably the worst part of this "plan." The people of the world have never shown any wish to give up their control of their own countries to a world government or anything approaching a world government. A modern democratic republic with a government of elected officials and legislators is imperfect, but in a contest for "best form of government" it is far ahead of whatever is in second place.
I suggest that the "plan" is really just a conservative stalking horse that provides an excuse to do nothing. The author of the plan knows that it would never be adopted, and should not be adopted, but it provides a good talking point -- "Those liberals want to enslave you to a world government."
No. We don't want a world government any more than the conservatives do.