"Some even fear a regime collapse. This is often blamed on layered bureaucracy." No, it's because it is becoming increasingly clear that the emperor has no clothes.

How interesting. Here we have another youthful poster, one so naive that they used the words UN & legitimate in the same sentence, in fact in a headline.

I wonder at what age they start to see the wood, rather than the trees?

Perhaps the succession of failed negotiations is an incresing recognition that , yes, the climate is changeing as it always has and will continue to do so, but the world no longer considers it a "climate crisis!". Released emails suggest there is an increasing level of doubt and uncertainty about the legitimacy of the IPPC (UN) in their certainty that it is an anthropogenic driven change.
The tradgedy here is that the 'climate fund' will merely divert existing foreign aid resources directed toward clean water, health, emergency relief etc to an unaccountable slush fund within the UN beaurocracy.
Increasing levels of co2 will only serve to enhance the biosphere, an air borne nutrient.
I have to agree with Faustino when he says that the populace increasingle recognises an emperor with no clothes

"We must recognise that the UN is the best system we have to find solutions to the climate crisis. Unlike its alternatives, it is the universally agreed upon system to address climate change."

Obviously it's not universally agreed upon, or you wouldn't need states or an association of states as an instrument of action in the first place.

You are only in a position to argue that the UN is the best system we have to find solutions to alleged catastrophic AGW, if you can first establish what NO advocate of policy action has EVER established, namely:
a) that we face catastrophic man-made global warming. No-one ever makes this argument without ignoring the institutionalised fraud and corruption that is riddled throughout the whole climate science establishment at the highest levels. Like the author, all warmists simply assume without basis in evidence or reason that the science proves their case. But when we chase them down, their arguments aren't even RATIONAL. As we have seen in this forum over and over, it is RELIGION that makes their case. The whole thing is just an endless liturgy of state-worship, just like the author's article.

b) that the downsides of global warming outweigh the upsides. This is because they simply ASSUME, as the author does, that any anthropogenic effect is automatically and irredeemably negative.

c) that the upsides of policy action outweigh the negatives. They NEVER take into account the lives, property and freedom that are to be destroyed by their policies. They just baldly assume a power in government to beneficially manage the world's ecology, economy and climate, ha ha.

The author has not even begun to explain how she knows that any problem of climate change wouldn't be more beneficially remedied by voluntary rather than by coercive action. Go ahead. Your whole argument is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Yet these fatal flaws in the warmist argument have been pointed out over and over again. It gets to the stage where their persistence cannot be put down to mere ignorance, but a conclusion of anti-human mal-intent is unavoidable.

The UN intends to collect 'climate' money under the guise of a 'Climate Fund' but intends to redistribute it to those nations which will DECREASE their rate of development thus prolonging lack of electricity and running water in most of the continent. Our money is being extorted to fund an unelected body of dodgy UN officials who,like they have done in the past, make off with it themselves or distribute it to muderous dictators.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122368007369524679.html

Ethan Bowering from Global Voices talks about encouraging Australian youth to get involved in climate change diplomacy.

But Its Sexual COMPETITION and Sexual AGGRESSION and the resulting 75 million per annum OVERPOPULATION rate of this human dominated finite planet that is the MOTIVE force of "hundred year off climate change" and "20 year off Global War".

When do we get to see the "no more Mr Nice Guy" championing "population control" rather than effeminate diplomacy in the face of a tooled up testosteronised global free-or-all