One of the criticisms of signing the Kyoto Treaty is the loss of national sovereignty it entails. This argument has little weight as modern nation-states are a labrynth of treaties that are legally binding domestically. As an example Australia has 1852 treaties currently in force. They are a common component of international law and co-operation.
As to climate change I am not sure that Kyoto is the answer. Humankind has always had an affect on the environment, remaking the landscape to his own benefit. The issue we have today is that the ecosystem which may result from our use of fossil fuels may send the planetary ecosystem out of control into one that does not support humankind. See Lovelock's daisyworld as an example.
I don't know if we are at that point but I am cautious enough, and there are enough unknowns, that I think we should tread carefully. Climate change is an issue that is too big for the nation-state so some international consensus is necessary, but Kyoto has all sorts of exclusions.
I think it will be a disruptive technology that weans us off fossil fuels. Scarcity of existing oil supplies will hasten the appearance of that technology in my opinion. I do not think governments bartering on the international stage will achieve it.
