Why is there such widespread variation in governmental response to climate change? While some governments eagerly embrace the Kyoto Protocol and its mandatory greenhouse gas targets, others deny the very existence of the problem and either ignore it or take merely symbolic action. Yet some of the weakest climate policies can be found amongst Kyoto adopters while some of the strongest flourish in those countries, such as the United States that have been the most reluctant to join the international regime. This dissertation explains this phenomenon by examining the process policymakers undergo when confronted with the climate issue. I argue that despite the global collective nature of the climate crisis, policies are chosen based on local conditions and needs. Governments that are unburdened by top-down mandates on policy are free to experiment with policies that best fit local perceptions and agendas, while governments that must adhere to the Kyoto Protocol and other national commitments have a limited ability to create policies that will be accepted and implemented locally. Those that consider international agreements the best way to tackle climate change should be cautious, as this particular global problem may best be solved by policies generated at the local level.