It is increasingly clear that local action might provide liveable opportunities for some who could be undertaking Gardenworld projects (mixing food and shelter), but the crises of temperature and flooding turn the world, not uniformly unliveable, but into a patchwork, more like a moth-eaten blanket, of survivable islands surrounded by burnt out or flooded out or overrun areas.
If local means a patchwork of success, the governance area is worse off, unable to find leverage points for actions based on all a government can do: pass laws and try to implement regulations.
People in small countries want nature-based solutions, They also want to commodity water and land with web-based management solutions and commodification of nature. Ouch. Presenters at conferences such as the APCW state the problem but do not enter into what they should do. I strongly suspect that the management culture across institutions gives the word that presenters must remain positive.
Correct analysis that people don’t like negative views. We should just do it on climate action. No one can predict the total systemic outcome.
City states in bioregional climate havens