It is often argued that governments should divert their funding from regional environmental issues to worldwide ones. I completely disagree with this statement, since the only way of dealing with larger threats is through fighting its smaller parts.
Firstly, air pollution, which is one of the main reasons for the greenhouse effect, is caused by local industries. Therefore, an internal issue equals a global one: air pollution in one country contributes to the worldwide situation. Personal transport produces a huge part of carbon dioxide emissions and can only be restricted by the governments of particular countries. For example, some states raise fuel engine taxes, motivating citizens to switch to more ecological ways of traveling. Another way of tackling this problem is developing public transport infrastructure, since with it becoming more comfortable and covering larger areas, people are most likely to use it. So, only governmental regulation of local air pollution can make a contribution to solving the intercontinental problem.
Furthermore, all forests belong to the territories of different countries, while deforestation is another significant cause of global warming. As a result, the destruction of forest ecosystems can only be controlled by local governments. For example, in many cases states enclose forest areas transforming them into nature reserves and prohibit exploiting wood resources. Moreover, hunting is also usually forbidden in these areas, saving natural fauna and consequently the whole ecosystem. All these efforts can notably decrease the harm caused by the destruction of forests.
To sum up, I believe that not only must the states fund solving local environmental problems, but that is the only way of dealing with global threats. Only baby steps strategy can eventually lead to a greater result, since the Earth is a large ecosystem, consisting of different local ones.