“ What does it really mean for the Pacific looking to China now that the US has removed themselves from lending their support towards fixing climate change in the broader context of the current environmental crisis? Does it mean financial, scientific, political, social, moral or ethical and all?
The slogan, viz., "Think globally, Act locally" or for that reason "Act globally, Think locally" applies to climate change generally as it does to development (and governance) specifically.
There is then a dire need to combine both theory and practice in both development and climate change, on all the local, regional and global levels, with theory taking the lead over practice, in that order of precedence.
This must lead us to revise the above-named slogan, focusing on its totality rather than its partiality as follows: "Think and act globally, Think and act locally," where knowledge and skills are combined, with knowledge preceding skills, in that logical order.
From both an academic and practitioner's view, there has been a consistent call to "take culture seriously," when it comes to development, in view of its being laregely neglected in both the theory and practice of development, as is the case of climate change.
The question then arises, where does culture situate itself in climate change or more fully where do local knowledge (and skills) composed in culture and communicated in language, let alone both theory and practice, locate themselves in climate change, not to mention development? ”