Most funding for science comes from taxpayers. So, it is very important to be able to convince taxpayers that this funding is potentially beneficial for them. This task is easier in Earth sciences, e.g., in meteorology, where there are clear local benefits. The problem is that while many people support local studies focused on their region, they do not always have a good understanding of the fact that effective local benefits require also studying surrounding areas -- and what should be the optimal balance between local and (more) global studies. In this paper, on a (somewhat) simplified model of the situation, we explain what is the appropriate balance. We hope that the corresponding methodology can (and will) be applied to more realistic -- and thus, more complex -- local-global models as well.