The ISS, although very useful for a lot of things, isn't really "state of the art". It's tested a number of very good ideas, one of which is the inflatable module.
OK - now we get to look and see what Boeing, SpaceX, and others are considering to replace the ISS. We just got a new 'heavy lift' rocket from SpaceX [still more work to do no doubt but a great start], and NASA will be shifting their fix to a LUNAR SPACE STATION, which is a hell of a lot more interesting.
As for climate change - it's not "climate change" that's the hoax (climate changes ALL of the time, like ice ages and warming periods), it's the idea that HUMANS are causing it via CO2 "pollution", which is not only bat-guano LUDICROUS, it's CLUELESS with respect to chemistry, physics, other areas of science, common sense, and the well-known observations of solar cycles and normal climate behavior.
Not even bothering with the [obvious] point of its IR absorption spectrum, CO2 is such a small amount of the atmosphere (0.04%) , it could be as high as 2% without a (significant) negative impacting on animal life, and an increase in its concentration stimulates plant and algae growth in order to increase its depletion rate (so it's at an equilibrium). Maybe we just do NOT need "rocket science" devoting itself to chasing the tail of climate change politics.
/me points out that in a space station, CO2 levels will probably exceed 1% all of the time, because you need enough concentration for the scrubbers to work efficiently. You just need to keep it in the low 1% range or everybody will get headaches and become really grumpy... (my submarine experience tells me that).
And while they're looking into a Lunar Orbit station, maybe they can work on solving the ENERGY REQUIREMENTS for a Lunar station, maybe refueling rockets for the return trip to earth with Lunar-minded materials, and so on. Wouldn't that be worthwhile? And consider fusion reactor research in space, where they can afford to take bigger risks... and have a natural vacuum to assist them.
Developing Fusion power would eliminate the need for all of this CO2 nonsense, anyway, so it SHOULD be the focus, but it's not, because, politics. Good riddance to THAT at NASA for the next few years, at any rate.