A deal that doesn't go anywhere. Buying carbon credits is the only viable solution and for that to happen a country has to be living in 3rd world conditions. It is a replacement for the petro-dollar. Plants love CO2 and they would grow bigger if CO2 was a danger. That being said the O2 content could be raised a few % and that would be good for us.
Methane is also being promoted as being on the rise and that it is also a greenhouse gas. That may be but that is not why it is a danger to people and other living things.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/15465069_Methane-induced_haemolysis_of_human_erythrocytes
Abstract
Human erythrocytes were exposed to high concentrations of methane and nitrogen through the application of elevated partial pressures of these gas molecules. Cell leakage (haemolysis) was measured for cells exposed to these gases under a wide range of experimental conditions. Application of methane produces haemolysis at pressures far below the hydrostatic pressures known to disrupt membrane or protein structure. The effects of changes in buffer, temperature, diffusion rate and detergents were studied. Methane acts co-operatively with detergents to produce haemolysis at much lower detergent concentration than is required in the absence of methane or in the presence of nitrogen. At sufficiently high concentrations of methane, all cells are haemolysed. Increased temperature enhances the effect. Methane produces 50% haemolysis at a concentration of about 0.33 M compared with about 7.5 M methanol required for the same degree of haemolysis.
It isn't that Trump will take the US so they act alone it will be over nobody wanting to do business with a 'former bully' for the way she conducted foreign policy since the end of WWII. The only jobs will be producing goods for internal consumption, there will be no magic button that makes the US a contributor to any of the reconstruction contracts that always follow the end of a war, even Gaza will be included this time.
Iceland and Russia both had to hit the 'reset button' and both are in better shape because of it. Doing business the 'old way' doesn't work anymore as the closed door meetings that went with it are no longer acceptable as it sets dual standards and only the smaller group gets to call the shots while claiming that they represent the wants and desires of the majority.
Think of it as Trump inheriting a broken down business that needs an overhaul from the top down or bottom up, whichever you prefer. The end result will be better and the final picture might be quite different than it is now. In the Hobo years of the late 20's (financial collapse) and the 30's (no markets) it could work out that they return even as far as rail travel goes. Under the 'Trump version' the 'upper tier is free and made comfortable with windscreens and cots or lawn chairs for the 'riders'. The stops would also be free soup kitchens and the atmosphere is more carnival in town than lawless bandits coming to town. JFK brought in the 'moon mission' as a make work project and Trump would most likely be doing the same but the local needs come before anything outer-space projects, that can be left to China and Russia if that seems to be a worthwhile goal. They will be more interested in raising the living standards for the people that are presently called 3rd world nations.
Since our recovery is based changing what is wrong that has to be defined first, basically big corporations have a tendency to lie to get their agenda pushed through 'the public'.
Climate change and CO2 are two issues that at headlines today and they represent the expenditure of billions and billions of dollars to 'undo something' that is equal to a fat in a hurricane as far as global impact is concerned. Before a solution can be promoted there has to be some solid science behind it, at present the solid science seems to indicate it is more propaganda than fact so that would be the first task. Currently we are conditioned to accept that conditions today and in the very recent past are optimal as far as being able to support a certain number of humans. Any change is promoted as being detrimental to the existence of mankind and the hard science behind that theory is missing. Any change that is not accounted for and planned for will be harsh on the people going through the changes. Plan accurately for it and the changes could turn out to be a blessing rather than a curse. In North America it might mean changing crops in certain places as the rainfall patterns shift due to local climatic changes. (like the north Pacific Rift spreading faster as well as the one in the Arctic which results in much warmer weather than the past has been. That would indicate global warming as the water and the land is heated by moving magma if it was not for other parts of North America cooling down as much as the warming is. The average temp might not be much different but the local areas would experience new highs or lows depending where you are. If there is a place that is too hot and another that is too cold then someplace between the two is an area that is just right and it could be a larger than what is 'just right' at the present.
As the Pacific Rift spreads magma is pushed under the west coast of North America. That would heat up the Rockies and the wind coming over them would be warmed up so Alberta would be warmer than usual except for the Arctic winds that come south occasionally, Manitoba and all points east would get those winds more often than not. The solution would seem to be a mass migration of people to the west without crossing the Rockies. In the US it might be west of the Mississippi.