Scientists and climate activists agree on a few things.
They agree that the climate change problem has gone too far.
And they agree that some of the climate-change solutions being pursued — the Paris climate accord, clean-energy investments and more — are in the right places.
But they disagree on what those solutions are, and how to achieve them.
The three laws that science and climate advocates agree on: The Paris agreement, which calls for the U.N. to take strong action to limit greenhouse-gas emissions; clean-technology investments and climate adaptation, which aim to cut emissions while also investing in low-carbon technologies; and energy efficiency, which aims to make buildings more energy-efficient.
In a nutshell, the laws are about creating a more sustainable future.
The laws have been adopted, debated and rejected in the past.
And now, they’re being revisited by scientists and climate-skeptics in a bid to find new solutions.
Newton’s law was first published in 1818, and its goal is to put a human species at the center of global climate change, said Michael E. Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State University who has studied the law and its effects.
The law was designed to protect humans and their ecosystems from catastrophic climate change by protecting them from the effects of climate extremes such as extreme heat, drought and floods.
The goal of the law is to slow the rate of climate-induced warming to the point that we can adapt to it, he said.
In the decades that followed, climate scientists and the public debated how to make the law work.
One idea was to put the focus on limiting emissions of greenhouse gases and to regulate carbon emissions.
Another idea was that we should all work toward a goal of keeping the planet from going into irreversible tipping points, where temperatures go beyond 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels, Mann said.
The laws were intended to prevent us from turning to fossil fuels as a solution to the problem, said David Wojick, a former scientist who studies climate change at the University of Virginia.
The first laws were passed by Congress in the early 20th century to protect the U,S.
economy and public from the ravages of the Great Depression, Wojik said.
But the Great Recession of 2008, coupled with the rise of renewable energy, pushed climate policy to the forefront of national policymaking, he added.
Climate change can’t be solved by changing how much CO2 we emit, said Dan Werwie, a senior scientist at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Norway.
The only way to address climate change is to reduce emissions.
Wojok, who was not involved in the new research, said the laws were written in the late 1800s and were intended as a way to make sure that humans were protected from catastrophic change, rather than a way of making it harder to deal with climate change.
The Paris accord is one example of a climate law that has been updated since the 1970s, said William Briggs, director of the Climate Solutions Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
That law was updated in 2012, and includes a goal to limit warming to no more than 2 degrees C (3 Fahrenheit) and a goal for countries to “implement appropriate mitigation measures.”
The Paris climate agreement has been the subject of several legal challenges.
Some countries have refused to meet its targets, arguing that the targets are too aggressive.
Others have pledged to meet the goal, but then backed away after the United States and other countries signaled their willingness to meet them.
On March 9, President Donald Trump signed the Paris accord into law, which is the first global agreement that takes action to reduce greenhouse-gasses and reduce greenhouse gases.
But scientists say the law isn’t yet up to the task of protecting us from climate change and that it could be vulnerable to attacks from foreign powers and other groups who would like to see the laws changed to suit their interests.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has also been pushing back against the law.
Last year, EPA lawyers filed a brief opposing the Paris deal, arguing it was too broad.
The case, which was also filed in the Supreme Court, is still pending.
“The Paris climate law is already under attack from a broad array of people,” wrote EPA Deputy Administrator Mike Ryan, in a letter to the court.
And the Supreme Judicial Court in New York has also taken a hard look at the Paris agreement.
A three-judge panel of the state Supreme Court in December 2016 overturned a lower court ruling that ruled the law was not binding on the state.
The court ruled that the state’s climate law had been a public nuisance and that the court had no authority to interfere with it.
But that ruling did not affect the climate law, because it was not a public interest regulation.
So the court decided that it had no power to order the EPA to stop