August 3, 2031 AD, European Council, Brussels, Belgium, Earth

  “Thank you for your time, ladies and gentlemen. With that, I am now ready to answer your questions, to the best of my abilities.”

  She still remembered that day, now two and a half years in the past, as if it had been yesterday. For a moment, Dr. Freya Angermeyer smiled to herself. Had she been a scientist in a movie, she would have torn the graph paper from the printer, leapt into her car, driven to Brussels, and burst into the Europa building past guards shouting for her to stop, all to place her world-shattering findings before the European leadership as quickly as possible.

  In reality, her first reaction on that fateful spring day had been to go to the small kitchenette of the Department of Climatology and put on a new pot of coffee. As the pleasant aroma of ground beans rose into the air, briefly masking the dusty smell of her cubicle, she had settled in and begun to dig into her collection of climate models. This was not a moment for premature conclusions. Unwilling to rely on only the seven simulations she had already run, she identified three additional models she wanted to test as well, just to be sure.

  Two of them had resulted in the same feedback loops the first seven models had locked themselves into. The third model had been more interesting. Instead of entering a state of exponentially rising global temperatures, it had shown a world that oscillated between cold and warm years, until the curve eventually became entirely chaotic somewhere beyond the 2060s.

  Dr. Angermeyer had, of course, studied the anomalous model with great care. In the end, however, it turned out to have numerical instabilities that made it unsuitable for her purposes. Small rounding errors in the calculations accumulated over time until the model entered a state where it no longer represented reality. Or, to put it another way, the laws of physics in the simulated world were no longer quite the same as those in the real world. Once she found the error in that model, she quickly discarded it.

  The next step had been to contact her colleagues. Over the course of the following months, she had spent long days writing emails and long nights making phone calls across multiple time zones, trying to gather a diverse group of climate scientists from different universities and schools of thought. She had deliberately avoided telling them much about her findings, opting instead to provide only the starting conditions for her simulations and letting the data do all the talking. Hoping her own models had been wrong, she did not want to bias her colleagues in their research.

  But in the end, the other teams had confirmed her findings, and she had eventually published her paper in The International Journal of Climatology. Once her conclusions were available for the entire scientific community to pore over, climatologists, meteorologists, physicists, mathematicians, and computer scientists from all over the world had worked diligently to poke holes in her findings. Their combined efforts had revealed more than one flaw in her models and methodology, but unfortunately, when those problems were corrected, the overarching result remained the same: the crucial tipping points had already been reached, and the global climate was now irrevocably deteriorating at a much faster rate than anyone had previously predicted.

  In the end, and despite her reluctance to fall into the trap of becoming a Hollywood caricature of her profession, Dr. Angermeyer’s findings had by necessity left the realm of scientists and entered the world of politicians. The consequences of her predictions were simply too severe to remain academic forever. And that was why she was here today, in the Europa building in Brussels, to present her conclusions to the assembled heads of state of the European Council.

  “Thank you, Dr. Angermeyer,” the President of France said, as the floor opened to questions from the gathered European leaders. “I think I speak for all of us when I say we appreciate the time you have taken to present your findings to us. I, for one, found them very interesting.”

  A soft, almost silent murmur from the other stateswomen and statesmen sitting around the table confirmed that the sentiment was shared among those present. She had their attention, and she was determined to make the best use of her brief time in the spotlight.

  “I did note one thing, though—and I mean no disrespect here, Dr. Angermeyer, but I noticed you talked a lot about the data and your predictions, yet I did not hear anything about what you feel should be done about the crisis. I was wondering if you could expand on that a little?”

  Dr. Angermeyer squirmed internally. She appreciated the politician’s openness, and even more so his willingness to accept the scientific community’s findings. But the French President’s question made it clear that some of them still did not understand what she was saying. Being forced to correct that ignorance made her deeply uncomfortable.

  “Of course,” Dr. Angermeyer said, forcing herself to contradict the Frenchman’s notion. “I apologize. I’m not a politician. I’m a scientist, and I speak only for the data. Because of that, my words may be more blunt than what you are used to hearing in these halls.”

  “We appreciate that, Dr. Angermeyer. Please, go on.”

  “Thank you, Mr. President. The reason I haven’t talked about our response to the crisis is that there is nothing to be done about it. We reached the final tipping points more than two years ago. My presentation today was a postmortem. For most of the twentieth century and up to the end of the 2020s, we understood the physics behind the greenhouse effect, and we knew the consequences the world eventually would suffer from our continued use of fossil fuels, yet we took only token action to change our ways. But now, as I stand before you here today, it is too late. The global temperature will continue to rise until the world can no longer sustain human life, either directly due to temperatures higher than the human body can endure, due to secondary effects like starvation or disease, or due to tertiary effects like climate-driven wars.”

  “Excuse me,” the Prime Minister of Estonia interjected. “What kind of timetable are we talking about here?”

  “That’s an excellent question, Madame Prime Minister. But unfortunately, it is one I cannot easily answer.”

  The middle-aged Estonian woman looked concerned. “I noticed when I read your paper that your simulations predict that the majority of the nations that today are within the temperate zone—Canada, Northern Europe, Russia, China, for example—will reach wet-bulb temperatures for more than half the year in the 2060s. Obviously, that also means that countries closer to the equator will reach that point sooner. However, I am concerned that this date might be a bit optimistic. Is it not true that your simulations are based on a hypothetical situation in which all greenhouse gas emissions of human origin have ceased, Dr. Angermeyer? And if so, isn’t this timeframe a bit unrealistic?”

  Dr. Angermeyer was impressed. Not only had the Estonian woman read her paper, she had also understood it well enough to draw valid conclusions from it—conclusions supported by her paper, but not directly stated in it. Feeling as though she had found an ally in the Prime Minister, Dr. Angermeyer responded to her question with genuine eagerness.

  Help support creative writers by finding and reading their stories on the original site.

  “Yes, that is true, ma’am. To be precise, the simulations I presented today assume not only that all human contributions to the greenhouse effect have ceased, but that they ceased in 2029, before I ran those models. That is obviously not the case, and realistically I do not believe we can count on them stopping in the future either. In fact, over the past two years, carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels have increased by three percent. The timeline presented in my original paper applies only to those simulations, not to the real world. We must assume the situation will deteriorate more quickly than that.”

  “But you are unable to give an estimate of what that timeline would look like in the real world?”

  “I’m sorry, Madame Prime Minister. That depends entirely on our response to the crisis. In a sense, I’d say you politicians are better positioned to predict that than I am.”

  The Estonian Prime Minister seemed to mull that over, but she eventually resumed her line of questioning.

  “One small point of clarification, if I may, Dr. Angermeyer. A few minutes ago, you said nothing can be done to prevent the coming climate disaster, yet just now you talked about how our response to it will affect the timeline. Which is it? Can we mitigate the crisis, or not?”

  Dr. Angermeyer paused for a moment to make sure her reply could not be misinterpreted by those listening to her.

  “To answer that, we first need to define the word ‘mitigate.’ I fear that in this context, many of you may be using it to mean turning a terminal environmental crisis into a manageable one. With that definition, no, nothing can be done. Eventually, the planet will become uninhabitable for humans, no matter what we do. But the word ‘mitigate’ simply means to make something less severe, and there are always things we can do to buy time and lessen the trauma for those worst affected by the crisis. We can’t change the destination, but it might be possible to take a less painful road there.”

  “You are talking about the refugee crisis, then?” the President of the European Commission asked.

  “Yes, ma’am, among other things. We’ve all read in the news about the massive population movements the Yucatán Interest Organization is planning for in the Americas. I think it’s realistic to expect something similar to happen in Europe too, particularly in terms of climate refugees from Northern Africa. We need to be prepared for that scenario.”

  “Excuse me for interrupting, Madame President,” the Estonian Prime Minister interjected, “but if I have understood you correctly, Dr. Angermeyer, then beyond—at best—the 2060s, and probably earlier, no human will be alive on Earth. Does that not imply that the refugee crisis is, for lack of a better word, temporary? I mean no disrespect to those who will be affected by it, but moving hundreds of millions of climate refugees is not going to change the outcome, is it?”

  “That is correct, Madame Prime Minister. But it will buy those refugees a few additional decades, at the cost of stability and extreme resource drain on the European Union. Whether or not giving those refugees a chance to live a few decades longer is worth the cost to European citizens is not for me to say. It’s primarily a political decision, not a scientific one.”

  The Finnish Prime Minister cleared his throat. “I think you are selling yourself a little short there, Dr. Angermeyer. In my opinion, that is primarily a moral decision, not a political one. Acting ethically isn’t solely the responsibility of politicians. I expect that kind of behavior from every human being, though I admit that I occasionally find myself disappointed in that regard.”

  The soft laughter from the Prime Minister’s peers confirmed that his thoughts were shared by at least some of the other Council members.

  “Now, I understand what you meant, Dr. Angermeyer,” he continued, “and I agree that at some point our response to this crisis will have to become a political decision. Of course it must. But that decision cannot belong solely to politicians. Whatever we decide will affect every part of society, and in my view that means every segment of the public must also understand and support our plan. That includes not only scientists like you, but people from every other part of life in Europe as well. So please, Dr. Angermeyer, tell us your personal take on the refugee crisis.”

  Not having anticipated being asked about matters completely outside her field of expertise, the German scientist took a deep breath while trying to collect her thoughts.

  “Personally, I believe saving lives must be our priority, even if it is only for a few decades,” she finally said. “I am aware that absorbing hundreds of millions of refugees into Europe would utterly shatter our societies. Almost overnight, our resources would be expected to support twice as many people. I am no economist, but I suppose it is not unlike cutting everyone’s income in half. I can imagine the uproar. It would be complete chaos, and many would call it impossible. But as a scientist, I think they’d be misusing that word. Exceedingly difficult and costly, yes, but not impossible.

  “Suppose a European Union citizen makes, on average, 3,000 euros per month. Cut that in half and they still make 1,500 euros. Now, that is of course an extreme drop in living standards, but I think I’ve heard somewhere that the global average monthly salary is around 1,000 euros, and there are, of course, many countries in the world where people make even less money than that.

  “My point is that compared to the rest of the world, Europeans are rich. I know that doesn’t mean they will not resent becoming poorer. I fully understand the upheaval such a decision would cause. But as a scientist, I do reject the notion that it’s impossible. If people elsewhere in the world can survive on 1,000 euros or less, then surely Europeans can survive on 1,500 during a crisis such as this. Remember, it is only for a few decades.

  “If the European Union collapses completely under the strain of migration after that—and I expect it will—it won’t matter. We will all be dead by then anyway. Let’s also remember that this drop in living standards would be gradual. If migration is organized properly, the refugee crisis in Europe will not arrive overnight. Those 1,500 euros are the endpoint, ten or twenty years from now.

  “But beyond the responsibility we have to act humanely toward those fleeing a climate crisis we are fundamentally responsible for, I believe there is also a pragmatic reason to open our borders. It is in our own best interest to do so, because when people begin to die in Africa, the survivors will come here whether we welcome them or not. Preparing for their arrival and receiving them in an organized fashion means we can keep our countries somewhat stable for a decade or two, and that is all we will need. Long term, the stream of refugees will overwhelm us, but in the short term we can and must handle it. And short-term relative stability is all we need to buy us those extra years.”

  The Prime Minister of Finland nodded. “I am glad to hear you say that, Dr. Angermeyer. While the figures you mentioned might be a bit vague, they are roughly in line with my own calculations. However, I would like to point out that they assume Europe will absorb only refugees from Northern Africa, while refugees from the area around the equator will primarily move south. I believe we will have to work very closely with the African Union to coordinate these movements in the future.”

  “Which leads us to another question,” the Prime Minister of Estonia added, and something in her tone told Dr. Angermeyer that her life would never be the same again. “Some of us began speaking privately when your paper was first published about strategies to mitigate the coming crisis, and from the start it has been clear that science lies at its core. The crisis was created by willful ignorance of science, it was discovered by science, and our response to it must be managed by science. You have demonstrated a profound understanding of the wider problem, Dr. Angermeyer. I do not mean only the science of the deteriorating climate, which you are obviously an expert on, but also the social consequences we will face in the coming years.

  “The group of heads of state I have been consulting with would therefore like to officially propose that Dr. Freya Angermeyer be asked to lead the European Union’s task force on mitigating the threat of the runaway greenhouse effect we are now facing.”

  Lords of the Stars stories!

  Scorched Earth is entirely standalone and can be read without any prior knowledge, I think you'll also enjoy , and , all of which are standalone sequels to this story.