December 11, 2031 AD, European Council, Brussels, Belgium, Earth
“Four months ago, I stood here before you and presented the details of the most severe existential crisis humanity has ever faced. Four months ago, you entrusted me with leading the European effort to mitigate that disaster.
“Today I stand before you with the first draft of a plan meant to do exactly that, but it is a plan so devastating in its implications that I fear it may make you wish you had never appointed me to this position.
“Today, I will ask us all to become the villains of the human story, because to save mankind, we will be forced to make decisions that history will not judge us kindly for.
“Today, I will tell you why a thousand people must work themselves to death for decades to save the life of a single person they will never meet, because if they do not, the only alternative is to allow the human race to slowly march itself into extinction.”
Dr. Angermeyer looked at the gathered heads of state of the European Union. They were all present—the President of France, the Prime Minister of the recently rejoined United Kingdom, the Prime Minister of Estonia, and the others—sitting side by side, listening intently to what she had to say. Over the course of the past months, she had met with most of them, either privately or in groups, but this was the first time since her initial briefing that they had all convened together. She half expected their sincere interest to soon turn into anger, and she would not have been surprised if, by the end of the day, she was out of a job.
“Today, I present to you the first draft of a document I call the Solar Charter, which outlines the responsibilities the signatories assume and the benefits they will receive in return for joining the European Union’s plan to escape outward into the solar system, with the ultimate goal of evacuating a portion of Earth’s population to Mars.
“For the coming decades, from now until the planet is no longer habitable, I propose that the nations of the world dedicate all their resources to the singular task of building the infrastructure required to establish a sustainable, self-sufficient human presence on the Red Planet, and transferring as many of their citizens as possible to that colony.”
The murmur that spread among the assembled leaders told Dr. Angermeyer she had been right to expect their reaction would not be gracious. Soon, she imagined, that murmur would turn into an uproar, and chances were she would be removed and escorted out of the building by armed guards. But until that moment arrived, she intended to do everything in her power to convince the leadership of the European Union that of all the insane plans she had considered, this was the least bad.
“Excuse me for interrupting your presentation, Dr. Angermeyer,” the President of France said. His voice was polite, but it was clear from his tone that he was challenging her. “I believe I speak for most of my colleagues here when I say that when we appointed you to lead the task force on climate mitigation, many of us secretly still hoped you would come up with a plan to actually reverse the runaway greenhouse effect. We did not expect you to tell us to just give up, pack our belongings, and leave.”
Dr. Angermeyer sighed. Even after everything they had been told, the politicians gathered here still expected her to pull a rabbit out of her doctoral hat and break the laws of physics. No amount of wishful thinking would ever make that happen.
“I am sorry, Mr. President, but rolling back the greenhouse effect is impossible now that we have crossed the tipping points. I thought I was clear on that during my first presentation. The way I see it, we are left with only two choices. We can either lay down and accept extinction, or we can fight to let a small sliver of humanity survive. Of course, that choice is a political one, and if you feel that my continued service no longer serves the interests of the European Union, I am prepared to place my position at your disposal.”
The Prime Minister of Estonia quickly spoke up in an attempt to defuse the situation before it got out of hand.
“I do not believe there is any need to go quite that far, Dr. Angermeyer. I think the esteemed President of France was merely voicing his disappointment that even in the most favorable scenario, we will be unable to save more than a fraction of our citizens. I, for one, would still very much like to hear the details of your plan.”
Dr. Angermeyer flashed the middle-aged Baltic leader a brief, grateful smile. “Thank you, Madame Prime Minister. Let me begin by taking you all through the first draft of the Solar Charter, section by section. To save time, I will paraphrase its content, but the full draft is being distributed to you now if you want to follow along.
“The first section is largely a boilerplate description of the document’s purpose, stating that it establishes a framework for international cooperation to transport people to Mars, and so on, so I will proceed directly to section two. This part requires signatories to the Solar Charter to uphold human rights, democratic principles, and the rule of law, with the understanding that failure to comply with this clause may lead to expulsion from the evacuation effort. It is my belief that as the crisis deepens in the years ahead and society begins to break down, this requirement will be essential to the project’s success.
“Now, the third section of the Charter mirrors the second in reverse. While the second guarantees the rights of the citizens of Solar Charter nations, the third instead revokes certain rights from corporations and other commercial entities within the signatory countries. Essentially, this section requires the signatories to commit their entire industrial and economic capacity to the evacuation project. Ideally, this will happen through the voluntary alignment of private industries with the Charter’s mission, but if not, the signatories must employ any lawful means available, including nationalization, to secure full cooperation from their corporate sectors. In addition, the signatories are required to abolish all intellectual property claims related to technologies deemed relevant to the evacuation effort. I recognize that there will be situations in which sections two and three might come into conflict, but I am confident we can resolve such issues together before presenting the final version of the Solar Charter to the world.
“The fourth section builds on the third by requiring the signatory nations to adhere to a twenty-year plan for their economies, their industrial undertakings, and their participation in the Solar Charter mission. The purpose here is to prevent half the evacuation plan from being undone every time there is an election. This is the compromise we must accept to ensure that the long-term strategy remains intact while still allowing the member nations to continue functioning as democracies. Any changes to the plan after a signatory has committed to it will have to be negotiated with all other signatories.
“The fifth section requires signatories to share their resources, both material and human, with the other members of the Solar Charter. I draw your attention to the word ‘share’ here, rather than ‘sell.’ Every nation participating in the evacuation effort is expected to give whatever surplus it possesses to any other Charter nation in need of that resource. To be clear, I refer only to resources directly or indirectly required for the evacuation. This is not a blanket requirement to share everything you have, but a mechanism to ensure that every signatory has access to the raw materials and manpower necessary to complete its part of the project.
“The sixth section divides the mission into two parts. First, we have the shared infrastructure, such as the orbital shipyards, the lunar operations, and the colony itself on Mars. All Solar Charter nations will have access to these assets. The second part consists of the Mars transfer vehicles and the launch systems used to carry evacuees from the surface into orbit. These will be owned and operated by the individual Charter nations in a structure of cooperative competition, meaning—as stated earlier in section five—that the signatories will work together to share the resources needed to build these vessels, but the design, operation, and selection of evacuees will be the responsibility of each nation. By sharing those resources we need only a few of, and by fostering competition in building the hundreds or thousands of ships we must produce, we encourage both redundancy and technological evolution.
“The final section specifies that signatory nations may form their own cooperative subgroups. For instance, I expect the nations of the European Union will choose to collaborate on a shared design for their Mars transfer vehicle, rather than having each country develop an independent blueprint. The main purpose of this provision is to ensure that even smaller nations can evacuate some of their citizens, without requiring them to construct their own fleet.”
Unauthorized tale usage: if you spot this story on Amazon, report the violation.
She could see the gathered dignitaries following along in their copies of the full draft as she moved through her presentation. When she was finished, Dr. Angermeyer opened the floor to questions.
“I’m sorry,” the Prime Minister of Great Britain said, “but this sounds an awful lot like enforced socialism to me. Could you address that point, Dr. Angermeyer?”
“I understand your concern, Mr. Prime Minister,” the German climatologist replied, “but I would point out that the document makes no reference to ideology whatsoever. It speaks only of method. And it is true that both traditional socialism and the Solar Charter rely on a large, even heavy-handed, government, but ideology is not a prerequisite for that. There are many reasons unrelated to socialism for allowing the state to subsume decisions that traditionally belong to the private sphere, and I believe an extinction-level event strongly qualifies as one of them. Please also note that the Solar Charter addresses only those policies that directly or indirectly pertain to the evacuation project. The signatories remain free to legislate their healthcare or taxation systems according to whatever ideologies they hold, so long as they adhere to the Solar Charter in matters related to the evacuation itself.”
The Prime Minister of Italy suddenly spoke up. “I fear we are getting ahead of ourselves here. It is all well and good that we have this document describing how an evacuation should be conducted, but we have not yet decided that this is the course of action we will take. I would prefer that we examine our options first.”
Dr. Angermeyer sighed. Here we go again, she thought.
“I do not believe there are any other options, Madame Prime Minister.”
“That may be true,” the Italian replied, “but let us examine them all the same. After all, we are speaking of condemning the majority of the world’s population to death. That is eight, nearly nine, billion people’s blood on our hands if we make the wrong choice.
“So I would like to talk about what options we might have for remaining right here on Earth. Doing so would allow us to save a far larger portion—perhaps even a majority—of the world’s population, instead of the few thousand or millions you suggest. What about carbon capture? If we could remove enough carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, we might rein in the runaway greenhouse effect and make it manageable again.”
“In theory, we could, yes,” Dr. Angermeyer admitted. “And if we had done that decades ago, it might have worked. But now, when we have already crossed the tipping points, the runaway process is simply too rapid. We have simulated this scenario, and while large-scale carbon capture would buy us a few years, it will not be enough to reverse the greenhouse effect. To make such a project viable, we would need to ban all fossil-fuel use globally and immediately, or we would be fighting the fire with a hose in one hand and a flamethrower in the other. Not only is it beyond the legislative reach of the European Union to force every nation on Earth to cease using fossil fuels, it would also bring our industries to a standstill. Can you imagine constructing the vast, planet-spanning infrastructure required to capture hundreds of billions of tons of carbon dioxide without access to cars or electricity?”
“All right,” the Italian Prime Minister conceded. “If fixing the source of the problem is impossible, what about mitigating the effects? You are proposing that we build a massive infrastructure in space to support the evacuation. What if we use that same infrastructure to build a sunshade instead, to cool the planet down?”
Dr. Angermeyer nodded. “It is certainly a compelling idea, Madame Prime Minister, and one that I believe could function as a Plan B. But consider this: a Lagrange-point sunshade would affect the entire planet. By necessity, it would need to be a truly international undertaking. It would do more than just lower the global temperature, it would shorten growing seasons as well. And remember that countries such as the United States, Russia, and China all lie within the temperate zone, which is currently less affected by the greenhouse effect, yet such a shade would still limit sunlight to those countries. If, for example, Russia objected to our blocking sunlight from their farmlands and crippling their food production, they could simply launch a missile to destroy the sunshade, and the entire project would be for nothing. That is an enormous risk to take with eight billion lives.
“The main advantage of the evacuation plan over the sunshade is that the evacuation is granular. While it becomes more efficient the more nations sign the Solar Charter, it does not require every country on the planet to agree to its implementation.
“Finally, there is the fundamental problem of addressing only the effects and not the cause of the crisis. Reducing global temperatures without removing the carbon dioxide itself will do nothing to stop ocean acidification, for example. That, combined with the unknown effects such a shade might have on vegetation suddenly deprived of sunlight, could trigger a global ecological collapse. I will not claim that the cure would be worse than the disease, but there is a very real chance it would be just as catastrophic.”
“What about simply staying put?” the Polish Prime Minister interjected. “No, I do not mean ignoring the problem. I mean… Well, we are talking about moving humanity to Mars. That implies we believe environmental conditions on Earth will eventually become worse than those on the Red Planet, otherwise there would be no sense in going there, would there? But Mars is not an easy place for humans to live on. I did a bit of googling while you were speaking, Dr. Angermeyer—my apologies—and from what I can tell, the planet is nearly a vacuum, with temperatures that can fall as low as minus one hundred fifty degrees Celsius. Are you certain conditions here will truly become worse than that? Because if you are not, would it not be better to stay here on Earth and dig in? To use the same resources you propose for the Martian colony to build contained, self-sufficient bases here instead? Would that not allow us to save more people?”
A quiet murmur of approval spread through the room. His logic was impeccable, and Dr. Angermeyer appreciated that, even though she disagreed with his conclusion.
“First of all, minus one hundred fifty degrees is the lower extreme on Mars,” she explained. “That occurs during the polar night. The proposed colony would be near the equator, where daytime summer temperatures can reach plus twenty degrees Celsius.
“And second, comparing environmental conditions is not straightforward. Is a vacuum better or worse than an atmosphere rendered unbreathable because it is too hot and too humid to sustain life? Both are lethal, though for very different reasons. But if I must choose, temperatures that range from minus sixty to plus twenty are, in my view, marginally preferable to the plus fifty degrees Celsius—or more—that our current models predict for Earth.”
“Still, it seems a staggering effort to move to Mars merely to obtain a marginally better climate, Dr. Angermeyer.”
“You are correct, Mr. Prime Minister. That alone is not an argument against digging in here. I was just providing context.
“No, in my opinion, there are three reasons why building domes or vaults on Earth instead of on Mars is the worse option. The first concerns predictability. The global climate is currently in a chaotic state due to the greenhouse effect. Yes, one day it will reach a new equilibrium, but we do not know when, nor what state the atmosphere will be in at that point. Our models remain reasonably reliable into the 2060s, but beyond that, it is anyone’s guess where we will end up. On Mars, at least, we know what we are dealing with. I also want to emphasize that more than one model shows equatorial ocean temperatures on Earth reaching one hundred degrees Celsius by the end of the century. If those simulations reflect reality, we will eventually see the seas boil away, just like they once did on Venus. Granted, I do not believe those models are accurate, but if there is even the slightest risk they are, we simply cannot remain on Earth.
“The second reason why Mars is safer than a secluded Earth-based colony is that the interplanetary distance itself serves as a shield for the evacuees. I know this may be uncomfortable to hear, but I think it would be na?ve to assume the world’s population will quietly and rationally accept its fate when its time comes. As you know, there is already saber-rattling in the Americas. If we build vaults on Earth, those not chosen to live in them will eventually attempt to force their way in, and if they succeed, we lose the entire project. Not to mention what it would do psychologically to the evacuees, knowing that their friends and relatives are literally pounding on the doors while they die outside. Building the colony on Mars means insulating the colonists from the chaos that will inevitably unfold at the end.
“The final reason I prefer Mars over Earth has everything to do with the future. If we build on Earth, we will be bound to Earth. The people living in those vaults will not have access to the infrastructure required to leave the planet should conditions deteriorate further. You cannot build spacecraft if you cannot emerge from your shelters. And remember what I said before about predictability. We have no idea how long they would need to remain in those vaults before the climate stabilizes again. It could be a century, a millennium, or far longer. That is a tremendous long span of uncertainty in which countless unforeseen events could occur—events with lethal consequences.
“The Martian colonists, on the other hand, will have the spacefaring infrastructure already in place and ready to be used, should they wish to relocate or expand their colony. The entire solar system will be open to them. Unlike if we build on Earth, they will not be confined for the foreseeable future to their vaults or domes. On Mars, the colony is only the first step. On Earth, the vaults would become the entire journey.”
Dr. Angermeyer looked up at the assembled politicians, trying to read the room. Somehow it seemed to her that she might be allowed to keep her job, after all.
“To summarize the options,” she said gravely, “we may let humanity go to its grave as we slowly boil into oblivion, we may fight with teeth and claws to survive on a scorched Earth, or we may reach for the stars.
“I know where I want us to go.”
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.
