Terraforming The Sahara Desert

click to enlarge

Sahara desert is almost the size of United States and Europe. Making it arable and livable is the first great infrastructure project of this century.



Funding! ("I'm sure the article proposes something neat but how will we pay for it?!")

Alright alright ye jaded reader, first things first. International Tobin Tax on financial transactions. When working with Tobin Tax rate of 0.1% (as suggested by Nicolas Sarkozy), plenty of funding becomes available for megaprojects, especially those that are fundamentally transnational in nature. Overall amount of financial transactions has steadily been rising to be 70 times the official global GDP ($ 63.12 trillion in 2010). This allows a United Nations body receiving the tax to collect $4.5 trillion annually. That's substantially more than say, nominal GDP of Germany ($3.6 trillion) and the number will increase if Asian financial centers continue to expand to accommodate neighboring growth and to compete with London.

Transforming 9,400,000 sq miles of Sahara desert will increase world's agriculture capable land by 20% and arable land by 70% (if taken to that level). Benefits of terraforming this particular region include:

1) Promoting regional and global cooperation. Helping narrow the Arab North African and Black Central African geographic, cultural, and economic divide. Creating a breadbasket to be shared by over 10 large countries previously polarized by this divide. Thus...

2) Helping consolidate African Union as a political and economic block. Thus...

3) Allowing African Union to become a powerful pole in a multipolar world. A pole that is able to sustain its own population (which is set to double) and to be in a better negotiating position when exchanging natural resources for advanced machinery from other continental unions.  And of course...

4) Wiping out hunger close to its source and creating food export potential for nearby Indian Subcontinent and parts of Asia. Allowing more land to accommodate continent's industrialization and population rise that comes with it. Thus ultimately...

5) Lowering chances of major regional or global wars, reducing chances of imperialism 2.0 on African soil, and creating additional mechanisms necessary for some form planetary governance (that finally brings about world peace and significant reduction in weapon systems expenditures).

Global Political Feasibility

Pushing for a creation of global Tobin Tax (or any transnational tax) collecting body in the UN security council has primarily Britain as an obstacle. Britain has historically relied upon financial parasitism and used various economic and physical pressures against societies that attempt rapid infrastructural development. Small financial centers like Singapore can be browbeat into compliance via combined pressure of the Security Council. Britain can be pressured by making it clear that its soft power projection ability will be severely damaged for decades to come if it obstructs life saving funding mechanisms for transnational projects. It is way past time for majority of the world's population to make it clear to London that it can no longer defy major developmental powers without consequences. Of course Britain, being militarily occupied by United States, can also be pressured in more crude 20th century ways. At the very least, Britain needs to agree to not interfere in transnational infrastructure projects.

Tobin Tax has a more "volunteer" feel to it as opposed to funding global infrastructure projects via direct income taxation by state governments. The popular mood in post financial crash Western world will also increasingly allow for it. That is especially true if the sheer amounts that can be collected are explained by heads of key states. In elite priming magazines like Foreign Affairs we already see a major shift towards open mindedness concerning global experimentation. Some recent examples of mainstream suggestions are global debt jubilee for first world and a call for a hybrid economic post-liberal system (made by Francis Fukuyama of all people). In their desperation to reverse decline, create domestic jobs, and wrestle some leadership from Beijng and Moscow, elites in DC, London, and Paris should be more open towards terraforming. Their countries have the best technologies and talent for it. It also allows them to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to all the incessant harping of global warming.

Even a partial planetary funding mechanism for arable land increase will find eager sponsors in New Dehli and Beijing. Chinese government is already beginning to implement decades long North to South river reversal project as well as efforts to stop and reverse the spread of the Gobi desert. They will have the mass workforce, expertise (quantitative edge versus Western qualitative), and machinery to contribute in Africa for resource swaps. India's interests in helping construct a breadbasket in the Sahara is self explanatory.

Regional Political and Physical Feasibility

Sahara desert region has the least amount of "not in my back yard" mentality, the least amount of people living in the desert's overall periphery, and less potential for great power rivalry hampering the terraforming efforts (as opposed to say, Saudi or Iranian deserts or the Central Asian plains by the Aral Sea). The nation states touching the desert are generally poorly armed and can be collectively pressured to cooperate with sufficient incentives (unfortunately appeals to wipe out hunger on the continent don't work that well). Over 25 countries are directly affected by the Sahara question. Once the process begins, Sub-Saharan African elites may begin to take over and get creative with it (possibly partially being inspired by the way South American societies are collectively getting out from beneath the USA boot.) Nearly double digit GDP growth in many African states over the last decade helps in this regard.

click to enlarge

Governments of North Sudan, Egypt, and Algeria will require projects to keep their youthful populations occupied and will get on board with breadbasketization of their back yards (even if UN/China/India require a certain long term agricultural quota promise in return for the investment funds allocated). Nigeria, the continent's most populous country and a sort of regional superpower, has a chance to really shine as well. The new Libya perhaps has the greatest amount to contribute with its experience of building world class Great Manmade River.

Southern Europe (France/Italy in particular) have an interest in a stable expanding North Africa that provides a market and corporate opportunities rather than refugees and illegal migrants. France will be looking for ways to expand its influence/leadership into the area to compensate for Germany's present and future expansion of influence/leadership in central Europe. It will be proper since Sarkozy was the first Western world leader to talk about the sheer possibilities of global Tobin Tax.

Process (steps should be conducted simultaneously)

1) Arresting the spread of the Sahara by combining and massively augmenting local transnational projects already in process. Even a sliver of Tobin Tax money can dramatically speed up the process of drawing a permanent line in the sand (ha ha) by bringing world class technical personnel, equipment, and desert coordination. This would be the fight against the 1930s Dust Bowl on steroids. Thousands of kilometers of trees (and possibly genetically engineered specialized vegetation) and bacteria hardened dunes  will create a permanent border.

2) Creating ocean fed artificial great lakes (think Lake Nasser supersized) at the furthest extent of sea level parity ground. This will feed rain clouds that travel deeper into the Sahara.

3) Connecting fresh water bodies of Lake Nasser and Lake Chad by a canal to improve economic communication within eastern Sahara region and to bring economic development closer to terraforming zones. The task itself it just 4-5 times the scale of Erie Canal undertaken in early 19th century. Additionally there must be proper understanding and measurement of the enormous quantity of water under the Sahara and making use of it to supply working settlements in Northeastern Sahara.

4) Making use of bacterial dune hardening as canal and artificial lake "edges" to protect new construction from sand and to prevent sand storm formation. Only a fifth of the Sahara has sand dune formation problem and it can be decisively solved via mathematical "cutting" in proper locations. Making use of the Niger river to feed a series of artificial lakes as well in western parts of the desert.

6) Mass introduction of hardy species, fungi, and plants into reclaimed areas to create new ecologies.

The first stages can be summarized as stopping, partially reversing, cutting up, and making Sahara psychologically and physically manageable to humanity. Stages after that will require mass produced small fission reactors to power human advance towards the Tibesti Mountains.

PS: The word terraforming is more marketable than geoforming or geoengineering as it touches on "space race on earth" concept mentioned in the previous article.

Energy Independence: How Much Nuclear Power Do We Need?

Fission and fusion power is the green cake of the future. Solar and geothermal is the icing. Lets make more cake.

The urgency and opportunity has never been greater for the world to engage in a large scale effort to mass produce third and fourth generation nuclear power plants. Only fission and then fusion projects can provide the concentration of energy (bang for your resource buck) needed to effectively power 21st century infrastructure like MagLev trains, desalination plants, and terraforming projects to turn deserts into farmland.

First, the recent nuclear disarmament treaty between Washington and Moscow provides substantial amounts of ready to use highly enriched uranium. Currently, 45% of nuclear power and 10% of total power in United States is already provided by dismantled Soviet warheads. The supply from new and future arsenal cuts (US has recently revealed it has 5,113 warheads overall) will push back peak uranium worries and create a situation where there is a lot more nuclear fuel than power plants to utilize it. Thousands of ready made warhead fuel cores are waiting to be used as we speak.

Second, there are signs that increasing numbers of America's oligarchy are concerned about being humiliated by the Chinese and Russian elites when it comes to making money off nuclear reactors internationally and acquiring corresponding prestige. This is significant in that the luddite rich kid baby boomers, former ivy league hippies, and gravediggers of FDR's infrastructure policies are coming around to the idea of reawakening the nuclear engine of growth in the 50s and 60s. This was noted in Obama's semi acceptance of McCain's nuclear energy proposal during the state of the union speech. The number of new reactors pushed by the administration is inexcusably low now but they can be a political foot in the door towards future construction. Additionally, a key player in the military establishment (General Electric) has used its propaganda arm (NBC) to start a national nuclear energy discussion with the documentary The Nuclear Option right around the time when GE was swinging financial and propaganda support towards Obama's election. National discussion of any serious issue with potential for massive societal uplift and transformation is very rare these days so the mere existence of a widely broadcast pro-nuclear energy documentary is significant (imagine if there were documentaries on NBC that slam federal reserve, military industrial complex, and insufficient taxation of the rich).

Third, the historic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has the potential to be "oil's Chernobyl". That is, to psychologically imprint on the youtube generation's mind that pushing Hubbert's peak through shale and offshore is very costly and deadly compared to fission. Nuclear energy serves as an important point of political contact and agreement between young (educated) environmentalists and young conservative nationalists. De Gaulle's nationalistic model of energy independence for France through safe clean mass nuclear power serves as a continuing example to emulate and rally behind. Since Russia recently spurned French nuclear industry (through an alliance with Germany to mass construct nuclear reactors for sale abroad), US has a chance at genuinely constructive and mutually beneficial outreach to Paris.


So how much nuclear energy do we need?

As much as can be made at any given time. The need resembles bullet making in wartime. What people need to remember is that nuclear science does not stand as relatively still as coal/oil burning science. Third and fourth generation reactors stand to be exponentially more powerful (think Richter scale) than their first and second generation cousins. Fission technology is evolving and will continue to produce more and more energy per pound of uranium until new sources of high intensity energy are ready for application (fusion). US would have been energy independent long time ago if construction of newer and newer reactors continued at same pace as in the 50s and 60s.

As of 2006, world's energy production rose to 472 quadrillion Btu from 283 quadrillion Btu in 1980 (66% increase). World's population in same period has grown from 4.5 billion to 6.5 billion (44% increase).

That is pathetic and criminal if one looks at it from perspective of enforcing the UN charter of human rights.

In more than 25 years since third generation nuclear reactor technology became a reality, there has been just 18% growth in how much average energy is available to a human on this planet (73 million Btu per person versus 62 million in 1980). This would obviously be horrifying even without the fact of exponentially disproportionate use of energy by some homo sapien over others. The amount of available energy per person should always be exponentially increasing if humanity is to survive and prosper through terraforming, high tech agricultural/water projects, and space exploration.

Western technological luddites and fear mongers always explain how each person on the planet cannot have the same "way of life" as a middle class Westerner (living in poorly designed suburban sprawl) . The current planetary energy policy (or lack of it) makes that statement not only true but hints at the genocidal implications if it is continued. The problem boils down to:

a) Necessity of people in the southern hemisphere to skip the inefficient suburban residential infrastructure lifestyle step (lifestyle that young westerners are moving away from through migration to urban centers) and go straight into high tech urban living (the way some rural areas of India went from no telephone straight to wireless broadband)
b) Insufficient energy available to world's poorer people to power machines that extract/refine commodities, power machines in utilization of these commodities for construction, power the new construction in order to even have the inefficient suburban infrastructure that they need to skip

Solution to this two part problem lays in mass production of new reactors that are spread over the planet in a way so there is roughly same amount of energy available per human. This average energy amount would be growing annually. Such kind of energy egalitarianism would bring enormous environmental benefits as 2 billion poorest people leapfrog over (instead of repeating) the 20th century residential construction process in the West. Of course, this new energy could be used for suburban construction but if average income Westerners and Asians acquire ability and will to build and maintain high density futuristic cities (that make Portland seem inefficient and provincial), then that becomes the role model lifestyle instead of American style urban sprawl.

The growth in total energy available to humanity should always be accelerating and not be pegged to population growth (such as energy growth 3-4 times the world population's and no more). This would prevent global violence and struggle over commodities by allowing advanced nations to build mass infrastructure for themselves as well as for southern hemisphere simultaneously. Most importantly, with sufficient growth in amount of reactors, oil and coal fueled suburban lifestyle will actually be more expensive in comparison to planned nuclear urbanization. Same way as suburbia powered by burning wood would be ridiculous in comparison to an oil powered city. In the process of moving straight from subsistence living to a concentrated density nuclear city, a lot of environment and human dignity is saved. As of today, urbanization is still happening around the world but only in the horrid slum expansion variety. Poorer countries have plenty of resources to barter in exchange for reactors. There are even small floating reactors being developed now that can be towed to client's ports.

Imagine the possibilities and what people would have done if 1000 modern coal power plants appeared in 1880s America. Similar societal gain is possible with international UN/G20 backed fission/fusion campaign. The entire world would become equally developing since the concept of Western suburban house and an electric car near it would seem ridiculously archaic and inefficient goal to strive towards. With sufficient power, completely reimagined and modular cities of the future are possible that are linked by MagLev trains spanning entire continents. With enough power you can have enclosed organic farms in the most inhospitable of areas. With enough power you can utilize larger and more advanced mechanized forces do extract more resources out of the ground cleanly and better reuse materials harvested from older cities/buildings. Most importantly, more energy production allows power to be basically free for individuals and small light industry businesses.

Fission power today is only 15% of world's energy production but can be rapidly expanded to over 50% with sufficient international cooperation. BRIC countries are already engaged in slowly revving up potential for mass production of third generation reactors. The trick towards entering the 21st century rests on tapping the economies of scale for large capital intensive projects. Each additional reactor will be cheaper than the last as well as the retooling machinery upgrades. The process needs to be international in scope and streamlined the way some weapons manufacturing is during wartime.

Hopefully USA's oligarchy will finally accept reality and necessity of collaborative nuclear power plant construction sooner than expected (as much as they'd hate the side effects of empowerment, improved quality of life, and better infrastructure for the peasants that it'll bring). Geothermal and solar do have their complimentary roles to fission and fusion but as an icing on the cake of macro technological progress.