Planck Foundation
Sea Water Based Desert Greening

Mankind should assess the potential of using sea water irrigation and salt water loving crops for global (economic, fiscal and monetary) development, as well for fighting the worldwide still growing desertification and the attached declining national/global security/economy.

The positive effects of economic desert greening for the world will be huge. As we’re talking here about a new potential/perspective for 1/3 of the global land mass (33% of the global land mass is deserts). Economic, fiscal and monetary this is about growing to an E 120 trillion global GDP level. And ecologic this is about bio restoration, bio diversity, etc. In desert greening economy and ecology can merge perfectly.

It’s odd that while all total (active and inactive) fresh/sweet water resources only makes up 2.50 till 2.75% of earth’s water resources, our whole agricultural system is based on the use of fresh/sweet water. But it even gets more odd: only 0.01% of all global water resources can be used/accessed for the current fresh/sweet water crops based agriculture. At least something to re-think our current choice of crop types and irrigation sources.

So it’s quite clear that we’ve bet too heavily on the wrong water card in global agriculture. Why? Because there are also salt water loving crops (halophytes is their species family name). A whole family of species in nature we’ve neglected too long due the fact that we didn’t know they exist and therefore we didn’t develop the way like we did with fresh/water loving crops. We as mankind could make a major leap forward on food/water resources if we would develop these species like we did with the fresh/sweet water flora/crops.

We advocate to combine the existing huge global abundances (salt sea water, wide desert soils and huge biodiversity of crops available in salt water loving crops) and merge them into a) a global new economic cycle/century, b) a global ecologic/biodiversity revival, c) stopping almost all migration wave problems and d) eliminate almost all food/energy tensions/wars.

First two basic questions regarding desert economics should be answered, otherwise going any deeper into this is useless: Question 1: Grows anything on salt water? Yes, abundantly. Just visit a sea side mangrove region in a warm climate and you will be surprised by the both flora and fauna abundance in and by salt water. Question 2: Ok, stuff grows well on sea water, but do commercial viable crops do? Yes, very good: the best known example is salicornia (for high grade proteins and oils): salicornia out of the deserts by the use of seawater can totally replace the global rain forests destruction production of soy (for proteins and oils). George Washington was also a salicornia farmer and he did well by it.

Another issue is that worldwide many non-desert regions have huge salt underground water reserves that now can't be used now, while the current commercial agriculture crops mainly are sweet/fresh water based and totally can't handle saline/salt water at all. So this is not only a desert issue, it's a desertification issue, with much more impact than only the 33% of the global landmass that is already desert.

There's a third basic question that needs to be answered first too: will salt be build up in the soil and make the soil total dead for ever? The answer is no (otherwise we would have abandoned the concept immediately). Harvested agri/aqua flora and fauna will remove salt, we only use underground micro tubes based irrigation (less evaporation), nightly dew depositing starts massively (flora increases surface volume tremendously and have temperature differences), the salt water is purely used as kick starter (as it starts raining again), winds takes away some salt molecules too (like at oceans happens also) and NASA research did not find any salt build up (see the work of Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center on his research of halophytes).

Therefore enter your new narrative on the 21th century food/agriculture by just assessing the information below. Global game changers for the better. Build on existing yet not used huge abundances. The whole concept of desert greening by salt aquifer / sea water irrigation should be assessed first. You can find more on this on these locations (where the first link describes the whole concept this best in detail):



Where this model is applied regular rainfall is returning, due increase of evaporation, increase of shadows and increase in nightly dew due to that flora delivers surface enlargement. All these three change air flows and cloud formation and thereby precipitation, making fresh/sweet water based agriculture also possible again in these regions. Salt build-up of the soil is therefore no problem, the sea water is just used as a kickstarter to restore the natural non-salt-water cycle.

Please let us know if we can support you anywhere in processing/merging this into the world's policies. I know for sure that if political leverage can be organized, it would boost these huge global desert changes tremendously. Sometimes politics just should set the direction, nothing more, nothing less.

The whole concept design is done in a not for profit model. All the facets of supply, demand and finance of both realization and operation will be acquired in a transparent tendering model by market actors. Governments will steer. The global business community will perform in an open transparent way. A model in which all actors/stakeholders doing what they are good at.

Water scarcity and desertification is not only a far of home Africa, Middle East and Central Asia issue: it's also for example a Californian, US Mid West or South European issue. It's a 33% global landmass issue. We need quickly salt water loving crops as an alternative. We should work on two roads/objectives regarding this:

Regarding sweet water crops: we should adjust the current commercial crops so that they will also grow on saline water. Forget all the promises of GMOs in this: DNA patents just/only will destroy the global food innovation, as GMOs are creating dead ended streets in food innovation (making building innovation on third party innovation difficult). GMOs will not save the world. Look through all the GMO marketing/PR bla bla in this perspective: GMOs are on massive collecting patent rights and not that much more. The fact that GMO operators can register patents on natural crops is a shame: transferring natural DNA out of the public domain into the proprietary domain should be forbidden (as it's a white collar crime type of theft). See for more on this topic:

Regarding salt water crops: we should widening the commercial use of those crops and improve them by use of the breeders rights model (that makes it possible to build innovation on third party innovation: the breeders rights model as given us the post WWII food production explosion, much more than fertilizers and chemicals: the crop improvements by the breeders rights model did most of the job). You really should/need to dig into the breeders rights model and it's advantages above the patent model.

When this economic desert greening model will be implemented globally (or even only in the MENA region), the whole global economy will get a powerful decades long new cycle. The IMF will love it just for this reason.

This new cycle to the global economy is needed hard, certainly in the maturing no-real-growth anymore economies of the nations of the Global West. As only in a new cycle those economies could re-structure their huge private debt burdens without the collapse that normally comes with that. And the governments of the nations of the Global West than also could re-structure their huge public debt burdens and lower their excess spending gradually/managed, without hard default risks that now are clouding the public debt skies all over the Global West.

Than healthy/normal North/South and East/West relations will get traction again. But this time in a joint interests driven model (and not in the old imperial model). The North is maturing (no growth for decades), the South is emerging (fast growth for decades), they could and will benefit of each other economic specifications.

The Washington Consensus aka Chicago Economics (austerity as market cure) has almost no influence at all anymore. The Beijing Consensus (investment as market cure) has taken over as main driver/direction of the global economy. If you want more on this: see the stagnation papers and productive capitalism papers on our website.

Only some self-absorbed uni-power reactionary forces in some realms within the Global West don't see this changing playing field, nor its benefits: but global progress is making them irrelevant at fast pace.

PNAC and its successors like FPI and JHI in the USA are examples of this. They're all outlets of mainly Robert Kagan, a man who calls himself a "liberal interventionist" (apparently this is what imperialism/warmongering/warlording is named today). Google the man: he has harmed the world beyond any one else in contemporary history. In Europe they call someone like him a "schreibtisch mörder" (google death count Iraq for example). Google also his spouse Victoria Nuland (busy fulltime with destabilizing Eastern Europe for some special energy pipeline and seed corporation interests).

This Kagan gang is an example that a few people has gathered too much influence while strangely not guiding the world to a better future, but delivering only chaos. Blinded by ideology any kind of a self learning curve is absent. By the way: who have financed this guy and his imperial war cronies in his/their more than 20 years long rise to full blown bi-partisan backstage power? Such power rise don't come for free. No one voted this men into any office, still they are determining the policies regardless the devastating effects. They are even not confronted with their track record. Angry with Clinton, Bush/Cheney or Obama for destroying the historic quite impressive/influential USA brand in the world in the last decades? Don't be. Kagan and gang are the guys you should be angry with. They designed it.

Still living somewhere in the 80ties of last century and therefore still want to rule the world by power hegemony only serving special interests at the cost of public interests/spending. They are strangely very successful in that and thereby have hijacked the US foreign policies for their special interests for a (too) long time. For their real results (without the PR sauce that's served over it): see the debt clock, see Afghanistan, see Iraq, see Libya, see Syria, see Ukraine, see any nation they try to set on fire 'to build these nations' and 'to bring democracy'. In the business realm these guys would be already out of business a long time ago, but in the geopolitical/ideological realm performance track records are apparently not that important.

Their 'choosing to lead' dogma is just the problem: their track record is horrible. It should be something 'let's re-invent ourselves' and think more in cooperation/development than in intervention/destruction. By the way: this is not a partisan issue, this is a plain or special interests or public interests serving dilemma. This is about serving American special interests or destroying American's general interests, about the survival of the USA brand. The taxpayers should stop cater the special interests who refuse to pay any taxes at all. Europe is by the way not that found anymore on any further nation destabilization in East Europe, the Middle East and Africa: as they pay the price tag of it.

Some people/groups really need to wake up of their imperial/colonial dreams to the new/actual realities: an uni-polar global hegemony is not possible anymore: these days are gone (even the kings of hegemonic theories Brzezinski and Kissinger lecture this these days). The global empires have to find new (more smart) ways to maintain their wealth: based on mutual interest cooperation, all other ways have become dead-ended streets.

The world has changed, the empire/power/unilateral/dominant/enforcing model is outdated. For Europe (no huge global influence any more after WWII) this is more easy to digest than for America (raised to global power after WWII). Nevertheless: ditching imperialism will strangely boom/bloom USA's influence in the world and therefore also boom/bloom both the US economy and the global economy. Warmongering, interventions and destabilizations are no longer a viable recipe for success. Power projection abroad doesn't work that well any more.

Seeking mutual economic performance by supporting/building roads, bridges, ports, airports and different types of pipe lines is the new 21st century and way more effective way to build mutual interests based long term economic relations aka foreign interests. The other model is sinking at fast pace: there's just 'no market' for anymore.

The desert nations don't need geopolitical driven imperial drones and/nor bombs and/nor funding of governments destabilizing groups: they just need seawater pipelines and salt loving crops in a viable investment model to boost their economies. And yes, the engineers of the armies of the world help to build them and bring rest if it are turbulent regions.

A faster peace delivery than by realization of seawater pipelines is not possible. But this time based on equal/mutual interests and not as part of a imperial hegemonic system with a take on 'partners' as just vassals. Imperial/colonial looting is no longer a viable concept anymore. Selective funding violent opposition groups too. Occupation armies too. The 21st century is quite different than the 20th century. What has given China its current foreign policy advantage? They don't destabilize, but deliver rail roads, high ways, pipelines and harbours. There's something to learn from this of the Global East by the Global West.

Furthermore: Take also in account that the Global North (the northern hemisphere i.e. the Global West) will face and therefore will have to deal with another Maunder Minimum (, as the magnetic values of the sun's poles currently are developing/heading towards much lower values (resulting in a series of less active sun cycles of each 11 years). Just google for 'gauss value poles sun' and you'll understand this somewhat (or see the Sun/Earth Interactions paper on our site for more in detail explanation of it).

This New Maunder Minimum will deliver the Global North a) less food production and b) more energy consumption. Not only the economic sun will shine in the Global East and Global South the next century, the real sun unfortunately will do too. One more reasons for the Global West/North to build sustainable (mutual interests based) relations with the Global East/South. Purely driven by self-interest, but this time done in a mutual interests based model (as any other model is no longer valid i.e. will not work anymore).

Want to make the world a better place (economic, ecologic or both)? Just merge huge desert areas, intense sunshine and salt water crops by this model. Supply and demand will rise tremendously.

For all the believers in Al Gore's CO2 based fairytale/'science' (LOL: the man has always talked more than he has studied: quick talker / lazy researcher / no open minded debater): this model stores more carbon in the soil (permanent via crop roots) than any other system (and: at no economic cost but with economic profit). So although we don't believe in CO2 dangers: if you do: green the deserts by seawater irrigation. To explain our Al Gore critical position: We're not that much into Al's church: for convenience reasons Al forgot climate history (even recent periods), loves one Excel formula and its hockey stick graph's possibilities, loves long ladders for presentations and beyond all of this: uses fear mongering (but unfortunately he just don't get the universe and it's influences that much). No one has harmed and will harm the green/circular economy movement more than Al (who of course thinks the opposite: that he saved the world: he is a politician). Fear mongering and

By the way: Science and politics should be strictly separated forces: when merged they don't build but just pollute each other. Just like corporations and politics should be strictly separated forces, media and politics, religion and politics (one man's believe is not the other man believe) and the military industrial complex and politics should be too. Montesquieu's trias politica should be extended with those five to an update actual eight forces version. Don't get fooled: we love science (much more than Al). We just don't love politicians who abuse science theories for their own agendas. Consensus and science are quite different/opposite concepts. If you want more on this: see the Sun/Earth Interactions paper on our website.

(regional climates on earth are driven by the warmth distribution done by the ocean currents, which are driven in intensity and directions by earth's core activity, which is driven by solar core activity, which is driven by our journey throughout the Milky Way and the journey of the Milky Way throughout the universe: it's no rocket science: there's just no political gain in this, so it's not a favourable thesis for some)

(global climates and ocean level rises/falls throughout history have been not that much determined by temperature, but more by variations in the size of the earth -which is not constant, nothing is constant, although we really wish that was the case- which is determined by intensity of the earth's core activity (heat expands volume as you know), which is driven by solar core activity, which is driven by our journey throughout the Milky Way and the journey of the Milky Way throughout the universe: this is also the explanation that the earth's crust is such a mesh of different layers, not everything is as stable as we want it to be: again it's no rocket science: there's just no political gain in this, so it's not a favourable thesis for some)

(and yes, most oil corporations are in moral bankruptcy and behave like warlords using their nation's military apparatus to conquer energy supply/demand/transit markets: almost every military conflict on earth has an energy/resources or pipeline/transit background, even Syria, which started one month after the signing of the Iran/Iraq/Syria pipeline contract, and yes, urban/city air qualities are really bad, and yes clean energy is very much needed: so we're not in love with oil and its operators, nor paid by them)

But for all the believers in global warming theory driven geo-engineering: this model enlarges the global water cycle tremendously (by evaporation, cloud formation and rainfall) more than any other model ever could do, but above all: it stores carbon in the soil in such huge volumes as no other option. There's no other way of such high volume cooling than this (and the beauty of it: it is based on solid market economics, not on burning oceans of governmental subsidies). So although we don't believe in geo-engineering (only nuclear is a not that valid 'concept' of it): if you do: green the deserts by seawater irrigation.

(yet we still refuse to use carbon-rights as part of the desert greening economic finance and operation model, although using them would make things even more easy: we just see them as total imaginary/virtual values, we don't want to base real world economic models on such artificial/financial quick-sands: they are just Enron-like stuff, bound to collapse, we certainly will avoid them to the max: their value is highly imaginary: we do only economic models that produce real products for real markets)

And for the green/circular economy lovers who are afraid of any rise in (other people's) supply and demand: stop being reactionary too and get happy again: greener than this you can't get (bio restoration, bio diversity, free of GMO patents that extorts all farmers worldwide of a large part of their harvest income, family farms with a good income, etc: you name it: the model got it). Also don't worry on over-population: the world population will first stabilize and than shrink after 2050: prosperity delivers smaller family sizes.

Don't get fooled by this all: we nor left wingers, nor right wingers, we're just green/circular economy lovers to the max: greener than green. But we love viable economics (combining green transition and the market is one of our objectives), fiscal self-restriction (nor more public debt, nor more taxes is not viable: self-restriction is needed: starting with the easy low hanging fruit: stopping all geopolitical i.e. energy pipeline driven proxy-war madness) and sound monetary systems (the flood of 'trickling down' QE since 2008 has never reached Main Street, it was almost all absorbed by Wall Street just to stay afloat i.e. in business, it's time for 'percolating up' models like EQE/EBS and the other 'percolating up' similar models we developed that deliver real economic activities) as well.

What we all want? Green/clean, rest/peace i.e. less energy/resources driven wars and safety/security, with lower taxes. Getting this is as easy as putting non-subsidized solar panels on every roof and wall (possible now solar power has become cheaper than grid power). It's no rocket science. Nor ideology. Just smart. Like desert agriculture by the use of sea/ocean water irrigation is. Green isn't necessary / doesn't always equal leftish big gov (that's just one flavor of green, there are more) or right wing corporate welfare (wind energy for example is one big corporate welfare festival: most windmills operate on subsidies, not on wind). Green/sustainable/circular is just re-thinking the things we do and than doing it more wisely/smartly. Maybe environmentalism should not be hijacked by the extreme left, nor the extreme right, maybe it just should be rational on all fronts: maybe it's time for a less sensational and less extremes driven approach. Let's make ecology friends with economic health, fiscal health and monetary health.

Our EQE/EBS monetary models are studied by central banks all over the world and probably will become the monetary foundation of all currencies within a decade (as they make sense: connecting the monetary system with the energy system, delivering monetary stability, energy security and a clean environment). Our no-subsidies based open source solar/PV finance models are studied by both governments and financials and are study material on many universities too. Etc, etc, etc.

Good models don't need the pseudo science based fear mongering stories of Al, nor the (time after time proven wrong) dark scarcity visions of Malthusianism to convince you. We think both these movements are just harming severely the development of a green/circular/clean economy/world/future. Lies are no foundation to build on. Maybe we like public interests above excessive personal wealth accumulation (a concept Al maybe should try out too).

Let's do this. Be a part of it. Talk about it. Write about it. Email about it. Pin it. Facebook it. Twitter about it. Publish about it.

See also International Currency Stability
See also Europe: Diagnosis and Prescription
See also Governmental Funding Turbulence
See also Labour Taxation
See also Money Creation
See also Energy Open Finance Platform
See also Global PV Solar Energy Finance Model
See also EQE/EBS Model Summary Diagram
See also BQE: Bilateral Currency Swaps
See also Gold Backing vs EQE/EBS Backing
See also Secular Stagnation as Denial Term
See also Financial QE vs Productive QE
See also Productive Capitalism Perspectives
See also Emerging Nations - Electricity PPP
See also Emerging Nations - Solar PPP
See also Easy Instant Solarizing Nations
See also Making The Euro More Offensive
See also Structural EU/EC Boat Refugees Solution

See also Global Solar Rollout - Description - Diagram
See also Regional Solar Rollout - Description - Diagram
See also Obama Administration Energy Strategy
See also China As Global Leading Solar Energy Nation
See also Open Finance Platform for Energy Investments
See also Iceland 3.0: Geothermal and Energy as Currency
See also Addressing Economic Decline of the Global West
See also IntraContinental: Continental Rail Schedules
See also Global West Enters Economic Adulthood
See also Global East Driven Globalization 2.0
See also Financial Capitalism vs Productive Capitalism
See also CIRI (China India Russia Iran) Avoids Dollar
See also Global West Gets A Common Currency
See also What Ended Global West Dominance
See also National Economic Development Organizations
See also Desert Investment Economics
See also Ending Global Poverty (By Sea Water Irrigation)

See also Global Deserts Exploration Model
See also WaterTech and MicroCredit Merge
See also Lupin As Soy Replacer
See also Global Seed Cartels Are Wrong
See also Global Food Model: Local to Global
See also Sun / Earth Interactions
See also Telco 3.0 : Telco out of the Cloud
See also National Business Clusters Abroad
See also Scientific Education/Research Funding
See also Iran: National Economic Plan
See also Immigrants and Trade
See also Emerging Nations - Minerals PPP
See also Emerging Nations - Deserts PPP
See also Emerging Nations - Energy PPP
See also National Solar Fund Model
See also Secular Islamic Finance
See also Open Energy Finance Platform

Gijs B. Graafland | Planck Foundation

Amsterdam | Holland Europe | 2015

Planck Foundation