In 2024 the temperature rose more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.
A maximum of 1.5 degrees extra temperature is, according to the Paris Climate Agreement, the preferable maximum temperature rise. We would only get small draughts, small floods, smaller forest fires, et cetera.
But now already on 1.5 degrees, with no sign that it would lower, or at least would not climb that fast… it looks like we will get the worst scenario, with runaways, deep draughts, bid floods. With mass casualties, mass migration, et cetera.
Or, is this year a coincidence?
Let us have a look with some graphs.
As for 2024, the concentration reached 427 ppm (source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth’s_atmosphere), which is the highest ever. Well, ever, at least for as long as humanity exists.
And it is rising faster and faster, we can see that if we make the period shorter. Let us have a look from when the fossil fuel combustion started to get serious.
The input CO2 into the atmosphere has been big in 2024- an exceptional year.
But is it because the emissions rose? The the next graphic shows a nuance.
The causes, and the early warning
In the picture above we generally see:
the fossil fuel emissions are calming down with growing
the emissions from land use diminish
But we see the oceans absorbing less CO2. Also the forests take less CO2. Why?
These forest fires a partially caused by… longer draughts. This looks like a first, early attempt of a runaway. We could pick it up as an early warning.
The oceans take less CO2, because the water is getting warmer. There is a process of (relative) acidification, which leads to less growth of life in the ocean. Often this is plankton, fytoplankton, and the Copepod, all of these made of Carbon. A second cause is what we discussed in the last blog: since the ocean water is that much polluted, it is not capable anymore to absorb. Another cause of (relative) acidification. Also this we can pick up as a process that could speed up, making it a runaway.
Oh, and by the way, now the permafrost (ice) is melting and then we get an awful lot of CO2…. So, 2024 looks like the pivoting year. Or, it could be the early warning of the Earth.
Plenty motivations for you and me, for our governments especially, to set the level playing field so such way that emitting fossil fuels and other pollution don’t pay off.
The transition is working out well in many countries, but in some countries not at all. GEnerally the CO2 level in the air still rises.
More problematic is, that the ocean temperatures rise. Here under an example.
The problem is, that warmer ocean water convert less CO2 into Carbon and Oxygene. We know that our oceans convert the biggest chunk of CO2. Read the story of the Goes Foundation about that. It finally ends up with less life, and we large animals are the most vulnerable. What to do about it? First solution is naturally: make less CO2. The idea behind Fossilfree Around the World. But we should also keep our oceans in good condition, and this deteriorates. The oceans can’t do their job.
Nearly 40% of our readers are from the USA. March 13, they could ‘celebrate’ their Overshoot Day. 40% of the readers are Dutch, so let’s set the Netherlands as a standard for now. Last Monday the Netherlands passed its Overshoot Day.
What is Overshoot Day? Here some basics, and further on values, lists and ranking.
A country’s overshoot day marks the date when Earth Overshoot Day would fall if all of humanity consumed at the same level as the people in that country (source)
The Overshoot Day is all about the ecological footprint. So for the Netherlands’ Overshoot Day it means: if the whole world would live as the Dutchmen, the Earth’s biocapacity would be finished on May 5. We would need nearly three planet Earths to provide for the world’s consumption in 2025.
This is different from a country’s deficit day , which refers to the date by which the residents of the country begin to demand more than their country’s ecosystems can provide in the entire year. E.g. in the Netherlands, with its densed population and relatively small and damaged nature areas, this date would definitely be earlier.
Redefining development
The concept of Overshoot Day automatically discusses our traditional values.
The traditional meaning of development is generally standardised in terms of GDP, or in GDP-PPP (Gross Domestic Product – Purchasing Power Parity). On the first, the USA and western countries are on top. On the second, China is the leader.
Why not value in terms of sustainable development? The original definition, as agreed upon by the United Nations, is: The development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Sustainable development is the development where three fields are met: the social, economical and environmental field. Or call it People, Planet and Profit. Or: Well Beling, Welfare, and Well Earth.
This means that we can grow, industrialize, consume, whatever, but within the limits for continuation of humanity and its environment. The Overshoot Days give hands and feet to this approach.
By the way, there is a lot more to discuss, to define, to adress. Please check the Brittanica on it.
The development list upside down
The best country listed on the Overshoot list is Ecuador. But many countries are missing. Think of Namibia, Madagascar and our beloved Gambia. Why? Because these countries don’t have an overshoot at all – they already live sustainably. The reason is that they don’t even have the means to grow their economy enough to near any overshoot. Anyway, they would be on top of the list of sustainable development.
But, such a list also shows why politicians can not ‘sell’ a phenomenon as less consumption. It would hurt the living standard on the short term, the period a politician is chosen for.
In Western societies most people are continuously pushed to buy more. Also the poor er people have work double jobs to make ends meet. So the left wing wants to set this straight again, by bringing more money from the richest to the poor and middle class. That is hard work, tearing down barriers, crashing with big political lobbies. The right wing however, sells the quick fix, which means that the long term sustainable development policy will be neglected. This way, the lists in GDP remain the standard, so the powerful countries can stay on top the list.
Most extreme example of this, is the Make America Great Again movement. This is confusing, since the USA’s economy has already been the greatest of the world, though? Or, perhaps the new president, who surprises us everyday, would intend to make America Great Again on the Overshoot ranking? America was the greatest on that list in the pre-columbian time, before the year 1492. Last month the American president has already slowed down the economy drastically, so the first steps are made to make America great again. 😉
This is the third part of the article discussing the differences between nuclear energy versus renewables with batteries.
Here we talk the perception of two generations. The generation who experienced the Chernobyl disaster in 1984 and the generation later, experiencing the Fukushima disaster from 2011
Public opinion – Chernobyl
April 1986, Reactor 4 of the nuclear power plant in Chernobyl got a runaway. Despite the heroic actions of the Russian en Ukrainean firemen, a meltdown could not be stopped and a cloud of radioactive material was spread over Russia and Europe.
The spread of the radio active Cesium-137, measured one month after the meltdown. The green area doesnot mean it would be safe. For example, in the Netherlands all leave vegetables (like spinach) were harvested to destroy and were forbidden to sell or eat.
Since Gorbachev (then the leader of the USSR) executed the policy of complete transparency, all data were exchanged, and published by the media. So everybody was remarkably well informed. The generation that experienced this disaster, still doesnot want nuclear plants. But, the new generation?
Fukushima for the next generation
Accidents with nuclear plants, although never foreseen, always happen. So in March 2011, the so called ‘Millenials’ generation could experience one, in Fukushima, Japan. This accident was rated just as heavy as Chernobyl. The nuclear plant there, is situated in an area with a restless earth crest. Every some years there is an earth quake, sometimes with a tsunami. Therefore the plant was built extra strong, but both the earthquake and the following tsunami were stronger. The plant was serverely damaged. Fortunately, the operational crew could mitigate a lot, by continuously adding new water to the reactors, to cool it. This cooling had to be done for many days, and it was continued even after the evacuation of all workers, till the temperature of the reactors dropped.
Also here was a meltdown. Also more than thousand people were evacuated (which led to several deaths).
Still it was not that great world news. The company TEPCO and the government presented it as a serious incident, but not as a disaster. They reported that all contaminated water was still in basins, But in the meanwhile, they forbade the personnel to mention the word ‘meltdown’. Emails, read and unread, were consistently deleted (source).
These data were given long after the accident. The radioactivity in the seawater before Fukushima was 10 days about 100 times the limit (Grenzwert) of 0.1 Bequerel/cm3.
The word ‘meltdown’ was first mentioned weeks after the accident, and most media treated this late news not as a front page news. Journalists tried to get information from elsewhere and the they found was a retired engineer who worked on the design of the nuclear plant. But, he could not do much more than giving a variaty of possible options on what could have happened.
Again later, instead of containing it, all the contaminated cooling water was pumped from the basins into the ocean. The French IRSN this as “the most important emission of radioactivity ever observed”. There is a strong current along that coast, so the evidence dispersed quickly.
Conclusion
Chernobyl and Fukushima are both rated as severe accident, with a 7 on (source)
Chernobyl and Fukushima are both rated as severe accident, with a 7 on (source)
In contrary to the generation experiencing the Chernobyl accident, the Millenial generation was not fully informed about ‘their’ Fukushima disaster. The information was fragmented and spread over a longer time. This spinning didnot lead to thorough, comprehensive articles in the international media.
It also doesnot help that Japan is far away. The more distance, the less the news, is an old media rule. Third, because of that distance, there was no direct physical threat, like the contaminated air over Europe that poisoned our vegetables.
This made that the millenial generation did not become affected by ‘Fukushima’ . The result is that the younger generation has a lower awareness about the risks. So, a governement’s decision for the construction of a new nuclear plant is found hardly relevant.
Sustainable development is -very short- that development for a generation to make its living in such way that it doesnot compromise the future of next generations. That means clean air, water, soil, the environment. But, one can also compromise another with risks. Risks according to that clean air, water and soil.
A risk consist of two factors: the chance of an occurence and the size of that occurrence. Two examples. The risk on a terrorist attack killing 10 people in Rotterdam during this year, would be a big occurence. But still the risk is low, as the chance is extremely small. But-next example- the risk that 10 people will be killed in that same year in Rotterdam by traffic, is way bigger. This is because the chances are big, by its frequency. Evidence: It happens nearly every year in Rotterdam. By the way, the risk on being killed by a terrorist attack, feels much bigger -it is scary! But in this article the risk is treated without emotions, to keep it rational and debatable.
Politicians and sustainable development
Sustainable development means in short: That development that doesnot compromise the development of future generations. Nearly all countries of the world have agreed on that. Since the French government managed to get the European Union to decide that nuclear energy would be ‘sustainable energy’ in Europe, more politicians take the liberty to promote nuclear energy as the best alternative to fossils. There are even politicians going for the construction of new reactors, before they know risks on disasters and the risks on nuclear waste. And, the radioactivity of it breaks down slower than most of our decision makers seem to comprehend. See the picture below; the risk impact counts for many many generations.
This nuclear waste often consists of the isotope of Uranium 235. This has a half life of 4.5 billion years. (Source: BBC GCSE Bitesize )https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/410.shtml But there are also isotopes with a half life of only seconds. Often the number of 20.000 years is mentioned, but that is only the half time, and we are not yet in the safe range.
Meanwhile, the decision makers go for the Uranium/Plutonium.
We have to accept that in countries like France, the UK, Spain, Slovakia and the Netherlands, the majority of the decision makers think and act according to the new defined European ‘sustainability’ and they have left the original sustainability as defined and agreed upon in 1988.
This means that they decided, not to take the risks into account that can be experienced by the next some thousand generations have to live with the risk we leave behind.
Finlands integrated waste treatment
The construction costs of a nuclear power plant are always higher than planned. Now, Finland is the first country that also set the requirement to include the waste treatment in a sustainable way. Geologically, Finland has the luck that the earth crest is really calm, and without any earthquakes. They are able to bury the waste. They managed to create a system till half a kilometer underground, and then cover the nuclear waste with clay layers and concrete plugs.
Finland managed to develop a nuclear waste system that would be sustainable. It is a system to deepbury it, half a kilometer under ground, in a geologically called ‘calm’ earth crest.
The difference between the quoted and the real costs was extreme, and never published. But, to give an idea: The Finnish construction was schemed on one decade, but it has cost an extra decade to do all the unforeseen work.
The nuclear waste appears not to be stored safe
Even nowadays, not every country acts like Finland. In 2024 the Dutch government decided to go for the construction of at least one nuclear power plant. Without any sustainable solution for the nuclear waste. And, in this same year, there have been dozens of attacks on Dutch infra structure, varying from large cyber attacks to concrete destructions on our energy infra structure, such as cables on the seabottom. https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/jaarverslagen/2025/04/22/mivd-openbaar-jaarverslag-2024
The nuclear waste as pictured by the Central Organization for Nuclear Waste (COVRA), Netherlands (source: Covra )
The words of COVRA on its website: “All radioactive waste is safely stored by COVRA for at least one hundred years in specially designed buildings. The waste is isolated in a central location where it can be controlled and monitored, so that safety is guaranteed over that long period.
There is no further explanation about the word ‘guaranteed’. A package of (most probably) lead and concrete, garantees no leaks for one hundred years for sure, if one keeps it here. But an attack with explosives would ask for a much much stronger protection, like some meters of material.
The text continues: Ultimately, the waste must be placed in a final storage facility. This ensures that the waste will still be outside the human habitat for thousands of years.”
The “final storage facility” is not there yet. I could perhaps be somewhere in salt mines, but it still has to be found, found out, and decided.
Only the design and construction for such a storage has cost Finland many millions more than was foreseen.
It seems a nuance, but the “thousands of years” could better be replaced for “many thousands of years”, just to be aware of the length of time. A geological time. This storage requires to be free of earthquakes and other moves of the earth crest.
All nuclear waste is centrally stored on this address, as published on the website and in Google Maps .
The COVRA writes on its website that all the nuclear waste is centrally managed on one place. COVRA even includes the address, on the website and in Google Maps (includes the coordinates). So easy does it, the enemy only needs one missile. It is situated in South West Holland. With the prevailing South Western winds, the fallout will cover the people, soil, builings, everything, of half the Netherlands. And the wind doesnot stop at the German border. In the following years the illnesses and deaths will rise.
That is not safe, not even for the current generation of people.
Conclusion on the waste risks
The treatment of nuclear waste, is often not integrated nor worked out to the very detail, and never worked out with a sustainable risk for the next thousands of generations. Finland is the exception, where the waste treatment is integrated. That has doubled the planning time and the costs. But, Finland is the exception.
If we put the nuclear waste treatment in the Netherlands as an example:
It is not sustainable at all; the risks are for the many thousands of generations after us.
It is unsafe already for the current generation, since Russia attacks Europe on its infra structure.
The problem is not the COVRA. This company only is the symptom.
The problem is that our decision makers seem to run away with an idea, convert that to a plan for construction. But it lacks the necessary sustainability, the common sense one mostly learns from the parents and friends.
It is reasonable to conclude that our decision makers don’t act with this common sense. .
Best is to prevent that our decision makers can deal with risks and great dangers anyway. The best and only option is to power your energy needs from renewables-with-battery in your household. Most probably it is also cheaper.
In the next article the focus will on the cause of our… eh.. disinformation? Naivety? Neglectance?
For many years there is an annual status report on nuclear energy and the plants in the world. It is called ‘World Nuclear Energy Status Report’. It contains questions about the number of plants, the development and of course the assesment of the future. Also the competition with the renewables (solar and wind energy) is part of it.
Since the renewables become cheaper every year, it is time to check for our costs. Would it be possible, affordable, welcome and sustainable to take solar, with a big battery bank, as an alternative for nuclear power?
In this blog we compare the costs.
The development of nuclear reactors
The picture here under shows the number of nuclear reactors now under construction.
Of the 59 plants under construction shown here, there are 27 in China. Is that a lot? Well, last year in China only 1 GigaWatt was added by nuclear power, versus 200 GigaWatt on solar power.
The USA, the early adaptor of nuclear power, did not build any reactors.
So actually, nuclear energy seems to be unattractive.
In the picture here under, there is an overview of all nuclear power plants existing in the world.
This graph says: from 1985 the number of installed nuclear reactors is diminished and the number of closed reactors is higher. Since 2023, when renewable energy competes, the number of new nuclear plants started to become smaller. (Source: Scheinder et al, The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2024 )
The graph clearly shows an upheaval from 1985. This is caused by the Chernobyl disaster in April 1986 and the following public opinion. This will be discussed in the next blog.
But, the nuclear power never became big again. And, from 2024 we even see it going down. Or, is that incidental?
Further development of solar panels and batteries vs nuclear
Year after year the solar panels become cheaper and more efficient. In general, the renewable energy cost less than the fossil and the nuclear energy. We see the same with the batteries: they become cheaper, with a higher efficiency. The costs per kWh sharply become less. We donot see this sharper curve on the technology of nuclear energy.
Nuclear power versus solar+battery power
The nuclear power plant has always the great advantage that it delivers power when there is no sun (and no wind). The only operational issue is that you can not easily stop it and switch it on again. A complete stop or start up, costs a lot of energy.
The solar panel and battery bank don’t have that ‘start-stop’ problem. When there is sun, electricity flows into the battery (and into the network) and when the sun stops shining, the battery takes over.
On the other hand, the battery is limited and the nuclear power plant can run endlessly. That is true for now, but it is getting less true. Since the solar and battery technology is getting more efficient and also cheaper, you simply install big battery banks. So, when there is no sun for one day, it is no problem. And for the near future, and with the current development, the battery banks will be bigger. The real relevance of the nuclear power plant gets smaller.
India just installed a solar+battery power plant which delivers cheaper electricity than a coal combustion plant, while the latter had always been the cheapest.
Net congestion and the home battery
Countries in the transition from gas to electricity, always have the problem of net congestion: it can happen that there is too much electricity running through the network. That would stop the whole system, so there is limited electricity. A complete new infrastructure would cost hunderds of billions, which is simply not possible.
Just an example. The red areas have astructural net congestion in middle Holland
A net congestion creates a lot of damage. A Dutch study shows that a company can not expand, caused by net congestion, it costs that company 11.000 Euro per mWh. This damage is about a hunderd fold of the normal tariff for a mWh.
But every installation of a home battery and solar panels, will relieve the net. This would save a lot of money for replacing cables in the streets, junction boxes, fuses, electricity stations, everything.
The nuclear energy however, would do the opposite, it creates net congestion. All infra structure, from power plant to the households and companies, have to be made larger, heavier. Only in the Netherlands this would cost tens of billions.
Waste costs and ‘external’ costs
The value of the solar panels and (lithium) batteries lowers, year by year. Finally, it will cost a bit to dismantle them. In general, the complete costs from the cradle to the grave are not high, and known and foreseeable. The dismantling of a nuclear power plant costs a lot, if we want to prevent the risks on big environmental damage and great safety risks. Although they are foreseeable, they are seen as ‘external costs’. Only, when in 1997 the nuclear plant of Dodewaard was stopped and the new owner would take care for it, the dismantling costs were accepted to be internal costs. For safely reasons, they have to wait till 2045 to dismantle it. And now, it appears that the owner doesnot have enough money for it. Will the owner become bankrupt? This is an example that the costs for dismantling could still become ‘external costs’, meaning that it is the taxpayer who has to pay it.
Also on the risks of nuclear disasters the costs are categorised as ‘external costs’. Although the accidents occur already since the existence of the first plants. Meanwhile, we statistically know that these costs are there, but you will not find them in the business case.
Then, there are the costs of sustainable nuclear waste treatment. In particular the final dump is often an unsolved problem. The costs are mostly underestimated, or pushed forward. But, after so many accidents, and with much nuclear waste on unsustainable places, more and more people open the eyes and see these costs. In Finland a plant is built with the inclusion of the nuclear waste treatment. See this film . The construction time and costs doubled. We are talking many billions here.
Finally, it is remarkable that in the USA everybody seems to have abandoned the nuclear energy. The USA has a strong private law jurisdiction. This gives a victim of an accident the opportunity to an claim enormous amounts of money from a company responsible for the cause of an accident. Here appears a relation: if one already includes the costs of a risk for the claims from an accident, a nuclear power plant could be way to expensive.
Conclusion
If we really count all costs, so including the dismantling and the disaster management, the solar+battery combination wins already.
Still, politicians who are in favour of nuclear energy plants, externalise the waste treatment and risk costs, and put forward the argument that nuclear technology is ‘state of the art technology’. Most probably the development of solar and battery economy will make nuclear technology old fashioned.
But before that happens, you can read the next blogs in the following weeks, which will address the risks, the sustainability and the politicians dealing with it.
Some days ago a quite little sailing ycaht entered the Taohae’ bay here in Nuku Hiva. It is the Mayola, of only 10 meter, which is the smallest yacht of the 50 yachts in the bay.
On board are Gustayo and Daniela. They had a beautiful trip of 44 days, in one stretch from Panama to here.
When the Mayola passed the Ya, you could not hear an engine nor smell diesel fumes. Electric motors?
Yes indeed. Gustavo showed it all. Not only with pride, but also with enthousiasm. He took one hour to tell it all. We know the advantages like no noise, little maintenance, silent, and more, and here we focus on the particulars of his story.
Gustavo shows the 86% level of the batteries: “Already soon after the start of the trip we had full batteries, because we charge. Did you know that on the sunny days we used the motor to get the level lower than 100 %?
“The battery level now is lower, because we wanted to use the motor into this deep and windstill bay. And the last 2 days of little sunshine didnot help either. However, we never had a shortage on battery power. Never.”
Preparation – a lot of space
Gustave has seen pictures of an exchange of a dieselengine (left) for an electric motor (right) and he noticed the space you could gain in the engine room.When Gustavo opens his engine room, you first see a pile of boxes now. These consist of all his tools and materials. Here, the pile is lowered to show already some depth. On the upper side of the picture, there is the battery bank of 30 kiloWatthour.With the camera closer into the engineroom, you see right under the motor. The battery bank is on top and on the left side there is space left for other tools and spare parts.
Usage is the key
You nee another attitude towards your energy. If you use energy without any reflection on what you have, then you will not make it. But, if you are willing to think about it, and you have a good set of solar panels and perhaps a wind turbine, it should be easy. Or, at least here on board it is easy.
Actually, Daniela doesnot agree. Or better: she doesnot know. She works often on the laptop and she is often worried if there is enough energy on the long run. Actually that makes sense; it underscores the statement that one should have reflection. Daniela never got the chance to reflect on the energy use, since Gustavo is keeping all data of the energy use and regeneration for himself, on his own cell phone…. Look at the picture here under
The app on the cell phone of Gustavo shows all energy data, from general to detail, So he has a refined knowledge and awareness of the energy household.
Charging with the propeller – the further you go, the safer your energy.
The charging power of the electric motor is difficult to measure, because the meter goes up and down every second. But in general we are pretty sure about this: when doing 5 knots, we easily charge over 50 Watt, When we do 6 knots, we do 100 Watts. And the funny thing is, we even didnot change our propeller for this new motor!”
Gustavo adds:”With a diesel engine on the ocean, you always worry that you keep enough energy till the end of your trip Because it can only get down. But when you charge with your motor, it is the opposite: you always have plenty energy on your arrival.”
It was summer 2020, in the little harbour of Rye, near Dover, England, that we met Jim with his catamaran and Andrew Simons. Andrew just started the initiative of Saillink as a try out. Saillink would become the sustainable ferry crossing the Channel. We wrote a blog about it: Ya meets soulmates from Saillink.
Andrew and Jim were checking out if a regular ferry service would work out there. It should be sustainable, with (nearly) no emissions. So sailing. Then, they were sailing in the Channel area and tried out all options under varying circumstances.
Would their initiative work?
Saillinks catamaran is the only sustainable ferry crossing the Channel, on the route Dover-Boulogne.
Yes, the sailing ferry works out very well. The catamaran, called Echoes, is sailing from Boulogne to Dover and back. The experience of being at sea, breathing the fresh salty air and sniffing the sailing adventure, the sails moving you and the ship, all this generates the traveling experience again.
It is a startup, and the operation is starting effectively now, in 2025. So yes, Saillink is in the race. But competing against the fossil mastodons is not easy. So Saillink started a crowdfunding. Click and be part of it, and help this startup with your bit.
Ethics are a big part of our social life, if it is not the driving part. The social media are drifting away from our ethics. So sorry guys, but we stopped with them. We canceled our subscriptions to Twitter/X, to Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp.
From X to ZIP
We saw Twitter changing from a platform where you can be challenged to write a brief but strong note, to a septic tank for negativities. Mr. Elon Musk showed and performed his political ambitions and this social medium is coursing its way from any sort of sustainable, or social standard.
Sorry, it is too much to stay here. Many people started boycotting X and stepped to Blue Sky. Fossil Free Around the World doesnot boycot the medium, but just wants to stay away from it, since it is not social, in any sort of way but the negative one. We go for zip media.
Zuckerberg free
The same is for the Meta media of mr. Mark Zuckerberg. These media are misused in the 2016 US elections and violated several laws and standards about privacy and ethics (Facebook-Cambridge Analytica incident ) . Mr. Zuckerberg excused himself publicly for these lacks of action. But meanwhile, European data protection law propositions were formed (in constant cooperation with Meta) and later these laws took effect. Meta (then called Facebook) violated them and the EU gave warnings. It did not help. Then (in 2018) the EU fined Meta . Meta continued to violate the laws on dataprotection and in 2023 Meta had to pay a total of 1.2 billion Euro.
1.2 billion Euro is not that much for a company making 160 billion last year with a revenue of 30 billion for selling the profiles of each of us. (The revenue is so big, because we ourselves put in our personal data in their databases under Facebook, Instagram, et cetera.)
However, in stead of paying the fine, Mr. Zuckerberg chose to pay several millions to be part of Mr. Tumps inauguration for president of the USA. This is a political move to save Meta from paying the EU’s fine.
These are not the ethics we stand for. Or legally, Meta commits a crime. We don’t want to be associated with criminals. Let us call the boss of it all neatly Mark Z.
Fossil Free Around the World – and its Dutch counterpart Duurzaam Jacht- has terminated the subscriptions on Meta products Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp.
We are Zuckerbergfree.
Historical reason
The pre-Millenium reader remembers the first years of internet in the nineties and early 2000s. Internet was for us. Nowadays the internet is a data harvesting machine, and these data go to the so called Big Tech companies, about 6 in total. They make profiles of your data and sell them to companies for direct advertising. Nowadays the internet is for these Big Tech, or Big Data companies. We lost the internet as a free medium and if we want to have an advertisement free medium, we pay about $10 per subscription link (from 2025 not possible anymore, you have to accept less personalized ads for $5/month). And still, your data are harvested.
Helping sustainability
Please realize that the richest 19 persons of the world create 10% of the environmental impact. So the poorer you make the rich, the better off is Mother Earth, and so our children.
Alternatives
Signal is the replacement for Whatsapp. It is built by the original Whatsapp developer/owner, who sold it to Mark Z. if every user would Signal.org just one dollar per year, Signal can continue forever.
A website paid by yourself as the alternative for ‘social’ media, costs you about 100 Euro per year (except for the first year to build it, costs you 500 Euro). Then, you also get some email adresses.
Every family member can have its own email adress and on the website each member can have has its page. So for example the family vandervelde:
The bottom of the Ya was not scraped for some months here in Nuku Hiva bay. See the movie and it looks like a complete nature reservation, an eco system, whatever.
Also some lobsters are living there. What to do with them? They won’t survive an ocean trip we guess. So Rik passed by to hunt them. Peter did the underwater camerawork.
