UPDATE: Ecosia deserve huge respect for this:
Ecosia is now taking concrete steps to facilitate climate activism. Going forward, all Ecosia employees can engage in climate activism during weekdays – they don’t need to take time off or call in sick. If they incur legal problems, Ecosia will support them and cover any related fees. If reasonable, nonviolent civil disobedience should lead any Ecosia employee to be incarcerated, their time behind bars will be counted as work time.
"all…employees can engage in #climate #activism…don’t need to take time off…call in sick. If…legal problems, Ecosia will support… & cover…fees. If….nonviolent #civildisobedience should lead…@Ecosia employee to be incarcerated…time behind bars…counted as work"! https://t.co/H6HaglMPpj
— Josef Davies-Coates
@josef@uniteddiversity.coop (@jdaviescoates) August 28, 2019
Note: this article was written in January 2011 and so most of the information below is now out of date. For a more complete and fuller picture please read through all the comments and/ or do your own research. But in short, Ecosia are trying to a good thing, and are planting lots of tree – which is great! So, of course, if you want to use them as your search engine, go right ahead.
I just wrote a long e-mail response to my friend and teacher Patrick Whitefield (I did, and highly recommend his brilliant Sustainable Land Use course) about “Ecosia – the green search”;
On 1 January 2011 09:23, Patrick Whitefield wrote:
Ah, I see. I was using the wrong search engine, Ecosia. It has impeccable ecological credentials but isn’t always quite as effective.
Does Ecosia really have “impeccable ecological credentials”?
Its basically just Bing (Microsoft’s search engine). Well, its a partnership with Bing whereby Ecosia get a very vague “very high percentage” of ad revenue generated, the rest going to Bing (i.e. Microsoft).
All the money going to good causes come from people clicking on ads (which people like me, who have sensibly installed adblock software often don’t even see).
They give 80% of their proceeds (i.e. the commission they make from the ads, after paying a cut to Bing, i.e. Microsoft) to WWF rainforest protection efforts (all good, aside from the issues I have with very large NGOs and the inside knowledge I have about how WWF’s corporate-style management and how their concerns about protecting their intellectual property has held back the spread of the wonderful One Planet Living concept).
Just using Ecosia does not help direct money to WWF in any way. Only clicking on ads does (and they explicitly state that you should not just do searches and click ads for the sake of it – these are just filted out and not counted)
Can I support Ecosia by conducting many searches and clicking on ads often?
No.
We ask that you only use Ecosia when you actually want to search for something and only click on the ads that you are truly interested in. Artificial searches use unnecessary energy and harm not only the environment, but also Ecosia and our partners. Ecosia filters out all artificial ad clicks and reserves the right to block the IP addresses of these users.
The small part of the energy involved in your search that Ecosia use to serve the results pages is brought from the German co-operative company Greenpeace Energy (who are a bit like Ecotricity in that they both buy and build renewables, but are also a co-operative which is nice). Its good that they buy their energy from such a supplier. I do too (as does the German based company that host the United Diversity website).
However, most of the energy is still used by the Bing servers powering the search and we can’t tell how much energy these use because Microsoft don’t tell us. Ecosia estimate that its probably about the same as a Google search (which we do know, because Google measure such stuff – and help others to do so). But its likely to be more, because Google’s data centres apparently use about half of similar facilities.
Anyway, Ecosia assume it is about the same as Google and then “offset” this amount with Pure. Pure are quite good as far as “offset” people go – at least they are a charity not obviously just trying to cash in. They also cancel their carbon credits instead of selling them, another plus. But Pure also use language that I find rather troubling;
“In simple terms, a business or individual pays to have the same amount of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere as they have generated. This in effect cancels out the CO2 produced from an activity or lifestyle choice.”
That is simply not true. It is just not possible to “cancel out” CO2 already emitted by offsetting.
I’ve ranted about this before:
https://uniteddiversity.com/carbon-con/
https://uniteddiversity.com/carbon-con-update/
https://uniteddiversity.com/cheat-neutral/
And anyway, Google has been a “carbon neutral” (not actually possible IMHO, but still) company since late 2007. They’ve also invested over $100 million in renewable energy. That is a fair bit more €125k that Ecosia has raised in its first year (although that has no doubt helped a bit to protect forests, a laudable aim).
Personally I’d rather use Google than Ecosia (Bing) because I think Google are a much more positive force in the world than Microsoft are (mostly because Google, despite their many imperfections, provide superior tools and do lots of Good Stuff like supporting open source/ free software projects – and IMHO open source/ free software is the foundation upon which we can build the community money and media systems that will make debt-slavery and corporate propaganda obsolete)
Smiles,
Josef.
Have you checked on using Scroogle? https://www.scroogle.org/
The new alternative being http://www.startpage.com (Google search engine, proxy protecting your IP)
Thanks for this Josef – the whole Ecosia smells like what Zizek has been railing against for sometime now. See his rant animated here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g
Ecosia released a new version of their website, which invalides many of the article’s arguments and claims. Any chance you could update it?
Hi Paul, thanks for the tip off about the new version of Ecosia!
A quick look at their blog post annoncing the new version would seem to suggest that only thing that has really changed is their beneficiary so I’m not really sure how the new version “invalides many of the article’s arguments and claims”?
Perhaps you could explain further?
Thanks!
Aha, I also see that they now also mostly use Yahoo search as opposed to Microsoft’s Bing, so that is a change too.
Anything else?
Cheers,
Josef.
But Yahoo uses Bing’s search engine.
Good point!
Hi Josef,
My name is Piotr and I work for Ecosia.
Thanks for your write-up, which I’ve discovered via a Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1qjq1h/ecosia_a_green_search_engine_that_plants_trees_in/cddqcel
In regards to your question as to what’s changed with the new version (launched in late August 2013), here’s a quick breakdown:
a) Improved search (powered mostly by Yahoo with our own algorithms and features e.g. search tags and sustainability rankings)
b) Option to search with Google on http://www.ecosia.org (CO2 neutral)
c) New beneficiary (www.nature.org)
d) New CO2 neutralization partner (www.myclimate.org)
e) New Ecosia apps and browser extensions
f) New user experience and community building initiatives
g) New visual identity
h) … and much more to come in the near future!
I hope this helps. Please feel free to reach out if you would like us to elaborate on any of the above.
Kind regards,
Piotr
Hey Piotr,
Thanks for the update.
I’ll endeavour to update my post at some point to reflect the changes
Warm regards,
Josef.
this article is bullshit
Care to elaborate? It is now out of date, for sure. As they have relayed in the comments, they now mostly use Yahoo (who have much better green credentials than Microsoft) and they’ve changed who they give their money to and who they use for their so-called ‘carbon off-setting’. And, sure, they are trying to do what they can. Good for them. But much of the general thrust of the argument still stands i.e. just using Ecosia does nothing to help anyone (only genuine clicks on ads does – but not buying stuff would arguably help even more), and they still use language I’m uncomfortable with about ‘neutralizing’ their greenhouse gas emissions (which isn’t actually possible).
as you rightly pointed out – they do something.
what do you do apart from engaging in pseudointellectual semantic arguments?
What do I do?
I help people to discover, contribute to and replicate intelligent responses to climate, energy and economic uncertainty.
I develop open sources websites for social change projects.
I find, share and curate useful resources regularly used by 1000s of people.
I help people to start co-operative and community enterprises.
These are some of the projects I’m currently supporting/ working on: https://uniteddiversity.coop/projects/
I also like to fact-check, ask questions and look into hyperbolic claims made by organisations of all types. Seemingly Ecosia have gotten a bit better since this post was written years ago, but many people have thanked me for it over the years.
If you care to, check my LinkedIn recommendations for lots of nice words people have to say about my work.
What do you do?
right, as suspected, a load of hot air + some curation (which is not creation btw) on website ranked #508,034 globally by Alexa. wow, you must be so proud.
what do i do? applaud worthy causes and avoid slacktivists with heads full of useless ego.
Thank you so much for your charming, insightful and productive contributions.
I wish could be a real activist like you.
I’m off to slack off some more
How can you be for social change and then suggest Google, a military industrial complex corporation that violates everyone’s privacy? Doesn’t sound very Social Change
Back in 2011 I thought Google were better than Microsoft, that is all. Probably wouldn’t say that today. The Tech Giants all have way too much power and yes, they are all basically massive surveillance machines. It is scary how much unaccountable power they have. Personally I normally use DuckDuckGo for search these days, but I’ve also got way more respect for what Ecosia are trying to do today than I did back then too (because it is now clear they do indeed have pretty good ecological credentials).
Your tone seems a little aggressive
the above was intended as a response to ewam.
thankyou josef for your energgy
According to Ecosia, just over 100,000 trees have been planted as a result of their searches. From a conservationist and a forester’s perspective this is very small, but I’ll admit it is still a lot more than I’ve ever planted in my life. Since human beings have been directly responsible for the loss of over half the world’s forests, I think surely any attempt made to replant in affected areas ought to be encouraged.
Do you think that this project has any potential to make any kind of difference for the better?
Yes
I believe Ecosia.org uses Yahoo and donates to The Nature Conservancy, but I am not sure if this is the same search engine you are referring to in the article?
You say simply searching using ecosia does not mean money for afforestation but ecosia keeps telling me the number of trees i’ve helped plant and that goes up with each search (without clicking on any ad). Are they lying or have you missed something?
Good question! Their FAQ says:
“WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN YOU SAY “YOU’VE HELPED PLANT X TREES”?
The funds generated by Ecosia help to plant about one tree every minute. When you do a search with Ecosia, we display a personalized tree counter, which shows you how many trees you have already helped plant. Rather than showing you how many trees you have planted all on your own, the counter shows you how many times you have contributed to the planting of a new tree based on the Plant a Billion Trees program’s calculation of one US dollar per planted tree.”
But that isn’t at all clear to me. I’ve contact them via twitter and the contact form on the site asking (I encourage you to do so too), let’s see what they say!
HI Team… This is Bhagavan Maragani, I am from INDIA. I started promoting this in all my networks. . If possible would you please start planting trees in INDIA as well,where the pollution is not at all getting controlled by any means. so request you to start this program in INDIA.
It is glad to be part of this Program and want to be an volunteer for the same.
With lot of hope,
Bhagavan Maragani.
I found this article really interesting. I have heard some mixed reviews about ecosia and was wondering if your stance has changed as a couple of years have passed and they may now have a different business model?
Thanks,
Tess
I’ve not looked into them since so don’t really know what their current status is.
Hey!
Interesting thread (shame about the troll)…
Was wondering should a revised version of the original post be placed at the top as many will not go further…? My only thought is if in real terms some people do use this instead of google then surely it redirects some funds?
All the best,
David.
Speaking for myself, I switched to it since a month by now, also disabled AdBlocker on it’s domain so to get ads results, and I configured chrome omnibar to default search with ecosia. I can say although having stopped adblock there, it shows little to no advertisement (people is not using bing ads I guess), but when it does, I make sure to go through them instead of directly to the search results as will do with google whenever I have no AdBlocker.
So yes, I am using it, and I try to click the ads when I do searches and they seem relevant
Dear Joseph,
Your concern is clear and to the point.
Thank you for informing me better.
I have been using ecosia for several years now and I have some information to share, after contacting them:
– three count: 200 trees in your count are necessary to plant a tree in REAL (from an email I received from their staff),
(below, my thoughts)
– this is a good score if ads generate that amount and it does not get subtracted from any other ecological program:
by this I mean, if this transaction from Yahoo (or Bing) to ecosia does NOT lead to “partial fiscal exemption” from the government to them when Yahoo (or Bing) declare their revenues and their “donations”.
Because if this a tax-exempt amount, obviously this is welfare taken away from society that is allocated to reforestation.
In such case, it would Not be a ‘NET welfare gain’ achieved by taking from the benefits from Yahoo or (Bing) and redistributed to nature.
All your points about Carbon offsets hold since Piotr from Ecosia did implicitly agree that on the core engine end, electricity used is not Green. Sad some people do not seem smart (or honest enough) to get them.
Now Piotr from Ecosia brings something interesting: Yahoo uses ecosia’s algorithms about site rankings… A non trivial news.
Also, the project motivates charitable gesture and even if this turns out to be a make-up, this is going its way to feeling the urge of being accountable for/to society and nature’s welfare.
I find this personally better than google feeling proud of not sharing monopoly power on this issue.
Others might agree.
The article is filled with incorrect information and begs for an update. Just go to ecosia.org and see it for yourself.
Yes, this article was written years ago now and so is bound to have loads of now dated information. Are you able to help with an update by pointing to specific information which now incorrect?
Surely the revenue is raised from companies paying Ecosia money to display the ads, not by people actually clicking on the ads…?
It amounts to exactly the same thing. Companies pay Ecosia per click (it’s how nearly all online advertising works). No clicks, no revenue.
“…supporting open source/ free software projects “? I don’t give a rat’s ass about open source and software projects. These are trivial in comparison to the critical issues we face. I only care about noble projects such as the environment, trees, and such. So, if Ecosia helps such causes even a little, I will go for it, and spread the word.
Everything is connected. There are plenty of open source/ free software projects which directly help people support “noble projects such as the environment, trees, and such”
Is there any difference between Ecosia and Google in terms of Tax Avoidance?
Don’t know, but if you find out please let us know
Hi Josef,
Thank you for this great article, and for being so open to discussion.
There is one point I’d like to make : you say (in a comment, and that’s also a general idea from the main article)
” just using Ecosia does nothing to help anyone (only genuine clicks on ads does – but not buying stuff would arguably help even more)”
I disagree with that, and as Ecosia put it here : https://ecosia.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201657341
“Even if you use an ad blocker or never click on ads, you still contribute to the movement by increasing the number of Ecosia users. The more monthly active users Ecosia has, the more relevant it becomes to advertisers.”
Of course, it might be really hard to know how many trees are actually planted thanks with this “ad clicking free” use of Ecosia, but it surely is a valuable contribution.
Second, you say agree in a lot of comments that the article is outdated,
Still, it appears on the first page of google results for “Ecosia vs. Google”, so like me, a lot of people who discovered Ecosia 5 minutes ago will be likely to read this article, the information in it being the first they find. Could you consider adding at the top that some info are dated, and (if you have time) include in the body of the article some of those changes you pointed in the comment ?
Thanks again for this article, best regards,
Martin
Hi Martin, thanks for your message. I added a note at the top of the article pointing out that some of the info is now out of date. Perhaps one day I’ll do a fuller update too…
Actually it is a huge problem that this outdated information comes up first. I had to scroll through all these fucking comments to find out that it isn’t a super horrible flake of a program. I’m glad I had searched info elsewhere first or this would have been a deterrent. Please either update it or find a way to make it not at the top of search results.
There is a notice at the very top of the post that mentions it is out of date.
Why does that absolve you of the responsibility of making your content current and therefore, factual? I imagine it must be exciting to have such an influence over perception, but that also comes with some responsibility, no? By doing something climate positive, you haven’t highlighted their impact but made them more responsible for the same models most engines use (ad revenue) and issues (servers use energy, which often result in emissions). They are running on Bing, which is part of a climate-neutral Microsoft since 2012 (nearly as old as this article). That means likely renewable energy and carbon offsets (which do not eliminate past emissions, but nearly all activities emit and are not compensated in any way). Ecosia has now planted 6 million trees and has leveraged a working search model to leverage a small startup into global sustainable good that consumers support. It is clear that you disagree with what you seem to consider compromising results for an alternative effect. But instead of shaping that stance with new information and thought, you’ve placed that burden on the commenters and readers. I am glad this small social startup have realized success despite the page rank of your static op ed guising as investigative insight. I suggest you hold yourself to the responsibility that you seem to measure Ecosia against – as they have adapted, improved and grown while your curiosity and logic has not.
Agreed – you really need to update this article or take it down. You’re pretty much validating what Ewam said above by actively responding to the comments but not updating the page.
Here’s some of the things you said to Ewam:
“I help people to discover, contribute to and replicate intelligent responses to climate, energy and economic uncertainty.” But some of the stuff you’re broadcasting isn’t true.
“I find, share and curate useful resources regularly used by 1000s of people.” But if it’s not true then the information isn’t useful.
I’m sure you’ve gotten some well-deserved attention for your efforts, and I think it’s great to call out malpractice or inefficiency in nonprofits, but please take this down or edit it now that it’s 4 years out of date. Incorrectly calling out a nonprofit is actively debilitating positive work.
Hello,
I’m not sure if it’s relevant or even a bother to you but I noticed that your article here has been plagiarized elsewhere on another blog, almost word-for-word. Perhaps no harm done (since I doubt he’s making a profit from it), but I do hate to see people not receiving credit for their intellectual property. If it’s something you wish to pursue, here’s the link to the site.
http://greenreview.blogspot.com/2016/07/does-ecosia-really-have-impeccable.html
I came across it after hearing about this Ecosia business and was searching for reviews and outside opinions. Do with it what you will.
All the best. : )
T
Heh, thanks for the info. That is amusing, especially given much of the copied info that they’ve marked 2016 has been marked out of date on here for ages. I may email them asking for a link or something!
Dear Josef,
i was very doubtful about Ecosia. So i searched for informations that would give me some kind of proof.
I never heard of them but i can confirm you with my judgment of business view that i am believing them. Not the number of planted trees but that they are trying to find the best way to realise this goal.
Yes, they are paying Germans tax by German law. They are a GmbH base in Berlin and not Dublin/Ireland.
I am living up in Berlin and i can confirm you that their staffs are looking like friendly smart green keepers.They had a brilliant idea. They found a way with the options they been given to, to help earth.
It is a successful organic grow business model which have the opportunity to finance a lots of it income in greenkeeping projects. This company is not defining it by its grow, turnover or percentage of the market. It is just about planting a lots of trees as possible.
Your article is horrible because it is not up to date. It is one of the first article in www about Ecosia. Because of that, your created a lots of misjudgment. I had also a wrong opinion after reading your article.
lucky, i scrolled down.
Kind regards,
Dschung
Ps. Just crossed Ecosia few hours ago and never heard of them before.
YES. That is exactly what I was thinking Dschung, this is obviously leading a lot of people into misconception about Ecosia. The average folk will not go so deep into the comments, in fact the majority will not even bother to scroll down to comment section! Not only average people, but also people in a hurry, just wanting to quickly get a glimpse of an idea and not commiting to going so deep into the comment section.
This article is in desperate need of an update. The Note at the beginning is okay, but I honestly read it quite quickly and I came to a point when reading the text where it just went off my mind that it was in fact out of date!
Like a Tana said (on January 19), someone has copied your text to put into his blog. But he surely did not mention it was out of date, did he? So it is becoming like some sort of chain of misinformation traveling though the web, which can quickly become a problem!
Luckily, I scrolled down too :p
Good day sir, and I hope this comment won’t fall into the abyss!
Charles
I don’t think it’s Josef’s obligation to update a piece of text that is clearly stated to be written in 2011. If it was up to date at the time, it’s fine as is, and I’d argue that people should do better fact-checking if they bother to do fact-checking at all. Using a 6 year-old article on something is typically not a good idea when doing fact-checks, as likely a lot of the info will be outdated, and not every post like this will even have a comment section under it.
That said, it would be nice if Josef were to update the piece with more up-to-date information considering it shows up as one of the first few hits.
Anyhow, looks like I’ll be trying out Ecosia.
Thanks Zeno. If people (e.g. Ecosia staff perhaps?) want to spoon-feed me more up-to-date info I’ll happily add it (as I’ve said previously – also very happy to link to more up-to-date blog posts about it). But even just responding to the comments I get on this post takes up more time than I’d like to dedicate to this, so I won’t be updating it myself as it really isn’t at all important to me and I have many many higher priorities. Like you say, if people want to do their own investigation into the current status quo they are more than welcome (and, again, I’d happily link to anything here to help people to find it).
Hi,
Thanks for the info And for leaving this article here and in tact. I found this search engine because of this article – so, it’s still serving it’s purpose. Is people are too lazy to scroll down and read recent comments and take the article for what it’s worth, it’s their own fault.
Muck love
OK, let’s state the obvious here.
(1) Josef doesn’t want to update the article because he’s absolutely enjoying the attention and, most of all, the traffic this posts attracts. I bet it’s the most visited page on this website.
(2) Updating the post would take 15 minutes, and he’s already invested much more in responding to comments.
Pure hypocrisy.
Agreed.
You are all free to write an update yourself, just as I am free to spend my time as I please. But you’re right about one thing: this is (rather sadly really) probably the most popular article on this site!
Thanks guys for your comments, so many of you spent time to share updated information, i hope many more will take the time to scroll down and read them, thanks again
and Josef, c’mon man put in some of your time to do something about this, a note is fine, for a while, but this column of comment has not end already, you need to do something about this page, removing ages old comments would help 
but this post really needs an update.
Dear all readers complaining that this article is out of date,
I am sure that all of us are united in our desire for more trees, better corporate ethics and clear, factually correct and updated information. The work of fact checking the internet is exhausting and endless, and I expect that you, dear reader, like most of us, juggle this with trying to support various other worthy causes in ways that are mostly time consuming (if they are effective). I would like to recommend that instead of complaining to and about Josef and about how out of date this article is, you DO something constructive about it. Namely, I suggest you write a correct, updated article on this topic, with verifiable links and a transparent search/ research strategy, so that readers can trust it. Then send it to Josef. I’ve never met Josef and I just came across this site 5 minutes ago like most of you, so I dont know how he’ll react, but my guess is he’d be happy to post such an article with you clearly identified as author so you get the credit, and then everyone gets the info we all want. Such a comradely gesture may even inspire him to add or extend your update or to provide his own; its amazing how inspired we all get by generous gestures. (Apologies Josef for stepping into your territory for a second and thanks for what you’ve provided here. I’d love to update about a zillion things and cant find time too also: but hey that’s what the collective is for.)
Thanks Claire! You are correct, if someone wants to write an up to date article about this they are of course more than free to do so and I’d be very happy to link to it from here and/ or post it on this site. And yes, updating this article is no way near the top of my list of priorities and is very unlikely to ever get there (the whole site is in need of a long overdue update and is stuck in a half-done state after I last began to update it, and that was years ago!).
Then just remove this article? Why are you so unwilling to do what most comments here suggest? What are you gaining by not removing this article? Do you care that this article can be damaging for ecosia? It seems very selfish and the only thing that is achieved is slander towards environmental action…
14,000,000 trees so far…
What has this article achieved?
“Then just remove this article?”
No
“Why are you so unwilling to do what most comments here suggest?”
Are you seriously suggesting that I allow people who comment on a 7 year old blog post to dictate how I spend my time?
“What are you gaining by not removing this article?”
I don’t like it when links die. I like to preserve the historical record.
“What has this article achieved?”
It helped a fair few people get a betting understanding of the issues and arguably encouraged Ecosia to up their game.
To quote Claire above:
” I would like to recommend that instead of complaining to and about Josef and about how out of date this article is, you DO something constructive about it.”
And to quote myself:
“if someone wants to write an up to date article about this they are of course more than free to do so and I’d be very happy to link to it from here and/ or post it on this site”
WOuld it not save you all the trouble of reassuring people by simply updating the content on this post? SEO keeps this on top of the search pile so please update it for yourself and the sake of accurate information about Ecosia. They’re the only ones losing out.
This article should be removed. You are clearly active on here but do not have the commitment to update this negative report that has the potential to deter others from giving Ecosia a chance. This in turn is a move backwards in terms of environmental awareness and action.
You have been repeatedly asked to remove or update this article. You have time to answer most comments yet you cannot act upon your responsibility? Your lazy header in bold is not good enough.
We don’t go back to newspapers archive and scrape things off just because they are not accurate: I wish sometimes we could do it with some networks… like fox news.
People need to get over the fact that Information has expiry date also on the internet… and it can serve as a historical archive as well as up to date information.
The fact the Joseph “has been asked multiple times” has nothing to do with whether he should or shouldn’t change this article: his domain, his choice. this is what freedom of speech looks like. Also freedom on how to spend his time. I might even agree that can be deceiving but the notes at the top of the page sent me (and everyone who criticise him), to the comments… so, it gets the job done. It becomes a community built article, which is the nature of the internet if you ask me.
The other point is that all the updates that everyone seems to offer, are coming from Ecosia. Is like asking Monsanto if Glyphosate is really harmful to humans. it’s a corporation and will cover their interests.
Now I’m not implying that Ecosia is an evil corporation, but a valid fact-checking needs to take into account prevalently information that is not tinted from the biased of self-interest, and it’s LOT more work.
To do it properly and be accurate, requires time, work and experience: who’s anybody to say that Joseph has the luxury to invest any? Is he riding the good SEO rating? maybe, but have you had a look around, at the rest of the site? it’s not like they are trying to build an empire out of it…
It really boils down to the fact that nobody, at present, seems to be doing the job of providing evidence or further third-party information, about Ecosia. So get over it… or do the work, be happy that there are a debate and passion about it.
I wish there was more reliable info about this. More clear evidence that, yes, by using a shittier SE I’m actually helping making a change. I’d love to be sure of that… but I was really happy so many inputs came to play in this article too: why would I bitch about the spark that initiated it? Especially considering that, clearly, there was no intention to slander Ecosia for the sake of it.
I got Ecosia and then found this article with it. It’s a win-win for me
even if it’s old. FUBAR is better than nothing
Microsoft? Should be Ourcrosoft…
Um, I’m not sure what you point is?
Evidently this guy is sponsored by Google somehow. I hate how Google is impacting on freedom of speech and positive movements in Internet. Now, after 6 years it became evident more than ever before.
Heh, I am in no way sponsored by Google. I hate the amount of power tech giants have too. Read this and weep.
I recently found out about Ecosia, and it was very helpful for me to read all the comments, even though the article in itself was pretty old.
Firstly, Thank you Josef for enduring what appears to be a fair portion of pointless lazy-based repetitive banter. I didn’t read every comment only a random few and skimmed over the rest. So if anything, it shows that the company is evolving due to an evident history because the ‘banter’ displays a transparency, which is akin to honesty. Of course I’m not so naive as to presume any business is totally truthful but any tree planted for whatever agenda addressed is only going to process the CO2 to the much needed O2, no matter how minuscule. Lastly, I can’t be bothered paying for ‘no adds’ defeats the purpose really. I primarily use the internet to check emails, Facebook, and I watch YouTube, so the only adds i have any chance of watching are within these platforms. Therefore my question is this : Will my current use really raise any revenue for planting trees?
I don’t know as I’m not up to date – may I suggest asking Ecosia direct and reporting back what they say? Thanks!
Hello, Josef –
Thank you for the information about Ecosia. Yes, it’s 2019, but I believe the discussion remains relevant.
I’m aware that Ecosia had for a time relied on Yahoo’s framework; they’ve since reverted to Bing. The situation makes me uneasy. I love Ecosia’s intentions, but I absolutely do not want to support Microsoft. I’m trying to decide between Ecosia and DuckDuckGo. (I’m aware that DuckDuckGo uses Bing for a portion of its index.) Indeed, it strikes me that DDG’s search performance is superior, but I realize that Ecosia has fewer resources.
I intend to contact Ecosia when I have time. I’d love to know the specifics between the Ecosia-Bing partnership, especially revenue-related details. Perhaps you or the contributors here would care to comment?
Thanks again for your efforts!
With appreciation,
Brian
All in all it might not be the worst idea – but still the flaw of all of these approaches, however brave they are sounding, is: you do not need to change a thing, just use Ecosia or fly like there was no tomorrow, but “compensate” your flights with atmosfair etc.
The flaw is – around 500 millions of people – less than 10% of the world population – consume more than half of all the ressources, and waste CO2 and more like there was – no tomorrow. This has gone so far now that it simply is a bit of greenwashing to suggest “Ecosia” was something wonderful and we could go on in our consumerism, flying 100 times more than people did in 1970, and feel wonderful.
The answer would be NOT to live like we do in the west. The only way out is to eat less meat, do not use the car if you have one so often, do not fly (kerosene tax and VAT free! Pathetic!) like there was no tomorrow. Support public transport systems in your country, stop making holidays 3-4 times a year (tourism is responsible for nearly 25% of all climate change damage right now – and it is 9/10 of mankind that does NOT contribute to this lazy manic aviation-tourism). Think about one longer holiday, 3-5 weeks, and do not fly to your destination. Fight for the far better way – fast trains have to be built, and night-trains, in Europe on the way out, should be freed from taxes while manic aviation – at last! – should pay high taxes. Flying stays the worst way of coming from A to B, and 90% of all flights could be avoided. It is not that hard to go vegan or at least vegetarian most of the time and still enjoy superb food. Do not eat fruits and vegetables out of the regional season – like so many do now, eating everything 12 months a year. (Why?)
Ecosia does nothing to address any of these problems, so it is a nice addon, but nothing more. Good for people with double moral standards.
Find this and support it too https://flightfree.co.uk/pledge! I am very concerned about climate change and am making myself ill trying to help sort it so anything I can do even if not perfect I will try, that goes for Ecosia, it goes for trying to cycle places, avoiding palm oil products in the supermarket., giving my time to an environmental project, and so on. Everything is part of this and we can only do our best. Thousands of people have demonstrated but very few seem prepared to stand up and say I personally will not fly next year. I know flying is not everything but it is a start for people in the uk it can easily be the biggest carbon wasting non-essential activity they do and there are many many many places you can visit without destroying that which you go and see
Wow your seven year old article is out of date. I now have a couple of choices I can scroll through the comments and undertake some additional research or I can complain to you to do the research for me and spoon feed me with your opinion of your research rather than me having to formulate my own opinion from my own research…
If you update this article it will remove some very positive aspects that are covered; these show that Ecosia is willing to listen to feedback, make changes, improve their approach, etc. which are all fantastically positive selling points for Ecosia.
Thanks for the article and all of the useful comments.
For current info, photos on how Ecosia are planting trees you can see it all here.
https://www.instagram.com/ecosia/
I’ve been on this blog like a dozen times. Anyway I thought I might as well add a few more bits and pieces for anyone else who can be assed to scroll down this far.
Ecosia is now a steward company so it’s goals on protecting the enviroment are highly unlikely to change.
They have planted near 50 million trees in 19 different areas. According to ecosia the trees are at least 3 years old in the count. This is so that they result in a reasonable carbon offset and not just amount of saplings.
They are CO2 neutral and have built a Solar farm to offset carbon dioxide production from research.
They are currently useing reserve money to try and save a 12,000 year old forest near Hamburg from deforestation which will prevent further coal mining in that area.
Hope this helps
That is great stuff, thanks! I may put that info up at the top of the post. Have to admit I’ve been very impressed by some of the great stuff Ecosia have being writing recently about agroforestry/ agroecological farming etc – they obviously do actually know their stuff and are deeply passionate about it all too!
What would’ve made your comment even better though would’ve been if you’d linked through to primary sources about all those facts! Not that I doubt them, just that it’s always good to be able to check sources
Do have you any links you could share? Thanks!
50 million trees:
https://blog.ecosia.org/almost-50-million-trees/
Hambach forest:
https://blog.ecosia.org/rwe-ecosia/
Ecosia solar plant:
https://www.facebook.com/ecosia/photos/a.430960431610/10155907672246611/?type=1&theater
Thx Alex,
Also if you want to look at where the money is roughly going then
https://documents.ecosia.org/467540/12095458
What a steward company is?
https://ecopreneur.eu/2018/11/14/rethinking-ownership-steward-ownership-in-germany/
Ecosia a steward company
https://blog.ecosia.org/trees-not-profits/
I discovered Ecosia a few days ago (while looking for a plant-themed game on my phone) and was impressed but skeptical.
This article is 7 years old or whatever but it IS possible that it pushed Ecosia to up their game and I appreciated the knowledge that I gained from the article, it made me think about these things and research them more on my own.
I’m not sure how many ads I will be clicking on Ecosia but all in all, how many other companies actually plant trees?
My hope for Ecosia is that all of the people who plant the trees (if it is not Ecosia staff directly) are not overworked and suffering as a result.
I also am impressed by Ecosia’s conservation methods and didn’t applications, they are not just planting trees to sound good, but are actually being smart about it.