[–] guar47 2 days ago
[–] wolvoleo 2 days ago
Instead, just refusing an unnecessary work trip or something once a year helps a lot more than using ecosia.
There's a problem with "feelgood as a service" when the problem is so big it needs drastic measures. It gives people the impression that there is a quick fix. Whoop, I just changed my default browser, great, I've done something to solve climate change! But still eating 300g of meat every day, meh.
That's what I object with with ecosia. They talk of "saving the planet" on their website. But on a global scale it basically does nothing.
[–] palata 2 days ago
I genuinely don't care about their "green marketing". I use Ecosia because it is European, and it works for me as a search engine. As I said I tried Qwant but for some reason it was not working for me.
I do care a lot about ecology, but my choice of search engine is not really impacted by that. People who think that "planting trees" is helping the environment need to get informed about the problem.
[–] expedited123 2 days ago
Still better than using Google directly.
[–] wolvoleo 2 days ago
[–] expedited123 2 days ago
I agree with you, it won't change the world. But again I think it's mainly just marketing. They do what they claim and they do seem to care about actually making a difference and are somewhat consistent with their efforts so I wouldn't call that "greenwashing". I don't think their efforts are minimal but what do I know about planting trees and stuff. You can check their youtube channel :
But it seems Ecosia does really help around the world, at least looking at their reports certainly seems so. Even if it's not a huge impact, isn't it better than nothing? How does NOT using it help anyone?