OK you could call me Google centric or whatever but I strongly oppose sites like Forestle or Ecosia that use regular search engines but display the result on their sites get the advert money and buy co2 certificates.

I'd rather have a company that has an agenda for reducing footprint per standard PC by raising energy efficiency as Google did then supporting search engines like bing or yahoo via one of these outfits. At the end of the day these actions are more worth it IMHO. And apart from this advocacy they don't buy stupid certificates and only talk but also apply it to their own company.

http://www.google.com/corporate/green/

So apart from me not liking supporting MS or Yahoo this also has a greener aspect with sticking to Google.

Ok now to the financial bit.

They only donate advertisement money (80% for Ecosia). I dunno how often you usually click on adverts. I don't or at least it's rare.

So how do revenues work? we have the equation

YOUR-CONTRIBUTION = \SUM_views ( COST_{view} - INCOME_{view} )

or in other words if you don't click many adverts you burn their money/your rain forest or you abuse/steal from advertisers and click more adverts then you regularly would.

Especially stupid would be to have it as your starting page as Ecosia advertises. Every new tab or window burns money.

OK but this is just a stupid rant by you, you could say.

So here are some numbers and why I write this stupid rant:

Forestle claims to have saved 10,093,517.3 sq m.

sq m to acre times 50 per Costa Rican rain forest acre:
(10 100 000 / 4 046.85642) * 50 = 124 788.218 $

Ecosia states 134,633.48 Euro that is currently 176 544.882 so for an upper bound we round to 180000 $.

So both combined adds up to 305k US $

now go read what Google did with their small change in four days to promote chrome; add my rant from above and go figure.

http://chrome.blogspot.com/2010/12/60-million-tabs-towards-good-causes.html