Google will stop running ads alongside content related to climate change denial

[Daniel Sims]

Why it matters: Google announced this week that it will stop permitting ads to run alongside content that denies climate change, and will stop monetizing such content. The change seems to have come after Google received pressure from advertisers.

Google made the announcement in the help section of its Google Ads page. The update said Google's advertising partners expressed that they didn't want their ads running next to "inaccurate claims about climate change." Starting next month, Google will stop running ads on and monetizing pages or videos that say climate change is a hoax, deny that the planet is heating up, or deny that human-induced greenhouse gases are what's behind climate change.

Google says it will still allow ads and monetization on content that covers topics like climate change debate, climate policy, and the effects of climate change. The company will try to differentiate between content that discusses climate change denial, and content that tries to claim climate change denial as fact.

"When evaluating content against this new policy, we’ll look carefully at the context in which claims are made," the announcement reads. Google plans to enforce this policy using a combination of automated and human methods when reviewing climate change-related content.

Among the experts Google says it consulted setting up this policy, are people who contributed to assessment reports for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

To help bring attention to the issue of climate change, back in April Google added a Timelapse feature to Google Earth. It allows users to see how the Earth's surface has changed over nearly the last 40 years, using satellite imagery to illustrate things like urbanization and melting glaciers. In September of 2020, Google announced that it had completely offset its own lifetime carbon emissions, already having been carbon neutral since 2007.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/91659-google-stop-running-ads-alongside-content-related-climate.html

 

[scavengerspc]

The complaints came from advertisers themselves, so you have to know Google would do as they're told. And at least they are leaving good faith debates alone. Complaining about climate change is nowhere near as effective as proving what you say.

 

[kiwigraeme]

Most climate deniers are now shifting their arguments
Denied for years knowing full well the world was get warmer - Very rare to see this argument anymore.
Denied for years that global warming is mostly man-made even though they know it is - getting rarer to see this argument - still hear if from people on the edge - It's just a natural cycle - that incredible no one knows the cause of - yes this they say with a straight face.

They are starting to move away from the BS - that a warmer planet and higher CO2 is great - they more stupid ones are sticking at it - yeah lower oxygen levels in warmer more acidic oceans - C02 is great for plants - well for some plants - and with out nitrogen and other nutrients - you get low quality .

Now it's stuff like - I don't care, what about China , why should our country suffer , we can't do anything, etc etc

Interesting times - drought, heatwaves, floods ( destroying land , crops ) , disease , insects not dying off in winter and moving towards poles , mass extinctions

I can get selfish people - but turned into a corporate zombie - spouting the polluters dis-information is really weird - not realising nothing they say stands up year after year and still believing it.
Well they kind of don't - they may spout something on a personal level - but if they are a farmer.businessman they plan on climate changes ( papers done on it )

 

[paul1122]

 

[VaRmeNsI]

Just goes to show those that believe in Climate Change are intolerant of people of other faiths.

 

[scavengerspc]

Just goes to show those that believe in Climate Change are intolerant of people of other faiths.

People of "other faiths" are allergic to hard facts and proof.

 

[Jack Deth]

Gee whiz, thanks for looking out for us "good guy" google!

 

[VaRmeNsI]

People of "other faiths" are allergic to hard facts and proof.

Every zealot thinks their particular faith is correct, it's why we must all be tolerant and not impose beliefs on others.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Same people who deny climate change tend to deny there's a pandemic on... but at least denying climate change doesn't really harm anyone else - unless you're a policy maker....

 

[scavengerspc]

Every zealot thinks their particular faith is correct, it's why we must all be tolerant and not impose beliefs on others.

There should never be tolerance given to anyone that denies basic facts and evidence. Not to mention that the people that follow the facts and evidence are the opposite of zealots.

"Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored."
Huxley

 

[Xex360]

Just goes to show those that believe in Climate Change are intolerant of people of other faiths.

Your logic is flawed, there is no such thing as belief in climate change just following the evidence, climate change deniers choose to not follow the evidence. No faith is involved.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

Same people who deny climate change tend to deny there's a pandemic on... but at least denying climate change doesn't really harm anyone else - unless you're a policy maker....

From what I’ve seen, even policy makers who believe in climate change have little real effect on improving the situation. The ones who decide to throw money at the problem just cause short term solutions and long term stagnation of progress. Realistically all improvements to clean energy are happening in a competitive business environment. If there aren’t hardships to face for business, they have little incentive to improve their product and will never reach a critical mass in the market.

Look at all these automakers. They’ve been dipping their feet in the water for EVs for 30 years (they started coming out with EVs in the 90s) and once Tesla started creating real competition with the Model 3, they started to pick up steam. Policymakers have been trying all sorts of things, for example the $7500 EV tax credit introduced in 2008 that’s still around 13 years later. After 10 years there was 1 non-Tesla EV introduced with 200+ miles of range.

 

[Fearghast]

Every zealot thinks their particular faith is correct, it's why we must all be tolerant and not impose beliefs on others.

Not really sure if a fireman argues with a man whenever the house is on fire if he will extinguish it, or it's just the natural state of the house.
There is a thin line between stupidity and the time we have to solve something.

 

[kiwigraeme]

From what I’ve seen, even policy makers who believe in climate change have little real effect on improving the situation. The ones who decide to throw money at the problem just cause short term solutions and long term stagnation of progress. Realistically all improvements to clean energy are happening in a competitive business environment. If there aren’t hardships to face for business, they have little incentive to improve their product and will never reach a critical mass in the market.

Look at all these automakers. They’ve been dipping their feet in the water for EVs for 30 years (they started coming out with EVs in the 90s) and once Tesla started creating real competition with the Model 3, they started to pick up steam. Policymakers have been trying all sorts of things, for example the $7500 EV tax credit introduced in 2008 that’s still around 13 years later. After 10 years there was 1 non-Tesla EV introduced with 200+ miles of range.

Sounds all sweet and good - and there in some truth in it . But the I.C.E has been heavily subsidise, coal & oil have been heavily subsidise . It's progressive states like California - that make companies wake up - Lots of countries are banning I.C.E cars in the coming years - so pushing F750 trucks and BMW SUVs the size of a Mack truck won't work soon .
Most companies won't do SFA unless compelled - or as you suggest another company makes it feasible . Yes you are right some of the blunt instruments lawmakers use can sometimes be ineffective or hand unintended harmful consequences - but the stick , carrot and laws is the best we have at the moment .
We need active governments banning inefficient tech , highly pollutant tech etc . Lots of simple law changes eg forcing ships not to go above X knots ( ships go full speed as everyday costs mega dollars ) a drop of 3 knots would bring a big saving ( a lot of design and power to make ships go a few knots faster ). Penalising airlines flying through air layers causing large contrails ( contrails last a long time trapping heat in - very high carbon footprint ).

Saying that I believe we need active measures now - from simple planting high carbon sequestering trees - to medium - changing building materials like concrete to be more carbon neutral or even absorbing , reflectors to send heat back to space , to hard - active carbon dioxide collection on large scale .
We are currently in one of the fastest extinction periods in world history - ignoring the catastrophic - massive volcano eruptions, asteroid strikes etc

 

[Fearghast]

From what I’ve seen, even policy makers who believe in climate change have little real effect on improving the situation. The ones who decide to throw money at the problem just cause short term solutions and long term stagnation of progress. Realistically all improvements to clean energy are happening in a competitive business environment. If there aren’t hardships to face for business, they have little incentive to improve their product and will never reach a critical mass in the market.

Look at all these automakers. They’ve been dipping their feet in the water for EVs for 30 years (they started coming out with EVs in the 90s) and once Tesla started creating real competition with the Model 3, they started to pick up steam. Policymakers have been trying all sorts of things, for example the $7500 EV tax credit introduced in 2008 that’s still around 13 years later. After 10 years there was 1 non-Tesla EV introduced with 200+ miles of range.

A lot of automakers are simply a business that adapts to external elements to produce the highest possible margin.
If we ignore Toyota and Tesla, that are pushing green way for decades, most of the manufacturers switched to "sustainable way" "this" year - it's simple why - legislation and image, that is starting to produce real sales.

But let's be honest, cars are a really popular topic for discussion (we all love them, we are all passionate about them, it's simple), BUT it's almost the most insignificant source of CO2 emissions in the industry - there are much bigger sources of pollution to solve ... but I know cars are popular, they are relatively easy to solve with hybridization and alternative sources of energy (EV, hydrogen, what ever the infrastructure allows).
So let's "solve" cars quickly and move to more important things.

 

[VaRmeNsI]

There should never be tolerance given to anyone that denies basic facts and evidence. Not to mention that the people that follow the facts and evidence are the opposite of zealots.

"Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored."
Huxley

That sort of reasoning lead to mass executions in the 20th century, what you believe to be facts I consider lies.

 

[Fearghast]

That sort of reasoning lead to mass executions in the 20th century, what you believe to be facts I consider lies.

That's a really nice hyperbole you are drawing.

 

[VaRmeNsI]

That's a really nice hyperbole you are drawing.

In the UK environmentalists are already resorting to terrorism by definition (Insulate Britain blocking roads with intention of causing harm).

 

[Fearghast]

In the UK environmentalists are already resorting to terrorism by definition (Insulate Britain blocking roads with intention of causing harm).

You have to expect one thing first - every group has a crazy part.
Same way some people are aggressive towards EV users ... some people are dumb, that's why it's important to support facts and not believes in some areas.
Luckily for the human race, the percentage amount of morons is more or less the same in every country.
That's not targeted towards you, but I hope you know that.

 

[nodfor]

They used to say global warming.
Then there were a few very cold winters and not so hot summers
So they changed it to "climate change". And now everytime the weather is out of the usual, they can claim they have been right all along

 

[Nick D]

They used to say global warming.
Then there were a few very cold winters and not so hot summers
So they changed it to "climate change". And now everytime the weather is out of the usual, they can claim they have been right all along

They changed the term because morons would say 'but winter still happens?!?". The term is just as accurate, but for the people who never understood the concept in the first place, I guess it would seem like deception.

 

[nodfor]

They changed the term because morons would say 'but winter still happens?!?". The term is just as accurate, but for the people who never understood the concept in the first place, I guess it would seem like deception.

They changed the term because now they can summon it everytime there is something out of the ordinary, a heavy winter, a hurricane,a tsunami and not only for drought
And the more they say the term the more believers they gain

 

[Squid Surprise]

They changed the term because now they can summon it everytime there is something out of the ordinary, a heavy winter, a hurricane,a tsunami and not only for drought
And the more they say the term the more believers they gain

Let me guess, you also think Covid is a global conspiracy? And the vaccines are just a way for the authorities to track you?

 

[nodfor]

Let me guess, you also think Covid is a global conspiracy? And the vaccines are just a way for the authorities to track you?

Let me guess, you consider that the gov has the right to overtax you for using fossil fuels or ban outright their use and restrict you if you don't give them the right to shove into your body whatever substance they seem fit?

 

[Squid Surprise]

Let me guess, you consider that the gov has the right to overtax you for using fossil fuels or ban outright their use and restrict you if you don't give them the right to shove into your body whatever substance they seem fit?

Your democratically elected government has the right to tax you for anything - you then have the right to vote them out of office... that’s the beauty of democracy.

There is plenty of evidence that vaccines save lives and are far safer than catching Covid.... you have any real evidence to refute this, I’m all ears