A Google bomb for Eon

Posted by jamie - 8 December 2008 at 2:54pm - 4 Comments

The noble art of Google bombing - of making a website rise up the search results by encouraging other websites to link to them in a particular way - is being harnessed by blogs campaigning against new coal-fired power stations, especially Kingsnorth. The idea is to make the No New Coal website appear at the top of the list anytime a search is done for 'Eon' (which is, of course, the company so intent on building a plant at Kingsnorth).

Anyone with a website, blog or profile on the likes of MySpace or Facebook can help out, so if you'd like to help here are the full instructions I purloined from Climate Change Action:

The more links to a site, the higher it climbs in Google rankings. So, if enough people make the word 'Eon' link to the No New Coal site, pretty soon it'll top the list of anyone searching for Eon. (This tactic was succesfully used a few years ago to make 'swivel-eyed loons' link to UKIP).

Two weeks ago www.nonewcoal.org.uk wasn't in the top 50 sites when searching for Eon. As I write this it's already number 13. [It's since moved up to number 5!]

So a simple online action can help us get our electronic placards in their face without getting out on the cold winter streets.

If you have a website, blog, myspace, bebo, forum account, etc then please place a link to http://www.nonewcoal.org.uk.

Ideally you write 'Eon' and place a hyperlink to http://www.nonewcoal.org.uk from that text. Anyone can do this! Blog comments/forums are easiest. Good websites are most effective.

If you're wondering what else to write, you could copy this whole piece.

To get a top 10 google ranking probably wont be to hard but to pip eon to the top will require a lot of effort so tell your friends, consider putting this simple action in your newsletters, spread the word online...

Notes:

1. It works best if you mention Eon several times in an article.
2. If you are posting the link in a blog post then put Eon in the title and the tags.
3.The more important the site the more kick nonewcoal.org.uk gets from the link.
4. If you are really determined then consider setting up a fake site like the EON CSR blog that way you can link loads of times to nonewcoal.org.uk from a site that is very relevent!
http://eon-csr.blogspot.com/
5. Why not take this is seriously as a real world action and forward it to people with green blogs/campaign groups etc.

Article tagged as: climate change, coal, eon, google bombs, kingsnorth

Comments Commenting is now closed

I recognise that coal is about the worst option available in terms of CO2 emissions, but is there a better option?

Renewable power needs to be "backed" 90% by conventional generation - in other words only 10% of it can be relied on continuously. So we still need conventional generation at about the level it is currently at,..,. but with existing stations closing real soon.

My preferred option is nuclear, but that will not be in place quick enough to stop our lights going out in a few years time, so that leaves us with the need to build gas, oil and coal plant now. While gas and oil are much cleaner, how content will we be with no coal in 5 years time when Russia turns us off?

By nupower - 8 December 2008 at 11:57pm

New scientist did an article recently on this, just search for electric dreams on theire website if this link doesn't work: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026771.500-renewable-energy-elec....

With population expected to reach 8.7billion by 2030 and the efficiency of carbon sinks decreasing all the time we should be aiming to cut our emissions to 0.33 tons of CO2 equivelant per person by 2030 to avoid climate chaos.

Think about it we are the windiest, waviest and wettest nation in europe, we also produce alot of crap which could be used to make methane. with an efficient energy grid we could avoid the energy gap and help tackle climate change.
JetG. rescue diver extraordinaire.

By jethro - 9 December 2008 at 12:53pm

I recognise that coal is about the worst option available in terms of CO2 emissions, but is there a better option? Renewable power needs to be "backed" 90% by conventional generation - in other words only 10% of it can be relied on continuously. So we still need conventional generation at about the level it is currently at,..,. but with existing stations closing real soon. My preferred option is nuclear, but that will not be in place quick enough to stop our lights going out in a few years time, so that leaves us with the need to build gas, oil and coal plant now. While gas and oil are much cleaner, how content will we be with no coal in 5 years time when Russia turns us off?

By nupower - 8 December 2008 at 11:57pm

I am aware of the energy gap problem however the problems with renewables are not technologicalthey are political, in the UK we can meet our energy needs with renewables and energy efficiency very quickly. New scientist did an article recently on this, just search for electric dreams on theire website if this link doesn't work: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026771.500-renewable-energy-elec.... With population expected to reach 8.7billion by 2030 and the efficiency of carbon sinks decreasing all the time we should be aiming to cut our emissions to 0.33 tons of CO2 equivelant per person by 2030 to avoid climate chaos. Think about it we are the windiest, waviest and wettest nation in europe, we also produce alot of crap which could be used to make methane. with an efficient energy grid we could avoid the energy gap and help tackle climate change. JetG. rescue diver extraordinaire.

By jethro - 9 December 2008 at 12:53pm