Bing - up go the pay walls.

One of the most amazing things about the internet is its free access to an almost infinite source of global information. While there is Wikipedia, blogs and other (questionable) online content, reputable information can sometimes be difficult to find. However online newspapers, such as The Age, Guardian.co.uk and the Economist are all reputable online news sources that provide (most) of their news content for free. Like most other media outlets who have gone online, there is an increasing trend towards customers viewing their content online. Though this dramatic shift in readership and consumption of news, is having a catastrophic impact on the revenue to news providers.

Whenever you view something online that is free, you are still paying for it through exposure to advertising. Thus news providers make their revenue and profit from having ads beside, or randomly popping up (annoyingly) on screen beside their content. However not enough revenue is coming from online advertising, thus news providers are complaining about their dwindling profits. Though most of these news providers are blaming Google for their problems, claiming Google is freely providing their content and making money from it. This is because whenever you go onto Google News or do a Google search, small text ads will appear beside the results. This is the advertising scheme that is making Google millions in profits, though news outlets don't get a cent. However it is ironic still that whenever you click on a Google News article, it takes you to the news source, thus these online news providers gain revenue from ads on their own sites. While they are blaming Google, Google is generating over half of all traffic to these news sites.

This culminating anger has seen Murdoch propose to Binge (Google's newest rival from Microsoft, who only corners 10% of the search engine market), to its delight, a proposal to shut out Google and put up pay walls, by allowing only Bing access to its online articles, and charging viewers accordingly. More niche news services (such as some parts of the online section of the Economist) are able to get away with putting up pay walls, as selective readers are happy to pay for its valuable content. However the average reader may be a bit more wary and less inclined to using a "micro payments" service (a small charge per article viewed) or a subscription service for online news content. Hence if pay walls go up, readership most likely will decrease.

Though cutting out Google may just cause even more economic hardship to these news providers, as Google  still does provide the greatest traffic to these news sites, and is the most used search engine on the web. Google itself may even come back with a counter offer if it believes Murdoch and other news providers are serious about selectively signing themselves with Bing. If Google gave half of its revenue from ads on its Google News service to news providers who are being linked to by Google, it could be a compromise that would keep both parties happy, except for Microsoft's Bing .

The age of free internet content may be nigh, though with some clever advertising schemes and a compromise with search engines like Google, free quality news that drives blogs like this and fuels the thoughtful minds of inquisitive individuals may continue.

Links

Will Murdoch's Bing gamble pay off? - Guardian.co.uk 
Web Wide War - the Economist

How China is going green

Barack Obama's recent trip to China has set the tone for the upcoming Copenhagen conference, cue depressing funeral music! Both countries want each other to cut carbon emissions by setting binding targets, yet each don't want to do so themselves. With both countries accounting for over 40% of the worlds emissions, an agreement between these two superpowers is necessary, if any action of climate change is going to seriously occur.

Though despite the depressing tone from the APEC summit and Obama's visit to China in the lead up to Copenhagen, China appears to be making serious inroads into the fight against climate change, which may help push the US into taking a more proactive stance.

Due to the GFC (Global Financial Crisis), the world has seen a reduction in carbon emissions caused by a reduction in global production of goods. Though while stimulus packages have tried to kick start failing economies and boost up production, China has spent the largest percentage (approximately 5%) and amount, on renewable energy and environmental protection as part of its stimulus measures. For in a time in 2008 where the economy dominated the global agenda, China had the foresight to implement environmentally responsible projects and initiatives. This money, while boosting growth and assisting the environment (though to questionable measures), is a positive sign that China is willing to put the environment ahead of its economy. Though from Obama's visit, it only appears that China will do so if the rest of the world (and mainly the US) also takes a proactive stance against climate change, and just doesn't blame the largest emitter and growing emitter, China.

Even from 2008, China has continued to take steps to reduce its emissions and be a more responsible global environmental citizen. Here are just a few of the steps China is taking to reduce its emission.

• Cutting of energy consumption per unit of GDP by 20% by 2010 -reduction linked with economic growth. China appears to just be making it.
• Increase renewable energy to 10% of China's energy production by 2010. 
• "Great Green Wall of China", a wall of 35 Billion trees to stop the encroaching desertification around Beijing 
• An agreement with India to work cooperatively about reducing carbon emissions
• Electrification of 64 000 stoves in homes, to stop dirty coal stoves with health and local environmental implications - however this can just hide the problem, as 70% of China's energy comes from coal fired power stations
• $150 million Sino-America clean energy research centre - however this appears to be more of a token gesture than a real step forward.  

However while China has been making steps towards protecting the climate, the effectiveness of these steps, combined with its continued growth of around 10% appears to be limited. Though with more international support and recognition that China may not just be the problem, but it is the solution, will be step that needs to be taken along with cooperation and engagement, especially from the US. So while the US has a responsibility to cut its per capita emissions (25 tonnes), China also has a responsibility to "grow green" and decrease its overall emissions (its per capita emissions stand at only 5.8 tonnes, despite China being the worlds largest polluter).

So while leadership, initiative, and promises may be called upon or made by other countries like Australia at Copenhagen, proactive action and engagement  from China, and between China and the US will be the worlds greatest hope of creating effective global action against climate change. Otherwise cue Handel's Dead March.

Links

China calls for 'serious soul searching' on climate - Times Online

Hope of  cleaner skies as Beijing Residents switch from coal to electricity - Times Online

Not-so-wonderful Copenhagen - The Economist