The Hidden Environmental Cost of Amazon Prime's Free, Fast Shipping (buzzfeednews.com) 199
Amazon's Prime Day shopping spree offers free, fast shipping -- but experts say there's a hidden environmental cost that doesn't show up on the checkout page. From a report: Expedited shipping means your packages may not be as consolidated as they could be, leading to more cars and trucks required to deliver them, and an increase in packaging waste, which researchers have found is adding more congestion to our cities, pollutants to our air, and cardboard to our landfills. Free and fast shipping has always been a Prime membership's marquee perk -- one that's drawn in over 100 million subscribers who pay $119 annually. A 2017 study by UPS found that nearly all (96%) US customers had made a purchase on a marketplace like Amazon or Walmart, and over half (55%) said free or discounted shipping was the primary reason.
[...] That convenience is encouraging people in the US to buy more, and to make more individual purchases rather than placing a single order for several items. "There are more sales in lower-price products online than there have been in stores," Marshal Cohen, chief industry advisor at the NPD Group, told BuzzFeed News. And all of those transactions are negatively impacting our planet, according to Miguel Jaller, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Davis: "People are consuming more. There's more demand created by the availability of these cheap products and cheap delivery options."
[...] That convenience is encouraging people in the US to buy more, and to make more individual purchases rather than placing a single order for several items. "There are more sales in lower-price products online than there have been in stores," Marshal Cohen, chief industry advisor at the NPD Group, told BuzzFeed News. And all of those transactions are negatively impacting our planet, according to Miguel Jaller, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Davis: "People are consuming more. There's more demand created by the availability of these cheap products and cheap delivery options."
Hidden? (Score:4, Insightful)
Small items cost more on Prime than they do at Walmart. The costs are right there for anybody who understands the Price Mechanism as an element of basic economics.
Oh, wait, it's *fucking Buzzfeed* on /. again. GDI.
Re: (Score:1)
Try actually reading an article for the first time you boob. The "hidden" cost they're talking about is NOT reflected in the price.
NOT hidden (Score:5, Insightful)
The "hidden" cost they're talking about is NOT reflected in the price.
Anyone who's ever read Friedrich Hayek's "The Use of Knowledge in Society [econlib.org]" should know: externalities apart, some way, somehow any extra environmental burden (read: resource usage) will be worked into the price. Trucks can't drive around extra miles at US$0 / mile cost. No matter how cheap the gas or how little they pay their drivers.
Maybe prices don't differentiate between environmentally efficient or wasteful options. Maybe there are some externalities that enable Amazon to ship goods cheaper than they should be. But gas still costs money. Electricity too. More trucking miles = more trucks needed, more driver time, and more maintenance to do on those trucks. And with Amazon being a for-profit company, those extra costs will have to be recouped somehow. Either in higher prices for products, or higher prices for premium services.
So grandparent is right. The only thing (possibly) hidden is how end-user pricing is calculated.
Re:NOT hidden (Score:4, Informative)
The "hidden" cost they're talking about is NOT reflected in the price.
Anyone who's ever read Friedrich Hayek's "The Use of Knowledge in Society [econlib.org]" should know: externalities apart, some way, somehow any extra environmental burden (read: resource usage) will be worked into the price...
To the GP's point, the article [buzzfeednews.com] is about environmental externalities.
Re: NOT hidden (Score:3)
Yes, but the environmental factors argued are more trucks and planes, more packaging, more fuel burned, etc.
Those aren't free for amazon or it's logistics team. They pay for them somewhere. Either in the prime subscription fee or in the profit of products. Those are included in the price, not free as the article insinuates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:NOT hidden (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is that fossil fuel use has externalities in CO2, NOx and particulates which cause climate change and damage health.
In spite of Hayek's hypothesis, this is not worked into the price. The cost of health and environmental damage is placed on all of society and never works its way back to the price you pay.
Re:NOT hidden (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, you either get in your car, drive to the shop, park it in the forest destroying car park, go to the store, wait for service, get service, chat for some time, but the product, carry it back to your car and drive your whole car (the delivery packaging) with one fucking package and one person, back home. That will never economically or environmentally compete with ordering online, package goes from warehouse, to delivery vehicle with many, many other packages and only makes a one way journey, a route with deliveries on route and the final delivery should return closer to the warehouse for efficiency. Delivery vans, based upon cyclic use et al and a flat floor, slow speed and constant acceleration and deceleration, plus a large flat roof, make for excellent electric vehicle design and that solar panel does count once it pays for itself, it still generates revenue, direct tax free revenue.
Direct deliveries from logistic centres is far more efficient ie from factory (no outgoing warehousing required), to logistic centre (for picking and packing), to the consumer. So you put retail workers out of work but the whole retail centre, the land used, the energy used, the building, also are not required, that land could be a park with trees (but of course less reality, the city itself does not need to grow as much to provide the infrastructure space for that retail space. The retail chain style simply can not economically nor environmentally compete with the logistic chain style. You just need more logistics companies to jump into retail and provide competition and shrink Amazon down to a manageable for the rest of society scale. Unkowledgeable women writing fantasy rubbish is utterly pointless. The kind of stupid stuff like "However, people arenâ(TM)t offsetting the traffic to shopping malls and grocery stores by buying online" is a stupid as fuck, so they buy that product online and go to the mall to what not buy that product, what the fuck are they doing in the mall if the already bought that product, probably buying something fucking else, or for a meal or the cinema. Nobody does both, it's fucking nuts, you do not buy online and they go to a mall to not buy the product, you do one or the other for that product.
Re:NOT hidden (Score:4, Interesting)
There are a few really easy things we could do to lessen the environmental impact of deliveries.
Deliver stuff to where people work. Most businesses get a lot of deliveries anyway, and are often located close to other businesses and delivery locations.
Deliver stuff to lockers at shopping centres or local shops. Incentivise with slightly lower costs. People can walk to the local shop or were going to the shopping centre anyway. That might also help keep shopping centres alive.
Re: (Score:3)
Not a bad idea at all, although in the US probably a lot of folks would assume that means their employer will start to monitor and/or censor their purchases. There's not a lot of trust in this country.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The shipping is happening regularly anyway, so it doesn't matter much on that basis if more people order more stuff from Amazon. But if more people make more separate orders, more packaging is produced. Much of this is cardboard, which hopefully is substantially post-consumer and which is readily recyclable. But a lot of it isn't, too. All of the packaging should be required to be both carbon-neutral (with offsets if necessary) and either trivially recyclable, or compostable.
Deliver stuff to lockers at shopping centres or local shops. Incentivise with slightly lower costs. People can walk to the local shop or were going to the shopping centre anyway. That might also help keep shopping centres alive.
Amazon doesn't want to help keep
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's hot. I go to the mall to walk a bit without dying of heat stroke. Usually don't buy anything there, look for cool stuff, price it online and leave. Last time I saw an obviously aged and worn wooden Millennium Falcon kit for $30. Naaaah, that's too much. Ordered it for $8 on my phone. Looks like I just went to the mall and didn't buy the thing.
Re: NOT hidden (Score:4, Insightful)
Children are of value. In moderation, as with anything.
I agree, but the GPP expressed anger (for lack of a better word) at anyone having children.
But this is reality, and we all know that shit is just going to hit the fan. There will be no moderation of 7+ billion people.
The only place experiencing population growth from children born in the country are nations in Africa and some parts of Asia. Europe and the American continents are seeing growth only due to immigration. You want to moderate that growth? You want to see humanity's impact on the environment reduced? I'd suggest restricting immigration.
When an immigrant from Africa comes to Europe or the American continents they then adopt the lifestyle of the area. In Africa they don't burn fuel for heat like those of us in colder climates. They cook with renewable fuels like wood and cattle dung. They walk or ride bicycles where they need to go, maybe ride beasts of burden in rural areas and take public transportation in the cities. They use natural light most of the time, and I understand that solar power and batteries are popular for lighting at night. Should they immigrate to America or somewhere in Europe then they heat their homes with natural gas, cook on electric stoves, move around with cars and motorcycles, and buy piles of cheap plastic trinkets like their neighbors.
I suggest we keep immigration to a minimum, for the sake of saving the planet.
Do you believe it cruel to restrict people from fleeing oppression and war? That assumes the only way for these people to end their suffering is to flee from it. Evil is not stopped by fleeing from it. These people flee seeking an education for their children, work, and freedom. They can have that in Africa. I am not opposed to bringing it to them. I saw an interesting talk, a TED Talk as I recall, on how bringing people electricity means children getting an education from their mothers because the mothers aren't washing clothes by hand, giving them time to read to their children, and they get light to read by. With education comes smaller families, that was a different TED Talk.
Bring Africa wind, solar, and nuclear power so they can have electricity, then we can see the population growth moderate itself. Make their lives better where they are so they don't have anything to flee.
Re: NOT hidden (Score:2)
Their problem isn't lack of electricity; it's lack of stable government combined with an excess of corruption. That's why so much of the aid we send them ends up wasted. You're probably not going to fix that without sending in troops, and nobody has any interest in doing that.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you think those people burning wood and cattle dung for heat will keep doing that indefinitely?
Of course their nations will develop. Immigration isn't going to make any significant difference. What matters is that we help developing nations avoid the mistakes we made with fossil fuels.
People feeling from wars have an acute problem that will either eventually be fixed or will rumble on for decades. We (the developed world) are often responsible for both starting those wars and for allowing them to continu
Re: (Score:2)
NOx and particulates are generated in much bigger amounts by nature than by current fleet of cars on the streets where I live. This does not stop lawmakers to produce silly laws but it does not change reality. It may change CO2 production due to diesel bans in big cities. Let us hope that next generation of donkey based transport will be more env. friendly. This said the summary is silly - any increase in business is causing increase in energy consumption and sometimes you cannot concentrate certain activit
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite sure what the point of your rant is... but I'll try to address some of your confusion.
NOx in cities mostly comes from diesel engines and causes significant disease.
Don't know why you want a donkey but if that's your choice, more power to you (although please be sure to clean up after your beast).
Electric cars are clean, quiet and becoming more affordable. Lots of new jobs for people to build these electric cars.
I am really disappointed in you bringing up the old racist cannard about too many peopl
Re:NOT hidden (Score:4, Interesting)
Trucks can't drive around extra miles at US$0 / mile cost. No matter how cheap the gas or how little they pay their drivers.
That's only relevant if you think the price of fuel or wages includes all environmental costs.
That model breaks down (Score:2)
Re: Hidden? (Score:3)
Not to mention, the UPS truck drives through my neighborhood everyday because someone orders something online. Unless a vast majority of us stop ordering things and actually free up delivery days in the week, I don't think any of us will change the oil consumption.
And they already optimize for the free delivery. Some stuff arrives the next day and the same thing next month takes two days. So clearly the delivery guys are already bundling packages... just that it is made of a neighborhood's purchase list rat
Best environmental solution: urbanism (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're going to walk or bike to the store every day? How many bags of groceries can you carry for a family? Do you have the time to shop every day or do you have help to bring those groceries back? I'm guessing you actually don't buy groceries for a family and you eat out, thus actually consuming more than you realize.
Better idea. You do what you want, and I do what I want. And we don't try to shame each other for our difference of opinion.
Or we can settle this another way - but the outcome is alway
Re: (Score:2)
Extra food is not âoehoardingâ (Score:4, Insightful)
Having extra food around is not âoehoardingâ, itâ(TM)s common sense as anyone who has had to ride out a bad storm could tell you...
Having some bulk food items (like a huge bag of rice) not only gives you a lot of margin for eating, it can also save you a ton of money (as long as you are careful not to buy anything youâ(TM)ll waste much of)
Re: (Score:2)
None of that precludes biking to get said food. I mean I used to think it did, but then I saw some guy taking a 3x4 KALLAX home from Ikea on the front of his bike and that was my wakeup call to never use my car in my own city again.
It did feel weird though that day when they had a special on toilet paper at the shops and I bought 72 rolls. We also went for a BBQ in the park around 7km away the other day. I had a Weber and a 15kg gas bottle on my bike, and my girlfriend had a giant esky with all the food and
Re: (Score:2)
That just would not work for me.
I often run to Costco once a week or every other week, I like to buy in bulk so I can save some $$, I have freezers and the means to store and use in bulk.
I'm trying to figure how you do anything larger than amounts to feed a squirrel or one person?
I mean, I have f
Re: (Score:1)
So you're going to walk or bike to the store every day? How many bags of groceries can you carry for a family? Do you have the time to shop every day or do you have help to bring those groceries back?
a) If I really want, I can carry over a month's worth of groceries (for myself) on my bicycle. In a single haul. Reason I don't, mostly concerns perishable stuff like vegetables or dairy (although some of that easily keeps for weeks in a fridge). Or being selective about what to buy where, when, and how much to pack on my bicycle each run.
If you can't, buy something better than a $5 bicycle or -bags next time. No superhuman powers needed.
b) Does this even matter when a shop is around the corner or just
Re: (Score:3)
The biggest problem to urbanization is crime, noise and price.
Noise is the biggest issue. If you are having a migraine having some idiot kid skateboarding outside you house. Or some idiot with a car with a muffler that makes the car louder going up and down the blocks. If you confront the person then they get a dry with you and probably retaliate.
Now if I am in bad standings with my neighbors the last thing I want to do is bike or walk anywhere.
Not all urban areas are equal. If you going to live in a goo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then you are not urban enough for the environmentalist.
Re:Best environmental solution: urbanism (Score:4, Insightful)
many people outside the US live that way, and it works well.
Then why do so many of them come here? Why do they protest so much if denied entry at the border? Why do people risk their lives, and the lives of their children, to cross deserts, rivers, and seas, in hopes to put their feet on American soil?
My guess is that it doesn't work so well for them.
Re:Best environmental solution: urbanism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't hear about people who are relatively happy in Europe or richer Asian countries and aren't clamoring to go to the US.
You can't hear them over the clamor of the millions pounding at our gates.
Re: (Score:3)
Then why do so many of them come here? Why do they protest so much if denied entry at the border? Why do people risk their lives, and the lives of their children, to cross deserts, rivers, and seas, in hopes to put their feet on American soil?
Well, because we are eeeeevil, of course! Don't you imbibe pop culture and know that?
Of course millions would want to come here because we are so racist and evil.
Party of science!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. I border on a Freegan -- most of my "stuff" except for food is either second-hand or street finds.
Which requires that someone else: A) Purchases those things new and B) Purchases something newer and/or better to replace those things If everyone adopted your way of life, it would collapse in upon itself within a decade or less (completely ignoring the economic impact resulting from the lack of purchasing new products).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Best environmental solution: urbanism (Score:4, Funny)
You're right. And the hundreds of years of economic actions that allowed for the creation of the computer you are using to post on the internet to this website... are wrong and should be abolished..
Got it..
If you're looking to escape the "wrecking [of] this planet", might I suggest the northwoods of Minnesota or Wisconsin, or the foothills of Montana or the Dakotas. You'll need to learn how to subsistence farm--though in MN & WI you can get quite a bit by "gathering". And you'll need to learn how to hunt (I guess with a bow, since guns are part of that abstract thing that is "wrecking this planet"--and you wouldn't want to participate in that) and, of course skin and butcher your meat. I'd suggest canning the veggies you get, but that would require purchasing mason jars and canning lids (to avoid botulism--and the resulting painful death), and freezing things would require purchasing "planet-wrecking" freezer. So you'll have to dry everything. Hopefully it's sunny wherever you choose to live..
And... I'm sorry to say that things will get rather bleak as you get older. When your eyesight goes and the arthritis sets in, it's going to be a pain in the ass to walk to the outhouse (plumbing is a major part of the economy, therefore bad...right?)..
TL;DR:.
Grow up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not an either/or choice -- you seem to be framing it as one.
No, you do. I'm mocking that.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really viable. There are too many people for the current population to survive in the manner described. Fortunately the increase in mortality will solve a lot of that within a year or two
(Except maybe for the Mormons, I'm pretty sure LDS means Lethal Dug-in Survivalists)
Re:Best environmental solution: urbanism (Score:4, Insightful)
NO, the best solution is to quit consuming stuff you don't fucking need.
Stuff like... computers, internet access, and electricity?
Re: (Score:2)
No, stuff like plastic bottles of soda pop and "trinkets".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
News just in (Score:2)
Ordering more stuff online, spread out over even more separate deliveries causes more resources to be used to ship the extra stuff you're ordering more often.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. If you drive 10 miles each way to pick up an item in a store, it is likely a wash as long as the delivery driver is going less than a mile out of their way for your delivery.
The extra packaging is a real issue and needs to be addressed, but delivery (beyond PrimeAir) isn’t the problem.
Re: News just in (Score:2)
I've got the worst of both worlds; the postal service won't deliver parcels to my house so I have to drive 10 miles to pick up the thing I ordered online.
I've tried to get Amazon to use only FedEx/UPS/etc but apparently there's no option to completely block a carrier, so even after multiple emails to their CSRs the best that they could do was promise to "deprioritize" the standard mail system "if possible".
Ya, but ... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure what this guy is whinging about. From About Shipping Preferences [amazon.com]: (emphasis mine)
Every time you place an order via the Shopping Cart that contains more than one delivery date, you can choose for your order to be shipped in the fewest possible packages or for your order to be shipped as soon as each item it becomes available.
You can change your shipping preferences in Your Account at any time after placing your order as long as the order hasn’t entered the shipping process yet.
Prime Customers
FREE Delivery in fewest possible packages
This is a free shipping option for Prime members purchasing Prime eligible items that are in stock. Your Prime orders will be consolidated into the fewest number of packages possible and may take longer to ship depending on product availability.
I want my items faster. Ship each item as soon as it becomes available
This is also a free shipping option for Prime members purchasing Prime eligible items that are in stock. Your Prime items ship as they become available. You should choose this option if you want to receive each item as fast as possible.
There are similar options for non-Prime customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think most Prime customers will click that option, or even know that it exists?
Well... I do and now several /. readers, including you, do. Admittedly, I don't know if combining items and orders is the default, but wouldn't be surprised if it was, or determined automatically on an order-by-order basis. All my shipments from Amazon seem to be packaged efficiently - and I've sometimes (once last week) even gotten some earlier than expected combined into another shipment (obviously, the order window between the two orders was pretty small for that to happen).
Also, from About Combined [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I do. In addition, I often select standard shipping when I don't care about arrival time. Prime has caused me to buy more through Amazon, but has also drastically reduced my driving. Often in the past, even when combining trips, I would drive quite a few extra miles to get supplies I now purchase from Amazon. I don't know which is better for the environment, but it feels more efficient to have the post office deliver a few things than me driving 15 minutes extra to pick it up elsewhere. It definitely saves
Re: (Score:3)
This is basically me. My time is valuable to me. Would rather pay the 5% premium and get it delivered. In urban areas where i have to pay to park, it's not worth going shopping. A trip to trader Joe's can easily take 2 hours between finding parking, getting checked out and then leaving the garage. For basic staples. If I have activities planned that day, i have to really carefully schedule my trips to the store so that it does not overlap with other activities. Does not help that minimum wage in my turn is
Re: Ya, but ... (Score:2)
This was the default option on my account already.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ya, but ... (Score:4, Informative)
We do (Score:2)
We use it all the time. I'd much rather get one box then several spread out over multiple days. I don't care if it delays things a few days. The only exception is when I need something immediately and I can't get it from a local store.
Re: (Score:1)
Be not troubled (Score:2, Troll)
If you're not a religious environmentalist, your Amazon packages aren't a sin.
Re: (Score:1)
FTFY.
Not quite accurate (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a classic misunderstanding of opportunity cost [wikipedia.org]. Comparing the scenarios as if the alternative is for the packages to materialize in your house via a Star Trek-style transporter and zero pollution.
If Amazon weren't shipping the items to you, you would probably drive to a local store to buy it. Multiple stores if you're buying a variety of things. In the vast majority of cases, that will burn more fuel and cause more pollution than delivery via UPS. The average UPS driver makes about 120 deliveries a day [wired.com], driving about 150 miles [browncafe.com]. So total vehicle-miles per package is only about 1.25 miles. (The longer cross-state transport would've happened anyway delivering the item you bought to your local store.)
The excess packaging part I agree with. I peeves me that when Amazon is running promotions like their "$1 digital credit for slower shipping", it's per order rather than per item, or per $x spent. It encourages me to save my items for later, and purchase them one at a time, rather than put them all in one order which can be shipped in a single box. To their credit, I've found that if I place multiple orders in rapid succession, they're smart enough to consolidate all of them into a single shipment.
One other factor in Amazon's favor. (Score:2)
Don't forget on top of that Amazon has a number of products that ship in low-waste packaging, whereas if I bought from Target or Walmart I'd be buying a package with quite a lot more plastic aimed at theft and tampering prevention.
I think that balances out the extra boxes you may get from time to time (which are not as bad for landfills as other things).
Driving to Fry's is worse. Best: Walmart pick up (Score:2)
Indeed, it is all around worse for me to drive to Fry's. It's worse environmentally for everyone to drive to Fry's rather than have a single truck carry all the items to their neighborhood. It's worse in terms of spending my time and money driving to Fry's and hoping it's in stock.
Lowest cost, both environmental cost and dollar cost, may be ordering at Walmart.com and picking up at the local Walmart store while I'm already there getting groceries. The delivery trucks are already driving to Walmart. So the e
Re:Not quite accurate (Score:4, Interesting)
The article also makes the dubious implication that we are continuing to go to the store in the same numbers while the number of delivery vans have doubled. I think the reason that this FUD is published is precisely because we are making fewer trips to the store. I know in my area the number of malls have decreased, the strip malls have become much more specialized and directed, such as coffee and head shops, I question if substituting professional drivers for amateurs just going to get a jug of milk is a bad thing.
Another magical statement is that people just order any tiny quantity and put it in a box. While Amazon prime allows you to order anything, prime now and free same day delivery require a minimum order. In terms of Amazon putting delivery vehicles on the road, this is the primary reason. In my case at least normal delivers are still non-amazon services. These trucks would be on the road no matter what, and obviously it is more efficient for the trucks to be full and making a full run of deliveries to a localize area that to be driving all over town make a few deliveries.
What we are seeing here is the simple economics of scale. It is why Walmart can sell stuff cheap. Put all the stuff in a big box and have customers waste gas and build up congestion by driving 10 miles to the nearest store. Amazon simply takes this to the next level. Put everything in a even bigger box, where you don't have to waste volume and associated climate control costs to deal with customers, save money and hidden costs of using plastic bags by packing things in nice recyclable boxes that do no kill the marine life, and more efficiently use the existing infrastructure to get things to the people.
It is like Sears. Sure they killed the general store, sure they destroyed the environment by publishing books that most people did not read, encouraging the polluting trains to increase their travel, and introduced heavy metals into the environment when the catalogs were disposed, but I don't think any of us want to go back to only buying what the guy on the corner thinks we deserve.
I fully expect the next article to be on the evils of computers. They waste electricity and resources as most people only use them for email and looking stuff up. If people would only buy a set of encyclopedias, a few magazine subscriptions, and send real letters through the post office,we would see a US that completely energy independent and roads that have no significant traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
+1. There are tons of hidden environmental costs of normal store fronts as well. Consumers drive there and back, at a cost of $0.50 a mile or so (often ignored by people who go store to store to save a few bucks). Consumers also demand razzle dazzle up to date interiors with poorly insulated glass fronts held at 72F, so lots of frequent renovations for aesthetic reasons and large cooling bills to allow you to drive your SUV from the suburbs to pick up your nick nacks.
Amazon can easily heavily insulate th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Amazon weren't shipping the items to you, you would probably drive to a local store to buy it. Multiple stores if you're buying a variety of things. In the vast majority of cases, that will burn more fuel and cause more pollution than delivery via UPS.
Now stop right there. Logic and reason are just tools of oppression, ya know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not quite accurate (Score:2)
The excess packaging part I agree with.
It's cardboard, which isn't a big issue. In many places you can recycle it (which is of dubious value, but that's a different topic) and even if it ends up in a landfill, it's biodegradable. Trees are a renewable resource, so no resource depletion. There's a non-zero energy cost to cutting down the trees and producing the cardboard, but it's pretty small in the grand scheme of things.
Plastic packaging is a different issue. It would be nice if Amazon could get manufacturers to switch to simple cardboard
Amazon Locker (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Good points on the lockers— Amazon really needs to keep improving on the packaging situation.
At least they are better than Jet.
The hidden costs of driving to Wal Mart (Score:4, Insightful)
Face it, we're connected as hell. Everyfuckingthing we do has hidden costs. Get over with it, it's called modern living.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Get over with it, it's called modern living.
No. Get it down, it's called surviving. Just because everything has externalities doesn't mean we shouldn't study them and explore how to minimise the negative impact of those externalities.
Re: (Score:2)
And the way I look at it is: 95%+ of the voters decided that we should subsidize the roads and the living expenses of low-income workers, and the voters also all agree that we don't want to charge people for dumping stuff into the atmosphere.
That's all a given. Now, from th
You can't compare systems like this (Score:3)
I have no idea how the Amazon system compares to the Walmart system environmentally and taking one element of the system and making a comparison does not help to rectify that. In fact, this was cherry-picked in a big way. What about some of the other factors?
What's the environmental costs of everyone individually driving to Walmart to pick up goods as opposed to trucks delivering to many people in one pass through a route?
The brick and mortar system has a lot more, well, brick and mortar that has a remarkably short lifetime and takes up much space. Amazon has about 150 fulfillment centers to Walmart's 175 or so distribution centers and 4000+ stores over 3000 of which are in the 140,000 sq ft size range. Walmarts buildings plus parking lots cover over 90 square miles. All of those buildings and parking lots have an environmental cost.
It also appears to be less employee efficient even counting delivery personnel. The total of all Amazon and all UPS employees is less than half of Walmart's while sales have surpassed the halfway point. The environmental cost of the lives of the employees involved should be counted in a full accounting of the cost of an industry. An industry is nothing without employees.
I do not believe that brick and mortar, in general, will ever measure up to delivery if you really dig into the full system environmental costs.
consider public safety (Score:2)
You don't know my sister! Loves to shop, loves it. Groceries at least twice a week. A trip to the mall twice a week. Costco three times a month. Then there are the specialty shops and the book store.
Fine, but she's a terrible driver. Terrible, and she puts a LOT of miles on that tired old Honda. Her mind seems to wander, just as her lane wanders as she passes from one stop light to another. I gotta tell you it's a frightening thing to watch.
Her friends and I are trying to wean her from the car as a matter o
Re:consider public safety (Score:4, Funny)
Careful... she might become an Amazon driver...
I buy odds and ends on Amazon (Score:4, Insightful)
Brick & Mortar Stores did several things that have pushed me away. First, they used computers to figure out exactly what sells and only stock that. Meaning if I want something that folks don't buy every single day I've got to go online, and if I'm going online I might as well skip the trip. Second, they took the "milk at the back of the store" philosophy to crazy heights and put everything I buy routinely at the maximum distance from each other, making shopping an all around miserable experience. Oh, and they massively understaff their stores to save money on wages (while cutting pay and benefits) meaning everybody at any store I shop at is just as miserable as I am.
Is it any wonder I avoid shopping in stores as much as possible?
Re: (Score:2)
Be careful. Many stores have separate SKUs for those "up front" connivence items and they cost more. Or they push the stuff that expires sooner.
For whatever reason Walmart does the opposite (Score:2)
Envision local depots (Score:2)
Why not beef up the Amazon Locker program, in which Amazon delivers to lockers placed in a local store. If Amazon were to buy out a chain of gas station convenience stores, which it could do or couch cushion change, each location could be both an Amazon pickup point and a place to get the sort of last-minute essentials that such stores normally carry. This would be an especially good deal for the young working people who are usually not home when the UPS man comes.
I hate the term, "Free Shipping" (Score:2)
A correct statement would be, "Shipping cost included in purchase price." I believe this statement, or something that says the same thing, should be required by law for mail order vendors not including a shipping cost in the invoice.
Wtf? (Score:2)
If a truck delivers to ten houses, that's better than ten people traveling to the store.
Fucking morons.
More eco-friendly B.S., all in all.... (Score:2)
I hate these types of "studies", because it's inevitably just someone trying to think up another reason the environment is getting destroyed, without looking at the bigger picture.
Whether you use "expedited shipping" or not, the shipper gets paid their negotiated rate to deliver that box. Part of the way the shipper makes it cost effective is by ensuring the delivery truck is as full as possible. There are enough packages going around so they're going to accomplish that consistently, regardless of if your p
Depends on Who Delivers (Score:2)
99% of the time, my packages are delivered via USPS... which makes a trip to my house 6 days a week already. The only time an extra vehicle is involved is when it is Sunday.
And as someone else pointed out, the volume effect works in the environment's favor like mass transit. They're not going to send out 1 vehicle for each package. There will be much, much more. So which is more environmentally friendly? The USPS dispatching 4 vans to deliver 25 packages each (total 100) or have 100 people drive individuall
Probably less than estimated... (Score:2)
In theory, yes, there could be a higher environmental cost to making small deliveries. But then the delivery driver's route will depend on what else they are delivering. Marginally, there is only a small environmental cost of going from one stop to the next. Regardless of whether you've bought anything or not, there is likely to be a delivery van in your neighbourhood on any given day.
And even that cost can be reduced by the delivery firm investing in lower emission vehicles.
Compare that to the emissions an
Fuck prime (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The NG that comes into your house is barely above atmospheric pressure.
Then tap off the NG for the cars before the regulator, the street service line is likely 200 PSI.
The NG tank for a vehicle is above 2000 psi.
A quick Google search tells me it's more like 3000 PSI.
You have to compress that which takes a very specialized compressor.which is VERY inefficient and power hungry.
Then build filling stations that can take advantage of economies of scale, and can tap off a feeder line that runs as high as 1500 PSI. The choices people have now for cars in the USA are limited to gasoline and electric. People aren't buying electric because they don't like the idea of having to take hours for a recharge, they don't have quick charge stat
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon is actually pushing their AMZL service to do just that. They've talked about letting other companies us it. Eventually, it could be general-purpose delivery service. Only problem is they totally suck at actually delivering stuff, so that's maybe more of a distant goal.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Modded twice for troll! LOL.
I've been investing for years and read many blogs that are the precursors to these articles. They are almost always written by or based on information pushed forward by shorts.
I have traced the activities of the shorts in social media and found them manipulating through general social media in addition to their activities on the investment boards. I've done well very well the last couple of years by spotting their campaigns in social media, waiting for the stock hit to mater