Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth The Almighty Buck

Jeff Bezos Commits $10 Billion To Fight Climate Change (geekwire.com) 132

Posted by msmash from the doing-his-part dept.
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos says he's launching a $10 billion Bezos Earth Fund that will issue grants aimed at addressing climate change -- a move that comes less than a month after hundreds of Amazon employees criticized what they saw as the company's weak commitment to tackling the issue. From a report: Bezos, who's the world's richest individual with a net worth estimated at nearly $130 billion, unveiled his philanthropic initiative in an Instagram post. "Climate change is the biggest threat to our planet," he wrote. "I want to work alongside others both to amplify known ways and to explore new ways of fighting the devastating impact of climate change on this planet we all share."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jeff Bezos Commits $10 Billion To Fight Climate Change More

Jeff Bezos Commits $10 Billion To Fight Climate Change

Comments Filter:

  • I wonder if it'll be action or propaganda? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Monday February 17, 2020 @02:34PM (#59736774) Journal

    I wonder if any of that $10 billion will go to actually DOING something, or if it'll all be spent spent on tell you that YOU have to do something.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by DogDude ( 805747 )
      Well, YOU do have to do something. Amazon can't tell you to do anything. That's why we have governments. We need governments to force YOU to do things, not Amazon.
      • "I don't -have- to do anything except die." --Rosa Parks

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DogDude ( 805747 )
          No, you don't. But you'll end up in prison if you do/don't do certain things.

        • "I don't -have- to do anything except die." --Rosa Parks

          Rosa Parks didn't say that.

        • This is absolutely correct. You have to deal with the consequences of what you do and don't do, though.

      • Amazon can make a HUGE impact if it spent half a day trying to optimize its packaging of orders. Have you seen any of the "frustration free" amazon items? One item I order is a commercial package, wrapped in 20 square feet of kraft paper, taped into a box that is 10x the volume of the original mfg packaging. Or do /anything/ instead of bubble mailers. They're impossible to recycle.

      • 70% of CO2 is from 100 companies (Score:5, Insightful)

        by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Monday February 17, 2020 @04:11PM (#59737278) Journal

        > YOU do have to do something. Amazon can't tell you to do anything. We need governments to force YOU to do things

        70% of global CO2 emissions are from 100 large companies, according to research by the Climate Accountability Institute.
        So I ask again, as one of the largest companies in the world, is Amazon going to DO anything about their 70% or are they going to lobby politicians to force you to do things about your 30%?

        If it's about solving the problem, Amazon would be focused on the billion gigawatts of power their data centers use every day. If it's about control they'll throw some money at AOC to pass a law saying you have to buy 10watt bulbs to replace your 12 watt bulbs (10 watt now available for sale at Amazon.com).

        If it's about solving the problem, Amazon would be focused on the millions of miles (and gallons of gas) their deliveries use. If it's about control they'll throw some money at AOC to pass a law saying about you driving to Walmart instead of getting your items delivered by Amazon.

        • If it's about solving the problem, Amazon would be focused on the millions of miles (and gallons of gas) their deliveries use. If it's about control they'll throw some money at AOC to pass a law saying about you driving to Walmart instead of getting your items delivered by Amazon.

          Having Amazon (or UPS, or Fedex, or whoever) driving their van around all day delivering parcels to 100 people is way better for the environment than those 100 people all driving to Walmart.

          • Re:70% of CO2 is from 100 companies (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Monday February 17, 2020 @04:57PM (#59737478)

            Having Amazon (or UPS, or Fedex, or whoever) driving their van around all day delivering parcels to 100 people is way better for the environment than those 100 people all driving to Walmart.

            Not if people used to drive to Walmart, put 100 things they needed for the next couple weeks into their shopping cart, and bought them all at once. But now they just order each thing whenever they need it from Amazon, and they all get delivered one at a time.

            Also, a lot of those personal shopping trips were free or cheaper in terms of environmental cost than a dedicated trip. "Honey, can you drop by the store and pick up a xyz on your way home from work?" If the store was exactly on the route you'd be driving anyway, then stopping at the store is essentially free.

            This isn't to say delivery is definitively worse. Just that it's not definitively better. We still have a long way to go towards optimizing transportation of merchandise from the store to the end user. The factory to the store stage seems to have been pretty well optimized (so optimized that we can transport stuff halfway around the world for pennies per kg). But the store to home stage is still on the order of $1 per kg.

            • No question the distribution networks are about as well optimized as possible already (thanks to computerized logistics and container shipping). That last mile is the only place to find additional efficiencies. I'm speaking only for myself when I say it saves me lots of store trips, but it absolutely does.

              Also, a lot of those personal shopping trips were free or cheaper in terms of environmental cost than a dedicated trip. "Honey, can you drop by the store and pick up a xyz on your way home from work?" If the store was exactly on the route you'd be driving anyway, then stopping at the store is essentially free.

              Fair enough, but the same is true with parcel services. They are out driving anyway too. I can't see any way in which they are worse than even stopping by the store on the way home, at best it is a was

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          70% of global CO2 emissions are from 100 large companies, according to research by the Climate Accountability Institute.
          So I ask again, as one of the largest companies in the world, is Amazon going to DO anything about their 70% or are they going to lobby politicians to force you to do things about your 30%?

          Why do you need to ask? Amazon already answered this question about 5 months ago [aboutamazon.com], and has been working towards these commitments since.

          If it's about solving the problem, Amazon would be focused on the billion gigawatts of power their data centers use every day.

          You mean like:
          * Achieving 50% renewable energy for AWS data-centres in 2018 [amazon.com]
          * Taking a goal to reach 80% across the entire business by 2024, and 100% by 2030 [aboutamazon.com]
          * Being 3.6 times more energy-efficient than typical enterprise IT operations [aboutamazon.com]

          If it's about solving the problem, Amazon would be focused on the millions of miles (and gallons of gas) their deliveries use.

          You mean like ordering 100 000 eletric delivery trucks [aboutamazon.com] (which would complement the investments in renewable electricity generation)?

          • That's a pretty good reply to my question. Thanks. Too bad you're AC, so you'll probably never see this.

          • I guess I'm supposed to be impressed with those goals, but I'd be more impressed if Amazon was literally powering 50% of AWS datacenters with direct renewable energy instead of just buying renewable capacity on paper.

            Why does it seem like in 10 years all the major corporations are going to claim to be using 100% renewable energy while chiding the rest of us for not using it, when what's actually going on is that they're just buying renewable capacity on paper and their data centers or other operations would

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Layzej ( 1976930 )

          70% of global CO2 emissions are from 100 large companies, according to research by the Climate Accountability Institute.

          That CAI stat is more than a little misleading. Their top 100 are all energy companies. They extract and sell fossil fuels, but they don't actually consume them. We do.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Joce640k ( 829181 )

      I wonder if any of that $10 billion will go to actually DOING something, or if it'll all be spent spent on tell you that YOU have to do something.

      YOU (we) are the problem, after all. The people are the ones creating a new plastic bottle for every glass of water they drink, a plastic wrapper for every piece of food they consume, refusing to eat vegetables instead of meat, driving cars that are much bigger and have far more power than they really need just because it feels nice, etc.

      • Re:I wonder if it'll be action or propaganda? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Monday February 17, 2020 @03:21PM (#59737046) Journal
        Sure, we are the problem. But let's not confuse the climate issue with nature or environmental issues (or, as is rather popular today, economic disparity issues). They are interrelated, but climate change is the urgent one. Reducing plastic waste will only have a very limited impact on climate change. Eating less meat will help, but driving a smaller car isn't going to cut it. Flying? Don't care, if all of us stop flying tomorrow, we'll reduce greenhouse emissions by a mere 3%, so should we really be focusing on that?

        The point is: spend money and effort on stuff that actually makes a big difference. Avoid stuff that has little impact but has a noticable effect on people's lives: environmentalists love those because it feels like you are making a sacrifice for the greater good, but it just pisses off regular people. Add enough such measures, and you'll start losing people to the cause for just a small net reduction in emissions. Same for being too preachy or accusatory about it, the usual response to "how dare you" is not "sorry, I'll try to do better" but "bugger off".

        So how would you spend that $10B? Campaigns on reducing plastic waste or eating less meat? Or on research into viable alternatives? Would you sponsor research into alternative energy sources (or cheaper nuclear power if you really want to reduce CO2 emissions), offer subsidies to deploy such technology while they are not quite economically viable, or maybe start a program to plant a billion trees. At this stage it makes far more sense (and far more impact) to sponsor actual programmes rather than just run more propaganda. Because we have awareness coming out of our ears... it's not like you're suddenly going to convince any more naysayers.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by yusing ( 216625 )

          > Reducing plastic waste will only have a very limited impact on climate change.

          I know what you mean. Apart from environment, this thought. The millions of tons of single-use plastic ... bottles, bags, straws, wrapping, cups and on ... there's so much of that.

          Consider the energy needed for single-use plastics ... to transport ingredients, manufacture, distribute, and dispose of them. To the extent that any/all of those processes are fossil-based, single-use is a BIG CO2 source.

      • I paid the gas guzzler tax. I pay extra at the pump, too. I'm already paying a ton extra for that car -you- say I don't need. What's the problem? You think I'm not paying -enough extra-? Then write your legislators and tell them to raise my gas guzzler and gasoline taxes. A huge chunk of the price at the pump is already taxes. A highly regressive tax that hurts the poor most. Now apply that concept to the rest of your tax plans and consider who gets most hurt by all this. I'll still drive my car ev

    • Most of our biggest climate problems are in aggregate. There are only so many "big" wins you can get without moving closer to the individual responsibility level.

    • ...or if it'll all be spent spent on tell you that YOU have to do something.

      There will be lots of that.

    • If Bezos is serious, his private plane will be the first thing to go. Otherwise, it's just stuff I'm supposed to do so he can keep jetting around without inconveniencing himself.

    • I wonder if any of that $10 billion will go to actually DOING something, or if it'll all be spent spent on tell you that YOU have to do something.

      In particular, will it be spent doing what climate activists want money spent on, or will it go to actual fixes for the carbon problem?

    • Propaganda obviously.

      The environmental disaster of millions of truck rides through suburbia is beyond imagination. Amazon and Bezos are one of the worst things that ever happened for the environment. I don't see him drastically redesigning his business to help the evironment.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Exactly. The masses are supposed to eat bugs and feel guilty about the carbon footprint of watching netflix while the elite make their fortunes pumping billions of tons of garbage and pollution out.

          And they sure don't care how much pollution their private jets use or feel guilty about the environmental impact of meet. But you better not use a stir stick in your coffee.

          Wonderful world we've got here.
      • This.
        The best thing Bezos can do for climate change would be to buy UPS,
        then replace all their ICE delivery trucks with electric ones.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • > ordered 100,000 electric delivery vehicles, the largest-ever order of electric delivery vehicles, from Rivian, a producer of emissions-free electric vehicles with a vehicle development center in Plymouth, just outside Detroit."

        There is a US electric vehicle company who can fulfill an order for 100,000 vehicles? That can't be, I've never seen Rivian standing center ring with the lion tamer on their left and the clown car on their right.

    • If he has even half a brain, he'll sink all that money into research, both of the problem(s) and the solution(s), and ZERO into any sort of 'propaganda', as you put it. Arguing about climate change is about as productive as arguing about abortion rights or whether homosexuality is 'nature' or 'nurture', which is to say 'counterproductive and a waste of time'.
  • But if I were him I'd probably use that $10 billion to start my own company that would focus on nothing but building scalable CO2 scrubbers and sell them to the United Nations.
  • Don't see one. It just vaguely says "From a report"...

    • Don't see one. It just vaguely says "From a report"...

      From his Instagram account [instagram.com]:

      jeffbezos Today, I’m thrilled to announce I am launching the Bezos Earth Fund.

      Climate change is the biggest threat to our planet. I want to work alongside others both to amplify known ways and to explore new ways of fighting the devastating impact of climate change on this planet we all share. This global initiative will fund scientists, activists, NGOs — any effort that offers a real possibility to help preserve an

  • Orthogonal to Amazon's Business Model. (Score:3)

    by 0100010001010011 ( 652467 ) on Monday February 17, 2020 @02:35PM (#59736782)

    If Amazon stopped selling a bunch of cheap, cloned/knockoff Chinese stuff what would they sell?

    • In 5 years this will be a trick question, as Amazon looks to me like they are trying to pivot into a fulfillment company. They want to be the middleman without those pesky retail obligations, leave that to the mostly anonymous third party sellers.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        In 5 years this will be a trick question, as Amazon looks to me like they are trying to pivot into a fulfillment company. They want to be the middleman without those pesky retail obligations, leave that to the mostly anonymous third party sellers that they in turn help obfuscate and avoid further legal issues.

        FTFY

    • Drone delivered carbon offsets!

  • The best thing he can do for the environment (Score:3)

    by melted ( 227442 ) on Monday February 17, 2020 @02:40PM (#59736808) Homepage

    The best thing he can do for the environment is shut down Amazon. But that's probably not in the cards no matter the severity of the "climate catastrophe" we're supposedly "approaching".

    • That's right. It is never the consumers fault for wanting and using a business model. It is always the business's fault for giving the consumer what they wanted. How about we close all mines, stop all manufacturing period. Decommission all power plants and move back into caves. Will that make you happy?

      • Re:The best thing he can do for the environment (Score:4, Informative)

        by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Monday February 17, 2020 @02:57PM (#59736884)
        People want lots of things that are bad for others around them, yes. Many business models are illegal, and should be. In this case, Amazon's business model is based off of externalities that they don't have to pay for.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by DamnOregonian ( 963763 )

          Amazon's business model is based off of externalities that they don't have to pay for.

          Very few aren't.
          That's the Great Capitalist Lie.

      • The free market drives availability when regulation is absent. Only the cheapest options are even available because companies will be competing on price regardless. There is certainly middle ground, by helping incentivize choices that should be on the market.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by melted ( 227442 )

        That's what environmentalists are suggesting, de facto. We stop all agriculture and manufacturing and let a few billion people die off. That oughtta do it.

        I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of spending 10% of one's wealth over the course of several decades while pretending that unbridled consumerism Amazon enables is somehow OK. Virtue signaling at its best.

      • How about we close all mines, stop all manufacturing period. Decommission all power plants and move back into caves. Will that make you happy?

        That is what would make climate activists happy. Instead, let's actually solve the problem.

    • Perhaps if people would stop buying from Amazon it would shut down. But it's easier to blame the guy for his successful business than it is to change your ways, right?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by melted ( 227442 )

        The only thing I'm "blaming" him for is profound hypocrisy. It's sort of like what they all do: fly private to climate conferences, live in 15 bedroom mansions, go to the Oscars in their Suburbans, etc. All while lecturing the rest of us that we need to eat less meat and take a bus. Yeah bitch, I'll take a bus right after you start taking it.

        • His hypocrisy is profound, no doubt about it.
          However, the problem affects us all, and in the end, the people with his money are going to weather the consequences much easier than the people with our money.
          Don't confuse hypocrisy with being wrong. That's a logical fallacy.

    • The best thing he can do for the environment is shut down Amazon. But that's probably not in the cards no matter the severity of the "climate catastrophe" we're supposedly "approaching".

      Yeah, right. Millions of km more driving and gasoline wasted on individual trips to stores to buy products that now are ordered online, warehoused centrally, and delivered by what are basically buses operating in reverse.

    • The best thing he can do for the environment is shut down Amazon

      That's a sure thing, and that's probably why he commits 10b.

  • This is a case for government coordination. A bunch of individual companies are not going to be able to coordinate and make the systematic changes that we need to keep things in line. We need new laws that prescribe what people can and cannot do. If company A decides to reduce CO2 output by doing XYZ and charging their customers $0.05 more, without laws on the books, a competitor will just come behind them and undercut them by that $0.05 because some (most?) people just don't care enough. Voluntary poll

    • A bunch of individual companies are not going to be able to coordinate and make the systematic changes

      And if they did, someone else would spring up to undercut them. And if they do all agree to something more expensive, someone else will try to accuse them of price fixing.

      This is part of the reason why tech companies are actually ASKING for regulations. They can't do it without undermining their own competitiveness.

    • Sigh... and it used to be a joke to say, "there aughta be a law!"
  • Ironic that the massive, energy-sucking cloud infrastructure he built and "get it in three days in an oversized box made of felled trees instead of patiently waiting until you go to the store" service he offers conflicts with (as well as enables) his donation.

    And unless he's going to start sterilizing people, I don't see "money" doing anything but kicking the can down the road a little bit.

    • Ironic that the massive, energy-sucking cloud infrastructure he built and "get it in three days in an oversized box made of felled trees instead of patiently waiting until you go to the store" service he offers conflicts with (as well as enables) his donation.

      And unless he's going to start sterilizing people, I don't see "money" doing anything but kicking the can down the road a little bit.

      If you're going down that road, hemorrhagic coronavirus seems like a much better investment than some snipping. /s

      • If you're going down that road, hemorrhagic coronavirus seems like a much better investment than some snipping. /s

        I guess the real question is, how difficult is it to dispense this from the air? What's it's mortality rate? How long can it survive once dispersed?

        Once we have those answers, then we can debate if it's a good option or not.

      • Ironic that the massive, energy-sucking cloud infrastructure he built and "get it in three days in an oversized box made of felled trees instead of patiently waiting until you go to the store" service he offers conflicts with (as well as enables) his donation.

        While I don't disagree with your point, it's also true that now at least some of the money will be going towards partially ameliorating the problem rather than just further padding the absurdly-stuff pockets of Jeff and his ex-wife. And it's not as if the items at that old-fashioned store didn't also come in cardboard, stacked on a wooden pallet, wrapped in heavy duty plastic wrap and transported by truck, train, and plane - they have their own not-insignificant climate impacts.

        Unless/Until there's a fundam

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by irving47 ( 73147 )

      FFS quit whining about trees. They're fucking renewable. Anyone cutting down trees in the US and most other first-world countries for commercial purposes are replacing them as they're cut down. Often, in a ratio higher than 1:1.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AK Marc ( 707885 )

        FFS quit whining about trees. They're fucking renewable.

        England used to be a forest. almost 100% trees. Count them now. They didn't grow back. They are "renewable" but in practice, not renewed.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kackle ( 910159 )
        I wasn't whining, I was yammering. And, no, we're still down [fs.fed.us].

      • Really? Like that year old sapling is going to have the same effect (either carbon locking, or ecologically) as the 200yr old tree that was felled. Give your head a shake. Two of those saplings aren't going to come anywhere close, or 10 or 20.

    • "get it in three days in an oversized box made of felled trees instead of patiently waiting until you go to the store"

      Except I can go to ten stores and often still not find what I want, or get it delivered once. I don't think you've done the math here.

      If I can get something locally that is actually what I want at a decent price then I do that. But usually, I can't. So I order it from eBay or Amazon and save myself a bunch of futile running around. It reduces traffic, and emissions.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by novakyu ( 636495 )

      It's Alfred Nobel setting up Nobel Peace Prize.

  • Let him donate it, Iâ(TM)m full, to an organization he doesn't control. He just as equally could have started a 1000 gazillion plus infinity fund to save the unicorns. This is PR and bullshit, period. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0... [nytimes.com]
  • Billionaire promises to spend $10B on vague things. In practice, that means they set up a new personal charity they control. They then give themselves money, get tax deductions and tax credits for their donations, then control the expenses. For all we know, they will just buy carbon credits for Amazon, personally benefitting the donor, and not making "real" change.

    Never trust a promise. Watch the actions.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by 110010001000 ( 697113 )

      Actually you SHOULD watch the actions. Bezos owns 22 HOMES. 22! And Obama just bought a $8 million mansion vacation home on a BEACH ON AN ISLAND where he flies his private jet to on vacations from his other homes. These guys don't give a shit about "climate change".

      • Actually... (Score:2, Informative)

        by denzacar ( 181829 )

        While you do DO (dodo) your best to make it sound like it's some private island somewhere near the Caymans - it's actually Martha's Vineyard.
        And should Obamas fly there EVERY SINGLE DAY OF EVERY YEAR - they'd increase the output of Martha's Vineyard Airport by less than 1%. [wikipedia.org]

        Also, your data is typically poor.
        Home cost some $11.75 million. [vineyardgazette.com]
        Which is basically them sinking about a fifth of that book deal they got [econotimes.com] into real estate.
        Which may seem like a lot to you, but people do want to read memoirs of former presi

  • He just spent $38 billion to clean up the environment.

  • legal entities get done passing the cash around and taking their cuts there will be about 10 bucks left to actually be spent fighting climate change.

    Just my 2 cents ;)
  • maybe try looking up "Solar grand maxima" and "Solar grand minima" for starters.    Or maybe "Little Ice Age",  "maunder minimum", "Schwabe cycles", and so on.
  • See what he can do with half a billion.
  • First of all, I bet it's a tax dodge/write-off or some free subsidized energy scheme to save their facilities money. Secondly, I bet 100 billion wouldn't even make a dent in the climate impact from Amazon's wonderful system of shipping a 6 oz package to some lazy, cheap fat ass shut-in across the country.

Slashdot Top Deals

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Close