Amazon Nixed 'Green' Delivery Proposal to Avoid Alienating Shoppers (msn.com) 85
An anonymous reader quotes Bloomberg:
The team building Amazon's Prime Now same-day delivery service knew that the quickest delivery options tended to be the worst for the planet. A guaranteed one-hour delivery window sometimes meant sending couriers in mostly empty vehicles darting to far-flung neighborhoods, all the while emitting roughly the same greenhouse gas emissions as a fully loaded truck or van. Someone on the team proposed showing customers a "Green" shopping delivery option, a slightly slower delivery speed designed to give Amazon more time to cluster orders together and send out densely packed vehicles, saving on fuel, driver salaries and carbon emissions.
The idea was one of at least two instances in recent years when Amazon teams debated telling customers more about the environmental impact of their shipping choices, according to two people familiar with the episodes. Neither was implemented, in part, because of the risk that shoppers would think twice before clicking "Buy Now," the people say...
Amazon, which says its deliveries generally emit less carbon than physical shopping trips for the same set of items, is working behind the scenes to make its operations more efficient without customers knowing or having to change their behavior. The company says it expects to receive its first electric delivery truck from Rivian Inc. in 2021, and have 100,000 of them on the road by 2030. The company cites the purchase of electric vehicles, typically more expensive than conventional diesel- or gasoline-powered models, as a sign of its commitment to meet its zero-carbon goal, even if it adds costs. The order may help jumpstart production of fossil-fuel-free delivery vehicles, which has so far failed to keep up with demand.
The idea was one of at least two instances in recent years when Amazon teams debated telling customers more about the environmental impact of their shipping choices, according to two people familiar with the episodes. Neither was implemented, in part, because of the risk that shoppers would think twice before clicking "Buy Now," the people say...
Amazon, which says its deliveries generally emit less carbon than physical shopping trips for the same set of items, is working behind the scenes to make its operations more efficient without customers knowing or having to change their behavior. The company says it expects to receive its first electric delivery truck from Rivian Inc. in 2021, and have 100,000 of them on the road by 2030. The company cites the purchase of electric vehicles, typically more expensive than conventional diesel- or gasoline-powered models, as a sign of its commitment to meet its zero-carbon goal, even if it adds costs. The order may help jumpstart production of fossil-fuel-free delivery vehicles, which has so far failed to keep up with demand.
Re: (Score:2)
She's been out of sight for four months.
I think you meant "four days". According to CNN, she was hearing arguments in the Louisiana abortion law case on Wednesday.
Re: (Score:3)
She's been out of sight for four months. Please provide some evidence she's still alive. If not, we need to get replacement proceedings going ASAP.
Can't. Remember the rule Senator Mitch McConnell established during President Obama's last year in office, that he wouldn't consider any Supreme Court nominations during the last/election year of the President -- you know, so the people could decide. Oh, wait, that was only for a Democrat President, never mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't. Remember the rule Senator Mitch McConnell established during President Obama's last year in office, that he wouldn't consider any Supreme Court nominations during the last/election year of the President -- you know, so the people could decide.
Sure he can.
You're thinking of the Thurmond rule [wikipedia.org]. It's not an actual rule. It's a description of a practice: Starting some time in the spring of the last term, the senate may
Continuing. (Lenovo track pad posted for me.) (Score:2)
It's not an actual rule. It's a description of a practice: Starting some time in the spring of the last term, the senate may resist confirming any but the most consensus federal court (supreme or lower) nominations - usually any but those agreed to by both the majority and minority leadership.
Or it may not.
Both parties have used this practice. In a second-term election of a president popular enough to be likely to defeat the weak candidate opposing him, with his party in control of the Senate, don't expect
Re: (Score:2)
Well then let's pray for a miracle. His "fifth year"? God help us.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure he can.
Senator McConnell has already said he'd consider Supreme Court nominations during a Trump/Republican election year -- even though he said he absolutely wouldn't during Obama's election year -- because he puts Party over everything else (pretty much by his own admission). I was simply noting that he's a hypocritical partisan douche-bag.
Sounds a Lot Cheaper (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone on the team proposed showing customers a "Green" shopping delivery option, a slightly slower delivery speed designed to give Amazon more time to cluster orders together and send out densely packed vehicles, saving on fuel, driver salaries and carbon emissions.
So the price was lower? If so, then what is the point, since Amazon already has slower and cheaper delivery options.
If not, then this just sounds like further confirmation that "Green" is a buzzword with a well-deserved reputation for inferior products at equal (and often higher) prices, usually with propaganda attached.
Re: (Score:2)
This overall shows that transports are way too cheap today to be good for both environment and traffic congestion concerns.
Meanwhile public transportation is more often than not outside the competitive range. In a smaller city the public transportation takes 3 times as long as going by car.
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, nobody has solved this problem. The only way to pool people's rides is if you stop at every stop needed by the riders. Doesn't matter if it's a bus, subway, or carpool van. This by necessity requires the pooled ride make more stops and take longer than the point-to-point travel possible by an individual in a car.
If you've got an
Re: (Score:2)
Right now the reason trains cost so much is because interstate transport by truck is unfairly subsidized by cars. Trucks account for something like 90% of the damage to our roads due to the higher pressure they exert onto the road's surface. But because road maintenance is paid for by fuel taxes, trucks end up only paying for about half the cost to build and maintain the highways.
That would be a serious under-estimate of the effective subsidy that trucks get in the UK. I pay about 10 times as much VED (vehicle excise duty) per mile for my car as one of the heaviest trucks, despite causing negligible road wear per mile compared with the truck.
The UK government (and European governments generally) are terrified of the truck driving industry and dare not do anything to offend it. Past attempts to raise taxation of trucks to a reasonable level has resulted in truck drivers blockad
Re: (Score:1)
The UK government (and European governments generally) are terrified of the truck driving industry and dare not do anything to offend it.
That is nonsense. Trucks in Germany (regardless of nation) pay a extra road toll for all majour roads. And soon that will be the case all over Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, nobody has solved this problem. The only way to pool people's rides is if you stop at every stop needed by the riders. Doesn't matter if it's a bus, subway, or carpool van. This by necessity requires the pooled ride make more stops and take longer than the point-to-point travel possible by an individual in a car.
I lived for a dozen years in a European capital that seems to have solved the problem nicely. (And taking the subway was definitely faster than driving oneself.)
Re: (Score:2)
Also if you're going into a CBD area, not only travel time but the time to find parking needs to be added in.
Re: (Score:2)
I lived for a dozen years in a European capital that seems to have solved the problem nicely. (And taking the subway was definitely faster than driving oneself.)
The discussion is about public transit in "smaller cities". Any city big enough to have a subway is not small.
Anyway, the solution is on the horizon: Self-driving vans.
Get rid of big buses with fixed schedules. Replace them with 6-8 passenger self-driving electric vans, with demand-driven schedules and routes.
Rolling Roads (Score:2)
The Roads must Roll, eh? [wikipedia.org]
I no idea is ever really new.
Re: (Score:2)
If I had mod points to give it would be a +5.
Re: Sounds a Lot Cheaper (Score:2)
Your train scenario would work just fine. If you had a train traveling 70mph along side a interstate, you could match its speed, dock, and then cut your engine and ride the train. It would be interesting to try something like this with a subway or an el train where the train car you boarded was only used to transfer you to/from the express line that never stopped.
Re: (Score:2)
In most European cities it is close to impossible to be faster with a car than with a subway or a bicycle ... ...
That indicates your cities have no working subway system
Re: (Score:2)
That's right - and we have a major river going through the center of the city. Gothenburg, Sweden.
Only 3 places close to the center of the city to pass that darn river. Bottleneck party.
Re: (Score:2)
... Amazon already has slower and cheaper delivery options.
In the UK it is normal for internet merchants to offer a range of postage prices for a range of delivery speeds. Presumably it is because the courier companies they use do so. Nothing new, it was like that in the days of mail order catalogues too.
I don't think I have ever chosen anything but the slowest, cheapest option. I usually have several things going on at the same time in my life and if I am held up in one area waiting for a gizmo to be delivered I can get on with something else in the meantime.
Contradiction (Score:1)
By their own admission, customers would _not_ make those trips for the same set of items! Therefore things are less green for these sets of items.
It is a good thing. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Amazon offers free delivery in the UK if you spend at least £20 on qualifying items. It usually takes a week for them to come because they bundle them up.
It also makes me buy less stuff from Amazon because I'd have to wait until I have £20 worth of stuff to get the free shipping and with paid shipping it's cheaper and about the same speed elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
It might actually save money on shipping if states stopped subsidizing the roads [taxfoundation.org]!
It's funny how we subsidize Amazon and heap regulations on local businesses that don't apply to online businesses and then we complain that Amazon is killing mom and pop stores! We're just not very bright, are we?
Re: It is a good thing. (Score:1)
It's almost like Amazon and the other monopolists have millions of dollars to lawful-bribe politicians; whereas small businesses do not...
The green mantra (Score:2, Insightful)
The company cites the purchase of electric vehicles, typically more expensive than conventional diesel- or gasoline-powered models, as a sign of its commitment to meet its zero-carbon goal
We hear this over and over. Somehow people seem to think that electric cars are automatically zero-carbon, because they are advertised as zero-emission. Keep repeating it and by now the general public believes it. Also, people want to believe it. And EV owners want to have the 'feel good because i aid the environment' feeling.
Electricity still need to be made. Right now only a few % of our worldwide electricity production comes from renewables. Your EV will emit almost as much as carbon as a gas vehicle. Ma
Re:The green mantra (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The green mantra (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Because I've already done the efficiency calculations [slashdot.org]. I suspect you haven't. EVs are only slightly more efficient than gasoline ICE vehicles, and about the same or slightly worse efficiency than diesel ICE vehicles (definitely worse than diesel tractor trailers).
Where the centralized power generation helps is in controlling emissions. You can put better scrubbers and filters on smoke
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
How can you say I forgot it? That is precisely why I did the efficiency calculation I linked. Yes there is an energy benefit (and thus CO2 decrease) from switching from gasoline to an EV due to improved efficiency. But it is relatively small - about a 20% decrease in CO2 (and switching from diesel to an EV can actually result in more CO2 production). Whereas the benefit of switching electricity gener
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This is absolutely correct if the source of the energy is pure coal. No actual benefit in net emissions for the car. Here's a simpler proof:
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNE... [epa.gov]
- 8887 Grams CO2 per gallon of gasoline
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/fe... [fueleconomy.gov]
Nissan Versa: ~30 miles per gallon
= 296 grams CO2 per mile
https://www.paloaltoonline.com... [paloaltoonline.com]
Nissan Leaf: ~3.3 miles per KWh. This already takes into account losses in charging etc
https://reneweconomy.com.au/gr... [reneweconomy.com.au]
~ coal produces about 1000g per KWh.
= 300 grams per KWh
S
Re: (Score:2)
* should read: "300 grams CO2 per mile". Damn not being able to edit.
Re: (Score:2)
MPGe ratings already exist to help people compare the relative efficiency of EVs to traditional cars. Your attempt to slag EVs with dubious napkin math doesn't change much. The only thing a consumer needs to know is: how much am I paying out-of-pocket per mile to drive this car? If the EV costs less, then all else being equal, the EV likely pollutes less. Unless you're suggesting that electricity is being subsidized somehow in a way that gasoline isn't?
Re: (Score:3)
I haven't been able to make sense of the mpge estimates - they don't seem to have much relation to the real world.
That said, EVs have a huge advantage in that they are as clean from a CO2 standpoint as the power sources. If (as is happening in the US) many coal plants are retired or converted to natural gas, CO2 emissions significantly decline. If they're replaced with nuke or renewable, CO2 emissions (operating) drop to near zero. All without changing what you drive.
Then there are the directly health-affec
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on who is doing the MPGe calculation. The EPA's estimate is pretty simple (and simplistic): they use a standard conversion rate of energy per gallon of gasoline. Then they tell you how many miles the vehicle can travel with that much energy spent from the battery:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
They use killowatt hours instead of joules.
After that point, it's up to you, the consumer, to figure out how much money you'll have to pay per kW/h to fuel your EV and then compare that to gasoline prices.
Re: The green mantra (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Signature is relevant to Mike Pence: "'The hands that help are better far than lips that pray.' - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)"
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Just open the gates on the dams a bit more and encourage night time charging. How does using a dam more create more CO2?
Re: (Score:3)
Trying to frame critics as oil industry shims also not helps to make a point. Doing some napkin math would.
one electric power plant burning coal for thousands of electric cars is more efficient and therefore less harmful to the environment
Apart that it's not. You are using the energy, one way or the other. And while the power plant is more efficient it also suffers from transport, storage and conversion losses. Also the car batteries have a significant environmental impact. To drive your Tesla you're burning coal or oil and the net gains are very minimal and only positive years after purchasing the EV.
If you want to save energy, stop dr
Re: (Score:2)
I forgot to mention EV's (and hybrids to a certain degree) have other advantages, and i do think it's good we are developing this technology and i'm glad they are actually on the road these days. The biggest advantage of course being air pollution, no exhaust from the engines and less dust particles from breaking due to regenerative breaking, leading to cleaner urban area's which is good for all of us.
Also power plants usually are better filtering out emissions. Off topic I'm also a big fan of Elon Musk. Bu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The green mantra (Score:1)
Embracing EVs definitely makes rich people feel superior to the deplorables.
Re: (Score:1)
one electric power plant burning coal for thousands of electric cars is more efficient and therefore less harmful to the environment
Apart that it's not.
Yes it is. Coal plants are at the edge of 45% efficiency.
Loading and discharging batteries is about 99% efficient.
An electric engine is over 99% efficient.
An ordinary combustion engine is in the 20% range.
Idiot
Re: (Score:2)
"while the power plant is more efficient it also suffers from transport, storage and conversion losses"
Transport and conversion losses are a pittance, under ten percent all in. Storage losses are a bit higher, at around fifteen percent. But ICEs in automobiles are atrociously inefficient, below twenty-five percent. And that's before you get to drivetrain losses, which are much lower in EVs, and before considering regenerative braking, which EVs do better than hybrids, and which non-electrified powertrains d
Re: (Score:2)
No, it isn't, because the bicycle is so very efficient, and because so much less energy is expended to move a human on a bicycle compared to a human on a vehicle.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"But i'm not under the illusion that doing so would save the planet"
But if "the planet' put half as much effort into harvesting the energy that is naturally provided, as it had the past 100 years sucking up nonrenewable resources, where the fuck would we be now?
Granted, we didn't have all the abilities or knowledge that we do now. But we fucking do now!
A good majority of property owners in the US have the ability to generate, store and with efficiently designed habitations, have very little need for externa
Re: (Score:2)
ps.. I hated it when they took my Weber carbs from me and required NOX, I hated mechanical FI when they leaned my start up, I hated CIS when they choked my exhaust with a CAT, I hated direct injection when they put O2 sensors and an ECU to assure a 14.7/1 gas ratio (wtf doesn't a Weber do it better?) .
But quite honestly, I look forward to the day that I can directly control electrons to a hub driven system where my acceleration is only limited by a control unit and physics. Even old gas heads know that!
I think I'm gonna buy a new Corvette. Can't afford a Ferrari and electrons are not everything.
Re:The green mantra (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now only a few % of our worldwide electricity production comes from renewables.
Worldwide is irrelevant. Only the connected grid is relevant. If you're a French EV owner, for example, you have an 80% atomic car.
Your EV will emit almost as much as carbon as a gas vehicle. Maybe even more, as they are typically much heavier, outweighing (no pun intended) any efficiency savings from using a power plant vs combustion engine.
No.
Re: (Score:2)
Your EV will emit almost as much as carbon as a gas vehicle. Maybe even more, as they are typically much heavier, outweighing (no pun intended) any efficiency savings from using a power plant vs combustion engine.
EVs are definitely not zero carbon, of course, but they're certainly better than ICE vehicles. Studies I've seen [ucsusa.org] have indicated that EVs in the US contribute on average half of what a gas-powered vehicle typically produces in terms of carbon footprint. And as the electrical grid increases its proportion of cleaner energy, or if you live in an area that already is very clean (In WA state, where i live, almost all our power is hydroelectric), then the story for EVs improves even more.
That EVs are zero-emiss
Re: (Score:2)
Note from the study, it shows the big effect that source of electricity has on EVs vs gasoline. In some states, an EV is equivalent in emissions to a gasoline car with just a 35 MPG rating, whereas in other states they're much cleaner. The difference here is that the 35 MPG states lean more heavily on coal. So which state you live does make the difference in whether switching to an electric or to something like diesel will lower total emissions more.
Re: The green mantra (Score:5, Informative)
you make the usual mistake of forgetting just much pollution is generated making gas and diesel before it's burnt in a vehicle
WTF is green delivery? (Score:2)
The only real "green" delivery is from a horse completely fed and living on an off grid farm or a bicyclist.
We might call it teal delivery if it's delivered by an ebike or scooter charged by energy created on the aforementioned off grid location, but even then there was usage of oil to produce the energy.
Just because one doesn't directly use a nonrenewable resource (petroleum distillate) as energy for transportation, doesn't necessarily make it green (yet).
But I agree, a non-dino last mile delivery option
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While methane is indeed a potent greenhouse gas, it's also a short-lived one. It's pretty reactive, and soon breaks down into carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide itsself doesn't contribute much to warming per unit mass, but it's very stable in the atmosphere. It's the single largest contributing gas both because humans produce so much of it (Around 35 giga-tons per year) from industry, and because it doesn't really go anywhere once released. It just accumulates. There are natural processes that absorb it, but th
Re: (Score:2)
If you assume (yes, parse that word...) that the human and the horse would exist regardless of their use for powering local delivery (yes, bicycle messengers used to be a thing in downtown areas; now we use trucks that block traffic every place they stop and double-park), the methane emissions are nearly constant (is there a correlation between exertion and methane production rates?). That said, I could see bringing back bike messengers for short trips. For bigger packages and slightly longer distances, how
Re: (Score:2)
And both the horse and bicyclist fart, so there are emissions there :) ...
Yeah, but that is a zero sum game. It does not matter if the food they ate is rotting or they eat it and make a fart, or two.
It is the same CO2/CH4
Re: (Score:2)
a non-dino last mile delivery option might interest a few (as long as what is non-dino is accurately defined).
Indeed. Are Velociraptors dino's? Cause I'm leaning toward that option.....
Why is this a story? (Score:2)
Amazon...is working behind the scenes to make its operations more efficient without customers knowing or having to change their behavior.
And what exactly is wrong with that approach?
If all you care about is about reducing a carbon footprint, why should anyone care whether that's it implemented by a change in behaviour by producers as opposed to consumers?
Unless, of course, the real objective is nothing to do with the quantity of CO2 emissions and everything to do with controlling how people think and behave.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ding, we have a winner!
Re: Why is this a story? (Score:1)
But muh CARBON!!!1!
Re: (Score:2)
And what exactly is wrong with that approach? If all you care about is about reducing a carbon footprint, why should anyone care whether that's it implemented by a change in behaviour by producers as opposed to consumers? Unless, of course, the real objective is nothing to do with the quantity of CO2 emissions and everything to do with controlling how people think and behave.
Nobody said there's anything wrong with it, but if customers aren't aware of any environmental impact they wouldn't accept any slower/more expensive service. And if the service was faster/less expensive you'd do it anyway for business reasons. So you often end up with a token project that says you're searching for greener solutions but in reality has very little freedom to succeed. Also if consumers are not engaged they'll often undo your improvements, you make more power efficient computers? Great, now I c
i went even greener than that (Score:2)
In other words... "Not Now"? (Score:2)
Someone on the team proposed showing customers a "Green" shopping delivery option, a slightly slower delivery speed designed to give Amazon more time to cluster orders together and send out densely packed vehicles, saving on fuel, driver salaries and carbon emissions.
Isn't this precisely what normal Amazon Prime shipping is? You don't get something in an hour and instead it comes in a day or two when they have a truckful of other things to deliver around town.
Re: Like electric vehicles are new or something? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This electric truck survived 50 years of operation and could be fitted with rebuildable batteries for quick charge.
https://www.hemmings.com/blog/... [hemmings.com]
Re: Sustainable business (Score:1)
"a loss leader meant to eliminate the attractiveness of competition"
Good thing a wannabe monopolist would never try that!!
Green option? I'm in if it's not BS (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I'd take that option in SF right now. Stay out of my room... decrease the chances they'll track in Covid-19.
Seems having the room maid is pot luck. Some places I stay they do it, others not. Maybe where they did it I was in the "big shot" suite.
So they ordered electric vehicles. Yippee. (Score:2)
Speed Kills Doh! (Score:2)
Not everything needs to be delivered in an hour. Double the cost for that (even for prime members).
Give free deliver even to non prime members for the slowcoach/green option.
Otherwise, just avoid Amazon like Covid-19
Re: (Score:2)
Got a better price on something recently from Best Buy than from Amazon. Yes, i had to wait 5 days for delivery (note: line haul via UPS, just over 2 days from Chicago (Hodgkins, IL) to N Calif (Lathrop) (by train) according to the tracker) but really, who needs 2nd day air for a normal package?
One side issue (not necessarily a bad one) with the one-hour or even same-day deliveries: local warehouses (or stores) have to exist to service that, meaning local jobs, etc. The shipping site can't be more than 40-5
Re: (Score:2)
Local Jobs?
For now. Then it will be all Robots. Bezos has said that this is the future.
If Amazon could get away without any human staff they would do so in a flash.
It won't be long before that happens.
They did implement it (Score:2)
But... they did implement it? I have an option to select an "Amazon Prime Delivery Day", where they'll hold all my prime packages and only deliver a single day of the week, and attempt to combine as many items into as few boxes as possible. This option has been on my account for several months now.
I'd use this. (Score:2)
I find it super frustrating to make an order of three non-essential items, to have it all arrive in three excessively-large boxes from different depots. I would be more than happy to be able to bin my family's orders by "days, one week, one month", and then have Amazon virtually sort things to minimize packaging and shipping.
The problem is that packaging and shipping are so cheap that there's no incentive to do this.
Re: (Score:2)
Want greener shipping? Don't use Prime.