Topic: Jeff Bezos saves the World !!! (Read 237 times)

If he's consolidated and streamlined operations previously handled by hundreds of small companies, it's very likely he pollutes far less than they did.

As you said this tax-free donation is a no cost to him.
The amount that he donates are pennies compared to the amounts of money he earns per day.
The news release those donations like he is making so good to the world. But, have you considered how much he pollute the environment from his operations everyday?

this was not bezos caring about seatle. this was about bezos recieving news that his 'contractors' were not getting paid enough to actually live on and were ending up living in their vehichles and not even having enough time on breaks to pee. so needing to pee into bottles inside the vehicles.

he didnt raise the rates to give them a fair salary..  he instead created a tax-free donation (no cost to him) to a very small project. and act as if that small project would relieve the trouble.

the trouble/problem is though. when he creates a business in an area that has an average income above $35k and that has a settled living cost and housing cost around that area. but then suddenly wants to recruit 'contractors(gig economy non employees) who will never even reach the $35k income mark. and where there are 25,000 potential employee's.. he is pretty much the cause of making tens of thousands of people to become homeless.

but to save face by pretending that his small donation is offering a solution, he feels it obsolves him of any obligation to pay people a fair living wage for the area.

its much like the things like foodbanks.
by governments giving small donations to food banks and hoping the community stump up the rest. the government think they no longer need to care about paying basic social security income for the poor/unemployed to ensure they can atleast eat.
because they feel that if people cant afford to eat. someone else like a food bank can cover them

not realising there are not enough food stored or shelters to actually feed/shelter the people they are putting into poverty

Thank you. I'm glad some people can see it!

In a similar vein, in 2019 Amazon donated $8m to help fight homelessness in Seattle ($5m) and its other headquarters city in Virginia ($3m). Great! So generous!
However... the previous year, Seattle tried to raise a new tax against large businesses in order to fight homelessness. The tax would have raised $48m per year. But fierce opposition from Amazon, including threatening to move its staff out of the city, forced Seattle to back down and cancel the plan.

So Amazon directly caused an overall loss of $43m for fighting homelessness in Seattle, rising to $48m in subsequent years unless Amazon 'kindly' donate to drop it back to $43m again.

I think climate change and natural disasters are not in the hands of human beings and they can not prevent it even if people want it but the harm it can do to protect people from harm Jeff Bezos has done just that he has taken various government initiatives and launched a fundraising program to protect against disaster. If you say that there is no plan behind this then why does the Coronavirus protect the world from donating to people affected by climate change.

Typical move by such a huge company in order to avoid taxes.
They donate huge portions of money in order not to pay taxes as donations are not taxable.
I don't think that suddenly Jeff started caring about climate change. There is a plan behind this huge donation.

what you are not realising is bezos is not really climate change supporting.

if you look at his dealing you will see he will spend the funds to plant tree's.. but that is just offsetting the tree's being cut to supply the cardboard boxes his business uses.

also it will fund what he deems as fuel waste. by making small hubs for more local distribution and he will praise it up as carbon reduction.

a $10bill investment to ensure he can still deliver next/same day and have it all packaged in boxes without running out o stock or fuel is a business plan. not a climate agenda

..
in the UK i have seen real estate and land owners of woodland chop down tree's .... then a couple years pretend the cut down tree's didnt count. then suddenly praise themselves for saying they will plant X amount of tree's in their real estates. .. even if the tree numbers are less than the ones they removed.. they still praise it up as 'positive cimate' crap

Indeed. Bezos is one of the few top US billionaires who haven't signed the Giving Pledge (a commitment by the world's wealthiest individuals and families to dedicate the majority of their wealth to giving back).
But his ex-wife signed it... maybe that's why they got divorced? 

If he really wanted to save earth from climate change then stop polluting it first before spending funds to restore the climate.But he didn't so its clear that he is doing this as business tactics to get more business to him by spreading his word and his company name to more people.So that he can earn the spend amount back and also along with profits so all he did is just long term investment.

But you have all that completely wrong, in my opinion. I don't see that "his company contributes to the problem." No more than any other company or operation. In fact this entire thing you have presented looks like a false narrative, and I do not believe you can support it with clear and convincing facts.

For example, can you show that in any particular product line, Amazon's market share is somehow eco-worse than in the previous decade when that market share was served by others?

Also, on what wacko planet did you get this?

Amazon is happy to sell AWS to the oil and gas industries:
"The energy industry should have access to the same technologies as other industries. We will continue to provide cloud services to companies in the energy industry" It continues: "to make their legacy businesses less carbon intensive and help them accelerate development of renewable energy businesses", but there are no numbers here, it's just vague ethical hand waving.

There is nothing wrong with doing business with energy companies. Unless you never use a gas stove, never turn on lights and heat from a coal power plant, and never pay for gasoline at a service station, who are you to say this?

Not at all. It's good that he's putting $10b into fighting climate change, I'm just saying he shouldn't be grandstanding about it or positioning himself as a valiant eco-warrior, he should instead be addressing how his company contributes to the problem that he personally is purporting to want to solve.

The best way an arsonist can prevent fires is not to put some out, it's to stop setting them in the first place.
The best way for a burglar to reduce theft is not to return some of the stolen goods, but not to steal them originally.

Even if it’s true, why shouldn’t it help in the fight against climate change? From this act it follows that he at least understands what his company is doing and is trying to at least somehow make amends.
In your opinion, in such a situation, you have to sit out your ass and do nothing?

The question of whether or not climate change is real is kind of moot here. I'm not criticising Amazon's carbon footprint, merely highlighting the discrepancy between Bezos' new fund and the activities of his company. At the very least it's an astonishing degree of cognitive dissonance.

Incidentally, batshit gives a great record of historic climate change through variation in nitrogen isotopes.

Well, that's nothing but batshit crazy ravings straight from the lunatic climate asylum. I'm not seeing in your links and assertions anything at all to criticize Amazon about. Zero.

It's a good point, but I'm not sure. Do you have evidence of this? As far as I'm aware, study results so far have been mixed. Certainly e-commerce has the potential to be less polluting than bricks and mortar, but equally e-businesses could do a lot more to reduce their carbon footprint than they are doing.

I'm ambivalent about the Bezos Saves the World Fund. It smacks of hubris and grandstanding, and a publicity grab. If he seriously wanted to address climate change, then he could do so a lot more quietly, and start by changing the policies of his own megalithic global empire. Amazon have said they aim to go carbon-neutral by 2040, but that's a long way off and I think it's likely that in 20 years' time when eyes are on them to see if they fulfilled their promise, Bezos will be long gone. Dumping accountability a couple of decades into the future is a favourite trick of politicians, and it might be the same here.

I don't know. At the same time I'm happy he's throwing $10b at it rather than doing nothing. Good stuff and bad stuff, which is why I started the thread. I'd like some more opinion on whether there is a disconnect between what Bezos says he wants and what Amazon are actually doing. How much is a genuine commitment to tackle climate change, and how much is empty posturing?

the trade network amazon let go bankrupt, where polluting much more than amazon

Everyone will have seen the announcement by the world's richest man that he is donating $10b to fight climate change.

Whilst it's a welcome gesture, it does smell very strongly of virtue signalling. And why does it have to have his name plastered all over it? The "Bezos Earth Fund". This presumably is what he thinks is the most acceptable wording of "Superman Jeff Bezos saves the World".

Perhaps he should just pay taxes instead. Perhaps he should look at how Amazon is contributing to climate change, rather than attempting to dissociate himself from his own business and rise from it like some (renewables-powered) phoenix from the (coal-fired) flames.

Amazon is one of the world's biggest polluters and has absolutely zero interest in preventing climate change, beyond maintaining a facade of ethical concern and accountability purely for PR purposes..

Okay, here are some facts and links:

More than 350 Amazon employees have spoken out about the company's disregard of and contribution to climate change, and its attempts to silence those employees. Comments are here and well worth a read.

Amazon threatens to fire employees who speak about the climate crisis.

Amazon funds climate-denying think tanks, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Amazon donates to politicians who are climate-change deniers. This includes "68 legislators who have denied climate change — including those who have voted against environmental legislation 100% of the time" (from poynter.org).

Amazon is happy to sell AWS to the oil and gas industries:
"The energy industry should have access to the same technologies as other industries. We will continue to provide cloud services to companies in the energy industry" It continues: "to make their legacy businesses less carbon intensive and help them accelerate development of renewable energy businesses", but there are no numbers here, it's just vague ethical hand waving.
_{https://www.aboutamazon.com/our-company/our-positions}

Amazon was scored at an "F" by the Carbon Disclosure Project, and was "the largest U.S. publicly traded company not to participate"

... although they did admit in 2018 that their carbon footprint is 44 million tonnes, which is roughly 85% of the emissions of Switzerland.