Amazon creates a $2 billion climate fund, as it struggles to cut its own emissions:
Investment areas: In a press release, Amazon said the new fund would focus on startups that could help it and other businesses achieve "net zero" emissions by 2040. It will invest across a wide array of industries, including transportation, energy generation, energy storage, manufacturing, materials, and agriculture.
What's behind the move? The Seattle retail giant has come under growing pressure from the public and its own employees to shrink its environmental footprint as the dangers of global warming grow. [...]
Earlier Amazon efforts: Several days later, Amazon committed to achieve "net zero" emissions by 2040, which means it would need to offset any remaining emissions from its operations through investments in carbon removal projects, such as forest restoration or carbon capture machines. In February, chief executive Jeff Bezos, the world's richest person, announced he would donate $10 billion of his personal fortune to scientists, activists, and NGOs working to address climate change.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @01:07AM (3 children)
Air travel is particularly damaging to the environment. Passenger flights have decreased during the pandemic but cargo flights are at record highs. That's the result of online orders from companies like Amazon, who move freight via air for one day deliveries. It might be convenient but it's quite harmful to the environment.
We might be better off improving our rail system, both for passenger and freight traffic. Expand the rail network and power it with clean energy from sources like renewables or nuclear power. In the process, we could make the rail network considerably more efficient than it is now. Move freight by rail when possible instead of by air. If we improve the efficiency of the network and the speed of the trains, it could be faster to move freight around the country. And it could be considerably cleaner than doing so by air. In places not directly served by rail, trucks could be used to move the freight from train to its final destination.
If Amazon really wants to cut emissions, it might be worth using that money and collaborating with big railroad companies in the US and Canada (BNSF, UP, CSX, KCS, NS, CN, CP, VIA, and FXE) to upgrade the infrastructure. Amazon might be able to get priority and perhaps even get trackage rights to run their own trains. Perhaps two day deliveries might become the norm again for goods that have to be transported across the country.
Railroads are already experimenting with battery-electric locomotives [bnsf.com] to replace the existing diesel-electric locomotives. It's a really interesting idea because it could avoid the need to upgrade the infrastructure while providing many of the same benefits.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday June 26 2020, @01:35PM
i think that's right. rail is the way to go. i wonder if lighter-than-air freight transport can be part of the mix also, since it can do point-to-point. there's an outfit that's been trying to do that for a decade (Airlifter, I think they're called).
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday June 26 2020, @03:45PM (1 child)
Air travel isn't all that bad for the environment. It's definitely way less bad than driving per passenger-mile.
Trains are better, yes, and I'd be all for improving the USA's rail infrastructure, which is downright embarrassing by the standards of modern countries. But let's not make BS arguments for them.
And of course the least-bad option for situations where people need to deal with someone a long-distance away is to use telecommunications rather than actually traveling in person.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by toddestan on Saturday June 27 2020, @02:56AM
That's simply not true. Modern airplanes get about can get about 80-100 MPG per person if they fill all the seats. This is, of course better than any ICE vehicle, but the thing that people who make this comparison like to conveniently leave out is that cars can also transport more than one person too. If you can fill most or all of the seats in a most any modern car, you'll get better mileage numbers per person than an airplane. For something like a Prius with 4-5 people, you're easily twice as efficient as the best airplanes. Even a large 3-row gas hog of an SUV like a Suburban can approach airplane numbers if you've got all seats filled.
The other problem with airplanes is that they dump their pollution in the upper atmosphere where it can do more harm.