9 ms·

Amazon Announces $2B Fund to Invest in Climate Tech Companies

150 points by sethbannon 6y ago

dckeyjqmon 6y ago
This won't work. We need real regulation that penalizes polluters so much that it's no longer profitable to destroy the planet. We need social and cultural changes so that it's no longer hip and cool to fly around on jet planes and cars. This is mostly a political issue, not an issue of private industries in search of profits.
- dawnerd 6y ago
  Okay so we pass regulations but we still need new technology to make manufacturing and so on cleaner.
- IanDrake 6y ago
  Good luck with that. I assume you live in a hut made from naturally fallen trees some where with no heating, air conditioning, running water, sewers, paved streets, computers, etc... I'm kidding, of course you're not. You're standing on the shoulders of giants, but you think you're flying.
- wpasc 6y ago
  I could not disagree more. The second that renewable energy is a more economic and reliable way to consume energy it will easily become the default because there will be no reason not to. Private companies that could develop/build/scale such technologies and deploy them who seek profit are a viable method because the profit motive can deploy capital to that effect. Government research and regulations could help speed the development of these technologies and hasten their tipping point through adjusting the cost. This is certainly not just a political issue and culture most often follows the past of least resistance. Telling people to stop consuming energy is a more quixotic endeavor than developing more economic renewables
  - GreeniFi 6y ago
    “ The second that renewable energy is a more economic and reliable way to consume energy it will easily become the default because there will be no reason not to.” You ignore the realpolitik of climate change. FYI certain fossil fuel producing states invest heavily to disrupt the transition to renewables. Ask yourself why the Green Climate Fund, probably the most important fund of its type, is based is based in the arse-end or nowhere.
    - bradstewart 6y ago
      Certain ones do, sure. But not all, or even most. The vast majority of countries do not produce fossil fuels, so they all have an interest in reducing dependence on oil. I know nothing about the GCF or the geography of Korea, but ~2 hours from Seoul doesn't really seem like the "arse-end of nowhere"?
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    >Telling people to stop consuming energy is a more quixotic endeavor than developing more economic renewables Appropriately taxing energy consumption in order to force people to appropriately ration energy consumption for productive endeavors is more realistic than assuming humans are going to discover a preferable energy source than fossil fuels to move mass in a short enough timeframe to make an impact on climate change and pollution.
- dpweb 6y ago
  The biggest incentive for fossil fuel generated electricity is 0.06-0.10 cents per Kwh fossil fuel generated electricity. Electricity is cheap. There's two ways to make a renewables economy, it's not complicated. The quick way, 200% tax on all fossil fuel generated electricity. The slow way, wait for technology to evolve that renewables become cheaper than fossil fuel. Government could help companies and utilities transition.
- pinkfoot 6y ago
  > We need real regulation that penalizes polluters How are you going to penalise the other 7,000,000,000 people that don't live in the USA/EU/Japan? Growing at 3 souls per second. The only way is to provide a cleaner alternative for base line coal with 100% dispatch ration that is cheaper than coal. Because that is what the next five billion are going to use otherwise - whether you like it or not. If you solve this, then - like smartphones - they will line up around the block to buy it and you won't have to convince or police anyone. Right now, thorium breeder reactors seem the only thing.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pphysch 6y ago
> Amazon announced it’s on a path to run on 100% renewable energy by 2025, five years ahead of schedule. A possible silver lining of market domination is the ability to tackle issues like climate change without falling behind competitors who aren't making those harder choices. Unless this is all PR and Amazon is actively burning down their namesake or something?
- castratikron 6y ago
  As long as the market dominator decides that climate change is a problem it needs to solve
- drocer88 6y ago
  It could also be feel good PR to deflect attention on their supply chain: both the political and environmental concerns people might have it they looked too close.
- makerofspoons 6y ago
  Switch to renewables, then lobby for a carbon tax to crush competitors that haven't switched or can't afford the transition.
  - fsflover 6y ago
    If this is the only way to fight climate crisis, so be it.
- depr 6y ago
  In some cases, Amazon uses e.g. subsidied wind energy for new data centers. However, this means the renewable energy is not going to neighboring homes, which are instead still using non-renewables.
  - TotempaaltJ 6y ago
    I think Google is not just being renewable energy, but also building new solar/wind farms to "offset" their use so this is not the case. Maybe Amazon is doing something similar?
1-6 6y ago
How about them delivery trucks and waste cardboard boxes? Those data centers can also generate a lot of emissions. Amazon is throwing spare change at a massing problem they're involved in.
- pen2l 6y ago
  But you’ve gotta admit they’re like 10 times better than the alternative. I mean, their whole operation is optimized up the wazoo. Imagine the time saved, the carbon emissions saved when folks don’t have to drive to and back to get their stuff. I’m kind of hooked on this grocery delivery stuff too now, so much time and headache and gas saved.
  - 1-6 6y ago
    It just sounds like a PR stunt. They already have data centers which are under scrutiny for energy use and reducing packaging helps their bottom line as well. That's why I say it's 'spare change' for them.
  - skrebbel 6y ago
    > But you’ve gotta admit they’re like 10 times better than the alternative. Not if the alternative is bikeable and walkable cities with decent public transport, though.
    - bananabreakfast 6y ago
      I think they meant reasonable alternative. American cities are not (for the most part) bikeable and certainly not walkable. Literally everything is designed to be driven to in a car. The decent public transport would help, but since it's been made a political issue it's not exactly as easy as just working within the constraints of the system.
    - Kalium 6y ago
      OK. Let's say a magic wand is waved, and all of us Americans have bikeable and walkable cities with excellent public transportation. Let's say this happens literally overnight. How do you expect this would change Amazon's logistics and how favorable they are for consumers? For my part, at the very least, I'm still likely to get a lot of things delivered. Local stores are very rarely cheaper for anything non-immediate and delivery takes much less of my time than going to a store and back. At a guess, Amazon's still better than this alternative for many scenarios. Maybe not ten times better, but still better.
an_opabinia 6y ago
Suppose the investments turn out to be wildly successful. They turn $2b into $200b. They could still fail at the goal of slowing global warming. The accounting value of an equity, especially a growth stage company, is never the same as its economic value. When in history has accounting (like a price) measured something real / believable about the environment? One way to look at this is what is the environmental impact of Tesla? Amazon would have love to have invested in Tesla. That would have made this fund. Anyone would. But just because their accounting values goes up so and so, doesn't mean that's a measurement of their environmental impact. My point is, equities are ill suited incentives for even economic profits, let alone environmental "profits."
- PragmaticPulp 6y ago
  > My point is, equities are ill suited incentives for even economic profits, let alone environmental "profits." What is your alternative proposal? It's not like Amazon's $2B investment in climate tech is mutually exclusive with government initiatives or other climate research. It's another angle to approach the problem, using the tools they have at their disposal. I don't understand the desire to assume the most cynical takes on this initiative.
  - grussergraph 6y ago
    Since when is it cynical to analyze incentives? What kind of economics is that?
  - adamsea 6y ago
    > I don't understand the desire to assume the most cynical takes on this initiative. Because of Amazon's (poor) history when it comes to exercising corporate social responsibility?
  - santoshalper 6y ago
    They could pay taxes and we could, as a nation, decide how best to coordinate efforts to fight climate change.
delecti 6y ago
Even if you view it cynically this is a smart plan. It's good PR, and they've got a better foot in the door for when those climate tech companies start getting a bunch more customers. And one way or another they're likely to start getting more customers, whether it's proactive or reactive.
toomanymike 6y ago
Anyone have pointers to interesting companies in the climate tech space? Or tips for finding them?
- snowisgone 6y ago
  Also interested in this!
- bloudermilk 6y ago
  A group of us built the open source website https://climatescape.org https://climatescape.org for exactly this purpose. You can browse by sector and technology.
  - toomanymike 6y ago
    Super helpful, thanks!
reizorc 6y ago
"If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted,... CO2 will need to be reduced ...to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that - Hansen et al.(2008)" [1] Neutral is not enough. So I hope they will be plowing large amounts of the fund into negative-emissions technologies. Either that or make large swathes of the planet into a disco ball. [1] Young People's Burden: Requirement of Negative CO2 Emissions. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1609/1609.05878.pdf https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1609/1609.05878.pdf
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  Proactively attempting to change the planet to fit our presumed desires seems even more irresponsible than trying to simply negate our effect on the planet. And realistically, the planet was more like an iceball than it is today for a vast majority of the timeline of homo sapiens.
  - ip26 6y ago
    Pre-industrial revolution levels were 280ppm, so a target of 350ppm is still well within "roll back the damage we've done", rather than "mold the planet to our whims"
  - chillacy 6y ago
    We've already started geo-engineering, just not intentionally.
    - oh_sigh 6y ago
      Yes, and I said that intentional geoengineering may be worse than intentional. Especially when it is geoengineering beyond the scope of "make it seem like we don't exist"
ericvanular 6y ago
Great to see checks getting written for climate projects again! For anyone who may be interested, there's a supportive climate focused community and interesting climate projects over at https://collective.energy https://collective.energy (founder here)
GoodJokes 6y ago
Why is this a place just a collection PR articles. Can we not? If you work for amazon, please stop astroturfing this laughable bs. A 2 billion dollar investment is just incredibly non-consequential and honestly probably just a tax gimmick like all of Amazon's "charitable" ventures. Can we all stop be huge marks for this stuff. We are better than this.
tito 6y ago
We need to go carbon negative. Microsoft announced a $1B commitment to go carbon negative by 2030. This sets the course for the rise of air mining technologies. Interview with Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeQxTI-s48A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeQxTI-s48A Carbon Removal Weekly Update on the Microsoft announcement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J429u4RxkI0&t=21s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J429u4RxkI0&t=21s
Proven 6y ago
Why not take back some of that tax money. Government spending is out of control and, for now at least, can keep growing. At the same time competition is weak and most "customers" buy that green crap because governments force them to. You'll become Amazon customer whether you want it or not. What's not to like?
heratyian 6y ago
Yes, it's possible to be a capitalist and an environmentalist.
thoughtstheseus 6y ago
This whole industry needs a rebrand. Excess carbon pollute my neighborhood parks and community. The majority of the world’s ecosystems are getting less diverse as a result of excess carbon. We’re literally watching a great extinction event in real time.

150 points by sethbannon 6y ago

This won't work. We need real regulation that penalizes polluters so much that it's no longer profitable to destroy the planet. We need social and cultural changes so that it's no longer hip and cool to fly around on jet planes and cars. This is mostly a political issue, not an issue of private industries in search of profits.

dawnerd 6y ago
Okay so we pass regulations but we still need new technology to make manufacturing and so on cleaner.
IanDrake 6y ago
Good luck with that. I assume you live in a hut made from naturally fallen trees some where with no heating, air conditioning, running water, sewers, paved streets, computers, etc... I'm kidding, of course you're not. You're standing on the shoulders of giants, but you think you're flying.
wpasc 6y ago
I could not disagree more. The second that renewable energy is a more economic and reliable way to consume energy it will easily become the default because there will be no reason not to. Private companies that could develop/build/scale such technologies and deploy them who seek profit are a viable method because the profit motive can deploy capital to that effect. Government research and regulations could help speed the development of these technologies and hasten their tipping point through adjusting the cost. This is certainly not just a political issue and culture most often follows the past of least resistance. Telling people to stop consuming energy is a more quixotic endeavor than developing more economic renewables
- GreeniFi 6y ago
  “ The second that renewable energy is a more economic and reliable way to consume energy it will easily become the default because there will be no reason not to.” You ignore the realpolitik of climate change. FYI certain fossil fuel producing states invest heavily to disrupt the transition to renewables. Ask yourself why the Green Climate Fund, probably the most important fund of its type, is based is based in the arse-end or nowhere.
  - bradstewart 6y ago
    Certain ones do, sure. But not all, or even most. The vast majority of countries do not produce fossil fuels, so they all have an interest in reducing dependence on oil. I know nothing about the GCF or the geography of Korea, but ~2 hours from Seoul doesn't really seem like the "arse-end of nowhere"?
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  >Telling people to stop consuming energy is a more quixotic endeavor than developing more economic renewables Appropriately taxing energy consumption in order to force people to appropriately ration energy consumption for productive endeavors is more realistic than assuming humans are going to discover a preferable energy source than fossil fuels to move mass in a short enough timeframe to make an impact on climate change and pollution.
dpweb 6y ago
The biggest incentive for fossil fuel generated electricity is 0.06-0.10 cents per Kwh fossil fuel generated electricity. Electricity is cheap. There's two ways to make a renewables economy, it's not complicated. The quick way, 200% tax on all fossil fuel generated electricity. The slow way, wait for technology to evolve that renewables become cheaper than fossil fuel. Government could help companies and utilities transition.
pinkfoot 6y ago
> We need real regulation that penalizes polluters How are you going to penalise the other 7,000,000,000 people that don't live in the USA/EU/Japan? Growing at 3 souls per second. The only way is to provide a cleaner alternative for base line coal with 100% dispatch ration that is cheaper than coal. Because that is what the next five billion are going to use otherwise - whether you like it or not. If you solve this, then - like smartphones - they will line up around the block to buy it and you won't have to convince or police anyone. Right now, thorium breeder reactors seem the only thing.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

pphysch 6y ago

> Amazon announced it’s on a path to run on 100% renewable energy by 2025, five years ahead of schedule. A possible silver lining of market domination is the ability to tackle issues like climate change without falling behind competitors who aren't making those harder choices. Unless this is all PR and Amazon is actively burning down their namesake or something?

castratikron 6y ago
As long as the market dominator decides that climate change is a problem it needs to solve
drocer88 6y ago
It could also be feel good PR to deflect attention on their supply chain: both the political and environmental concerns people might have it they looked too close.
makerofspoons 6y ago
Switch to renewables, then lobby for a carbon tax to crush competitors that haven't switched or can't afford the transition.
- fsflover 6y ago
  If this is the only way to fight climate crisis, so be it.
depr 6y ago
In some cases, Amazon uses e.g. subsidied wind energy for new data centers. However, this means the renewable energy is not going to neighboring homes, which are instead still using non-renewables.
- TotempaaltJ 6y ago
  I think Google is not just being renewable energy, but also building new solar/wind farms to "offset" their use so this is not the case. Maybe Amazon is doing something similar?

1-6 6y ago

How about them delivery trucks and waste cardboard boxes? Those data centers can also generate a lot of emissions. Amazon is throwing spare change at a massing problem they're involved in.

pen2l 6y ago
But you’ve gotta admit they’re like 10 times better than the alternative. I mean, their whole operation is optimized up the wazoo. Imagine the time saved, the carbon emissions saved when folks don’t have to drive to and back to get their stuff. I’m kind of hooked on this grocery delivery stuff too now, so much time and headache and gas saved.
- 1-6 6y ago
  It just sounds like a PR stunt. They already have data centers which are under scrutiny for energy use and reducing packaging helps their bottom line as well. That's why I say it's 'spare change' for them.
- skrebbel 6y ago
  > But you’ve gotta admit they’re like 10 times better than the alternative. Not if the alternative is bikeable and walkable cities with decent public transport, though.
  - bananabreakfast 6y ago
    I think they meant reasonable alternative. American cities are not (for the most part) bikeable and certainly not walkable. Literally everything is designed to be driven to in a car. The decent public transport would help, but since it's been made a political issue it's not exactly as easy as just working within the constraints of the system.
  - Kalium 6y ago
    OK. Let's say a magic wand is waved, and all of us Americans have bikeable and walkable cities with excellent public transportation. Let's say this happens literally overnight. How do you expect this would change Amazon's logistics and how favorable they are for consumers? For my part, at the very least, I'm still likely to get a lot of things delivered. Local stores are very rarely cheaper for anything non-immediate and delivery takes much less of my time than going to a store and back. At a guess, Amazon's still better than this alternative for many scenarios. Maybe not ten times better, but still better.

an_opabinia 6y ago

Suppose the investments turn out to be wildly successful. They turn $2b into $200b. They could still fail at the goal of slowing global warming. The accounting value of an equity, especially a growth stage company, is never the same as its economic value. When in history has accounting (like a price) measured something real / believable about the environment? One way to look at this is what is the environmental impact of Tesla? Amazon would have love to have invested in Tesla. That would have made this fund. Anyone would. But just because their accounting values goes up so and so, doesn't mean that's a measurement of their environmental impact. My point is, equities are ill suited incentives for even economic profits, let alone environmental "profits."

PragmaticPulp 6y ago
> My point is, equities are ill suited incentives for even economic profits, let alone environmental "profits." What is your alternative proposal? It's not like Amazon's $2B investment in climate tech is mutually exclusive with government initiatives or other climate research. It's another angle to approach the problem, using the tools they have at their disposal. I don't understand the desire to assume the most cynical takes on this initiative.
- grussergraph 6y ago
  Since when is it cynical to analyze incentives? What kind of economics is that?
- adamsea 6y ago
  > I don't understand the desire to assume the most cynical takes on this initiative. Because of Amazon's (poor) history when it comes to exercising corporate social responsibility?
- santoshalper 6y ago
  They could pay taxes and we could, as a nation, decide how best to coordinate efforts to fight climate change.

delecti 6y ago

Even if you view it cynically this is a smart plan. It's good PR, and they've got a better foot in the door for when those climate tech companies start getting a bunch more customers. And one way or another they're likely to start getting more customers, whether it's proactive or reactive.

toomanymike 6y ago

Anyone have pointers to interesting companies in the climate tech space? Or tips for finding them?

snowisgone 6y ago
Also interested in this!
bloudermilk 6y ago
A group of us built the open source website https://climatescape.org https://climatescape.org for exactly this purpose. You can browse by sector and technology.
- toomanymike 6y ago
  Super helpful, thanks!

reizorc 6y ago

"If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted,... CO2 will need to be reduced ...to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that - Hansen et al.(2008)" [1] Neutral is not enough. So I hope they will be plowing large amounts of the fund into negative-emissions technologies. Either that or make large swathes of the planet into a disco ball. [1] Young People's Burden: Requirement of Negative CO2 Emissions. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1609/1609.05878.pdf https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1609/1609.05878.pdf

oh_sigh 6y ago
Proactively attempting to change the planet to fit our presumed desires seems even more irresponsible than trying to simply negate our effect on the planet. And realistically, the planet was more like an iceball than it is today for a vast majority of the timeline of homo sapiens.
- ip26 6y ago
  Pre-industrial revolution levels were 280ppm, so a target of 350ppm is still well within "roll back the damage we've done", rather than "mold the planet to our whims"
- chillacy 6y ago
  We've already started geo-engineering, just not intentionally.
  - oh_sigh 6y ago
    Yes, and I said that intentional geoengineering may be worse than intentional. Especially when it is geoengineering beyond the scope of "make it seem like we don't exist"

ericvanular 6y ago

Great to see checks getting written for climate projects again! For anyone who may be interested, there's a supportive climate focused community and interesting climate projects over at https://collective.energy https://collective.energy (founder here)

GoodJokes 6y ago

Why is this a place just a collection PR articles. Can we not? If you work for amazon, please stop astroturfing this laughable bs. A 2 billion dollar investment is just incredibly non-consequential and honestly probably just a tax gimmick like all of Amazon's "charitable" ventures. Can we all stop be huge marks for this stuff. We are better than this.

tito 6y ago

We need to go carbon negative. Microsoft announced a $1B commitment to go carbon negative by 2030. This sets the course for the rise of air mining technologies. Interview with Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeQxTI-s48A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeQxTI-s48A Carbon Removal Weekly Update on the Microsoft announcement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J429u4RxkI0&t=21s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J429u4RxkI0&t=21s

Proven 6y ago

Why not take back some of that tax money. Government spending is out of control and, for now at least, can keep growing. At the same time competition is weak and most "customers" buy that green crap because governments force them to. You'll become Amazon customer whether you want it or not. What's not to like?

heratyian 6y ago

Yes, it's possible to be a capitalist and an environmentalist.

thoughtstheseus 6y ago

This whole industry needs a rebrand. Excess carbon pollute my neighborhood parks and community. The majority of the world’s ecosystems are getting less diverse as a result of excess carbon. We’re literally watching a great extinction event in real time.