6 ms·

Jeff Bezos’ Space Joyride Emitted a Lifetime’s Worth of Carbon Pollution

djmips 5y ago
I believe that anyone that travels a lot on airliners will easily surpass this so nothing to be smug about for a lot of people.
- pope_meat 5y ago
  https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/07/boeing-ceo-80-percent-of-people-never-flown-for-us-that-means-growth.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/07/boeing-ceo-80-percent-of-peo... "A lot of people" is a bit of a stretch.
- lostlogin 5y ago
  It really wouldn’t. I tried a few calculators and flying Auckland to London return (you can’t fly that much further) comes out somewhere around 3000kgs. To get to the amount Bezos uses (maybe 75 tonnes, but likely 250-1000 tonnes), that one hell of a lot of flying. https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/loyaltymodule/form/carbon-emissions-offset https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/loyaltymodule/form/carbon-em... https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/Pages/default.aspx https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/P...
  - legitster 5y ago
    To get the number they are cutting for Bezos, they are including the manufacturing and shipping and logistics of the flight. If you add all that in to the carbon cost of a plane's first flight as well, I wouldn't be surprised to find the gap narrower that one might expect.
    - RealityVoid 5y ago
      The carbon cost of the plane should be divided by the number of it's many users. So it is overall, minute, compared to if we do the same division for Bezo's craft.
      - tinus_hn 5y ago
        So the solution clearly is for more people to fly on the spacecraft! /s
- MisterSandman 5y ago
  You will have to travel a lot more, over a really long period of time, to get to the 75ton/250ton numbers. Technically, anybody who eats hamburgers can eat enough burgers to hit that number - the point is that JB did that for a small, largely unnecessary spaceflight.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Hamburgers are just as small and unnecessary.
actuallyalys 5y ago
For extra context, his trip is roughly 3 years of the average American's emissions (21 t/yr) [0] and 7 years of the emissions of an American in the bottom 50 percent by income (9.7 t/yr) [0], which is where many of Bezos' employees fall. [1] If the 250 tons figure is correct, those become 12 and 26 years. Americans who fall in the bottom 50 percent already emit less than necessary to hit the 2030 Paris Agreement targets [0]. If Bezos emits the typical amount for someone in the top 0.01 percent globally (2531 t/yr) [2], he'd have to slash his emissions by 99.6 percent. [0]: https://wir2022.wid.world/chapter-6/#tab_61b433da73d0e https://wir2022.wid.world/chapter-6/#tab_61b433da73d0e [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employee-salary-pay-median-worker-compensation-compared-jeff-bezos-2021-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employee-salary-pay-m... [2]: https://wir2022.wid.world/chapter-6/#tab_61b433da73d06 https://wir2022.wid.world/chapter-6/#tab_61b433da73d06
- lostlogin 5y ago
  I think you’re basing this on the 75 tonnes estimate, while 250-1000 tonnes was suggested to be more likely.
  - actuallyalys 5y ago
    The first set of figures are based on 75 tons and the second set were based on 250 tons.
burglekutt 5y ago
Calling it a joyride seems like typical rage bait du jour. Space is a worthy project. Projects need goals to rally around, and this was a goal being accomplished. Who cares who was on the ride? Furthermore, making it all about the richest few people misses the point. More useful to focus on the goal (regain U.S. space capability, and expand human space capability overall) and remember that there are tens of thousands of people involved in this. Further-furthermore, you could make this same argument about any major development being a waste of resources if you just ignore the ever-expanding light cones of benefit that the whole human race gained from them.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  Space is a worthy project; the commercialization of space travel is not. Aren't you tired of billionaires externalizing horrific environmental costs for their own profit? Isn't asking us to rally behind them because they have " a goal" just a little bit patronizing / condescending / cynical? Isn't the opportunity cost for such a jaunt just horrific, compared to the "ever-expanding light cones of benefit" we'd get by putting that money into the hands of teachers and janitors?
  - throwaway2331 5y ago
    We could also simply do-away with level-headed discourse, and go back to the tried-and-true: "Billionaires are not your friends. They don't know you, they don't care about you, and they can do nothing for you -- except allow you to live vicariously through their avarice, as if you're some sportsfan." To seriously spend any time at all aligning oneself with the workings of reality-disassociated billionaires---much less as anything but a fellow billionaire!---is silly. There really is nothing good that will happen if Jeff Bezos does X, Y, or Z, except parasocial fans will be imbued with energy and celebration. That's it. Maddening. I'm of a mind of treating anyone supportive of unaccountable billionaires as enablers, or even missing some basic human faculties of independent thought.
    - neither_color 5y ago
      "Billionaires are not your friends. They don't know you, they don't care about you, and they can do nothing for you -- except allow you to live vicariously through their avarice, as if you're some sportsfan." While this is true, it's also true of anyone I don't personally know. They can't care about me. Dunbar's number.
aaron695 5y ago
[dead]
fractallyte 5y ago
And yet Bezos was quite clear about Blue Origin's long-term goals (https://www.msnbc.com/stephanie-ruhle/watch/jeff-bezos-and-brother-mark-speak-to-msnbc-after-successful-blue-origin-flight-117068357904 https://www.msnbc.com/stephanie-ruhle/watch/jeff-bezos-and-b...): "We need to take all heavy industry, all polluting industry, and move it into space. And keep Earth as this beautiful gem of a planet that it is..." It would "take decades to achieve, but you have to start. And big things start with small steps." Bezos acknowledges that it won't be achieved in just one (his!) lifetime. That's not selfish at all. Which other 'ultra-wealthy' tech billionaire has such a vision? And that's where these critics fall flat: they're basically petty and stupid. One reason why someone like Bezos is rich, and they're not: long-term vision. Amazon was a disappointment for shareholders, because it reinvested its profits into growth: https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2014/9/4/why-amazon-has-no-profits-and-why-it-works https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2014/9/4/why-amazon-... Government initiatives are sometimes driven, but mostly hampered by politics (NASA has a very limited budget!) - unlike private ventures. Remember how Tesla started: by wooing wealthy individuals with exclusive vehicles; it was part of the plan! Moving industry into space is not a new idea, but Blue Origin is taking the first real steps to achieve this.
- kiba 5y ago
  It's one thing to have a vision, it's another to execute it. As of late, he had made enemies of space fans and people across the space industries, and destroyed the morale of his workers at his own companies, all the while achieving very little. Blue Origin is older than SpaceX, and yet SpaceX is far ahead.
- kgin 5y ago
  Needs to be clearer. All 99% of people see is Jeff Bezos and William Shatner in cowboy hats. If it’s about moving heavy industry into space they need to spend less time talking about how much fun it is to float around in space.
- ericmay 5y ago
  Could not agree more. And while people are happy to hate on Bezos and his space adventure I’m very unhappy that we ignore far more meaningful problems and discussions. He’s just a scapegoat. I don’t know what to call this exactly. It’s like when someone is successful doing something that someone else thinks the government only should be doing so they get mad and throw mud and insults. And I don’t really give a crap about Bezos, don’t care for Amazon one way or another. How about we increase NASA’s funding 100x, stop building all new highways, and electrify America? Why are we complaining about Bezos and not our actual leaders that we elect? It’s lazy!
legitster 5y ago
I was surprised to see this report, given the rockets themselves emit literally zero Carbon Dioxide (the byproduct of their engine being NO2). Then I got to the actual meat of it: >An 11-minute flight emits no fewer than 75 tonnes of carbon per passenger once indirect emissions are taken into account (and more likely, in the 250-1,000 tonnes range). Ah yes,indirect costs. Sure. These things that don't matter when NASA or SpaceX sends rockets to space (which actually have CO2 generating engines to boot!) But for the record, the typical US household generates on average of 40-60 of emissions per year. You have to do some phenomenally uncharitable math to make the lifetime claim. It's certainly an... editorial choice to make this an issue about inequality.
- bakuninsbart 5y ago
  Well, it is like the difference of going on a cruise and using products that were sent via shipping container. The latter is essential for our modern economies to function, while the former is just irresponsibly destroying the environment for your own amusement.
  - Meph504 5y ago
    The problem is people seeing this as a joyride, spaceX or nasa can send up a thousand rockets, and people correctly see that as progress and testing of the ship and advancement of technology. But because people have a hard on for blaming Bezo's for everything this is classified as some sort of waste of time. Blue Origins intended goal is to reach the moon, and this is a step towards it, one that offers a way to fund the project through space tourism, a practice done by most space programs in one shape or form. Its just painful to watch the hypocrisy, I mean if musk can launch a tesla into space, and not be considered a joyride, I don't think its fair to classify this one any differently. But hey, gizmodo gets its ad revenue, which I'm sure is equality disturbed across all those involved in making this site possible.
    - bakuninsbart 5y ago
      I don't disagree with you, Bezo's flying to space is just really bad publicity, because it makes apparent how much the contemporary space race is a dick measuring contest between filthy-rich tech industrialists. To me, it is honestly one of the most telling signs of the times, that a contest that was originally "held" between the only two super-powers on the planet, is today led as much by capitalists as it is by nation states. Space tourism is only a viable form of commercializing space exploration because we live in incredibly unequal times, and this is where most of the criticism of Bezos in particular comes from. Added on to that, in contrast to Musks companies, Amazon is also constantly in the news for viciously exploiting labor, so that adds to the criticism.
m0llusk 5y ago
But I was told that person carbon footprint was a conspiracy to shift blame from industry to individuals.
chheplo 5y ago
Writing this article on a computer and servers that maintains it may have indirectly consumed tones of CO2, too, I assume.

I believe that anyone that travels a lot on airliners will easily surpass this so nothing to be smug about for a lot of people.

pope_meat 5y ago
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/07/boeing-ceo-80-percent-of-people-never-flown-for-us-that-means-growth.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/07/boeing-ceo-80-percent-of-peo... "A lot of people" is a bit of a stretch.
lostlogin 5y ago
It really wouldn’t. I tried a few calculators and flying Auckland to London return (you can’t fly that much further) comes out somewhere around 3000kgs. To get to the amount Bezos uses (maybe 75 tonnes, but likely 250-1000 tonnes), that one hell of a lot of flying. https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/loyaltymodule/form/carbon-emissions-offset https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/loyaltymodule/form/carbon-em... https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/Pages/default.aspx https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/P...
- legitster 5y ago
  To get the number they are cutting for Bezos, they are including the manufacturing and shipping and logistics of the flight. If you add all that in to the carbon cost of a plane's first flight as well, I wouldn't be surprised to find the gap narrower that one might expect.
  - RealityVoid 5y ago
    The carbon cost of the plane should be divided by the number of it's many users. So it is overall, minute, compared to if we do the same division for Bezo's craft.
    - tinus_hn 5y ago
      So the solution clearly is for more people to fly on the spacecraft! /s
MisterSandman 5y ago
You will have to travel a lot more, over a really long period of time, to get to the 75ton/250ton numbers. Technically, anybody who eats hamburgers can eat enough burgers to hit that number - the point is that JB did that for a small, largely unnecessary spaceflight.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Hamburgers are just as small and unnecessary.

actuallyalys 5y ago

For extra context, his trip is roughly 3 years of the average American's emissions (21 t/yr) [0] and 7 years of the emissions of an American in the bottom 50 percent by income (9.7 t/yr) [0], which is where many of Bezos' employees fall. [1] If the 250 tons figure is correct, those become 12 and 26 years. Americans who fall in the bottom 50 percent already emit less than necessary to hit the 2030 Paris Agreement targets [0]. If Bezos emits the typical amount for someone in the top 0.01 percent globally (2531 t/yr) [2], he'd have to slash his emissions by 99.6 percent. [0]: https://wir2022.wid.world/chapter-6/#tab_61b433da73d0e https://wir2022.wid.world/chapter-6/#tab_61b433da73d0e [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employee-salary-pay-median-worker-compensation-compared-jeff-bezos-2021-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employee-salary-pay-m... [2]: https://wir2022.wid.world/chapter-6/#tab_61b433da73d06 https://wir2022.wid.world/chapter-6/#tab_61b433da73d06

lostlogin 5y ago
I think you’re basing this on the 75 tonnes estimate, while 250-1000 tonnes was suggested to be more likely.
- actuallyalys 5y ago
  The first set of figures are based on 75 tons and the second set were based on 250 tons.

burglekutt 5y ago

Calling it a joyride seems like typical rage bait du jour. Space is a worthy project. Projects need goals to rally around, and this was a goal being accomplished. Who cares who was on the ride? Furthermore, making it all about the richest few people misses the point. More useful to focus on the goal (regain U.S. space capability, and expand human space capability overall) and remember that there are tens of thousands of people involved in this. Further-furthermore, you could make this same argument about any major development being a waste of resources if you just ignore the ever-expanding light cones of benefit that the whole human race gained from them.

mandmandam 5y ago
Space is a worthy project; the commercialization of space travel is not. Aren't you tired of billionaires externalizing horrific environmental costs for their own profit? Isn't asking us to rally behind them because they have " a goal" just a little bit patronizing / condescending / cynical? Isn't the opportunity cost for such a jaunt just horrific, compared to the "ever-expanding light cones of benefit" we'd get by putting that money into the hands of teachers and janitors?
- throwaway2331 5y ago
  We could also simply do-away with level-headed discourse, and go back to the tried-and-true: "Billionaires are not your friends. They don't know you, they don't care about you, and they can do nothing for you -- except allow you to live vicariously through their avarice, as if you're some sportsfan." To seriously spend any time at all aligning oneself with the workings of reality-disassociated billionaires---much less as anything but a fellow billionaire!---is silly. There really is nothing good that will happen if Jeff Bezos does X, Y, or Z, except parasocial fans will be imbued with energy and celebration. That's it. Maddening. I'm of a mind of treating anyone supportive of unaccountable billionaires as enablers, or even missing some basic human faculties of independent thought.
  - neither_color 5y ago
    "Billionaires are not your friends. They don't know you, they don't care about you, and they can do nothing for you -- except allow you to live vicariously through their avarice, as if you're some sportsfan." While this is true, it's also true of anyone I don't personally know. They can't care about me. Dunbar's number.

aaron695 5y ago

[dead]

fractallyte 5y ago

And yet Bezos was quite clear about Blue Origin's long-term goals (https://www.msnbc.com/stephanie-ruhle/watch/jeff-bezos-and-brother-mark-speak-to-msnbc-after-successful-blue-origin-flight-117068357904 https://www.msnbc.com/stephanie-ruhle/watch/jeff-bezos-and-b...): "We need to take all heavy industry, all polluting industry, and move it into space. And keep Earth as this beautiful gem of a planet that it is..." It would "take decades to achieve, but you have to start. And big things start with small steps." Bezos acknowledges that it won't be achieved in just one (his!) lifetime. That's not selfish at all. Which other 'ultra-wealthy' tech billionaire has such a vision? And that's where these critics fall flat: they're basically petty and stupid. One reason why someone like Bezos is rich, and they're not: long-term vision. Amazon was a disappointment for shareholders, because it reinvested its profits into growth: https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2014/9/4/why-amazon-has-no-profits-and-why-it-works https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2014/9/4/why-amazon-... Government initiatives are sometimes driven, but mostly hampered by politics (NASA has a very limited budget!) - unlike private ventures. Remember how Tesla started: by wooing wealthy individuals with exclusive vehicles; it was part of the plan! Moving industry into space is not a new idea, but Blue Origin is taking the first real steps to achieve this.

kiba 5y ago
It's one thing to have a vision, it's another to execute it. As of late, he had made enemies of space fans and people across the space industries, and destroyed the morale of his workers at his own companies, all the while achieving very little. Blue Origin is older than SpaceX, and yet SpaceX is far ahead.
kgin 5y ago
Needs to be clearer. All 99% of people see is Jeff Bezos and William Shatner in cowboy hats. If it’s about moving heavy industry into space they need to spend less time talking about how much fun it is to float around in space.
ericmay 5y ago
Could not agree more. And while people are happy to hate on Bezos and his space adventure I’m very unhappy that we ignore far more meaningful problems and discussions. He’s just a scapegoat. I don’t know what to call this exactly. It’s like when someone is successful doing something that someone else thinks the government only should be doing so they get mad and throw mud and insults. And I don’t really give a crap about Bezos, don’t care for Amazon one way or another. How about we increase NASA’s funding 100x, stop building all new highways, and electrify America? Why are we complaining about Bezos and not our actual leaders that we elect? It’s lazy!

legitster 5y ago

I was surprised to see this report, given the rockets themselves emit literally zero Carbon Dioxide (the byproduct of their engine being NO2). Then I got to the actual meat of it: >An 11-minute flight emits no fewer than 75 tonnes of carbon per passenger once indirect emissions are taken into account (and more likely, in the 250-1,000 tonnes range). Ah yes,indirect costs. Sure. These things that don't matter when NASA or SpaceX sends rockets to space (which actually have CO2 generating engines to boot!) But for the record, the typical US household generates on average of 40-60 of emissions per year. You have to do some phenomenally uncharitable math to make the lifetime claim. It's certainly an... editorial choice to make this an issue about inequality.

bakuninsbart 5y ago
Well, it is like the difference of going on a cruise and using products that were sent via shipping container. The latter is essential for our modern economies to function, while the former is just irresponsibly destroying the environment for your own amusement.
- Meph504 5y ago
  The problem is people seeing this as a joyride, spaceX or nasa can send up a thousand rockets, and people correctly see that as progress and testing of the ship and advancement of technology. But because people have a hard on for blaming Bezo's for everything this is classified as some sort of waste of time. Blue Origins intended goal is to reach the moon, and this is a step towards it, one that offers a way to fund the project through space tourism, a practice done by most space programs in one shape or form. Its just painful to watch the hypocrisy, I mean if musk can launch a tesla into space, and not be considered a joyride, I don't think its fair to classify this one any differently. But hey, gizmodo gets its ad revenue, which I'm sure is equality disturbed across all those involved in making this site possible.
  - bakuninsbart 5y ago
    I don't disagree with you, Bezo's flying to space is just really bad publicity, because it makes apparent how much the contemporary space race is a dick measuring contest between filthy-rich tech industrialists. To me, it is honestly one of the most telling signs of the times, that a contest that was originally "held" between the only two super-powers on the planet, is today led as much by capitalists as it is by nation states. Space tourism is only a viable form of commercializing space exploration because we live in incredibly unequal times, and this is where most of the criticism of Bezos in particular comes from. Added on to that, in contrast to Musks companies, Amazon is also constantly in the news for viciously exploiting labor, so that adds to the criticism.

m0llusk 5y ago

But I was told that person carbon footprint was a conspiracy to shift blame from industry to individuals.

chheplo 5y ago

Writing this article on a computer and servers that maintains it may have indirectly consumed tones of CO2, too, I assume.