13 ms·
Amazon Backs Out of Climate Pledge, Deletes Shipment Zero Initiative Blogpost
- scrum-treats 3y agoArchived Version: https://archive.ph/W7jUR https://archive.ph/W7jUR. Deleted blogpost: https://web.archive.org/web/20230525232713/https://www.aboutamazon.com/planet?asc_source=browser&asc_campaign=commerce-pra&tag=thebusiinsi-20 https://web.archive.org/web/20230525232713/https://www.about.... See also: Amazon fights to kill emissions bill in Oregon, despite climate pledge [1]. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35444181 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35444181
- Prickle 3y agoIt's a shame really, false statements by corporations rarely get prosecuted. Corporate statements\speech needs to be regulated. There needs to be a law that holds them explicitly to any and all statements.
- stikit 3y ago[flagged]
- readthenotes1 3y agoWhy should corporations be held more accountable than any other person*?
- toomuchtodo 3y agoSecurities fraud and SEC Rule 10b-5 > "The federal securities laws prohibit deceptive conduct and material misrepresentations in the purchase or sale of securities," said Kathryn A. Pyszka, an Associate Director in the SEC’s Chicago Regional Office. "We will take action when, as alleged, parties fraudulently induce investors to sell their securities through lies and deception." From random press release: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-17 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_Rule_10b-5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_Rule_10b-5
- wcunning 3y agoSee every Matt Levine column ever -- Everything is Securities Fraud. That is the actual interpretation of 10b-5 by the SEC and by the activist investor class (not meant as a denigrating term, merely descriptive of investors actively taking interest in their portfolio companies to the point that they sue over deceptive claims). I expect the lawsuit to follow, but might take a few months to file.
- Phileosopher 3y agoI'm not so certain about that. In the world of securities, civil lawsuits are a profit-making scheme. I'm not an expert on it, so I'm wondering: as it stands, can an SEC court indicate that Amazon made a material change to their company value by walking their promise to be greener back?
- anigbrowl 3y agoBecause they're not people. Frankly, I think false statements by individuals that constitute some sort of public commitment (for which they reasonably expect to receive praise, positive PR, or subsidies of some kind) should also be prosecutable. Lying and bullshitting for profit are far too well tolerated.
- Prickle 3y agoWhy shouldn't they? Public individuals are routinely held accountable for their statements. Why shouldn't customers be allowed to hold corporations to the same standards? If corporations promise a feature, then fail to deliver, they should be held liable for false advertisement. Similarly, if Microsoft promises Windows 10 is the last "Windows Version", then launches Windows 11, we should be allowed to sue them for making false statements. Oh wait I just want a law that makes false advertisement absolutely, unequivocally, illegal. Corporations should sell what they have now, not what they might have in the future.
- readthenotes1 3y agoActually, i was being sarcastic... The legal fiction if corporations being legal person-like that shields sackler's and whoever headed the credit rating agencies leading up to 2008 is obscene
- imgabe 3y agoWhen are public individuals held accountable for their statements? Public figures lie constantly, they tell us there's WMDs in Iraq, that inflation is transitory, that an election was stolen, and on and on. They never get held accountable. How would you even begin to differentiate between people who are lying and people who are simply wrong? > Why shouldn't customers be allowed to hold corporations to the same standards? Nothing is stopping customers from holding corporations accountable, by taking their business elsewhere if they find a corporation to be unreliable.
- Prickle 3y ago> When are public individuals held accountable for their statements? "Public individual" is not exclusive to members of the american government. Should we legislate that as well? Nations have started legislating laws against falsehoods after all. Minor public figures, the latest most "current" example being video creators on social media platforms, are routinely held accountable for failure to disclose sponsorships. Why aren't corporations found in legal trouble for failing to disclose that XYZ feature was never going to happen? I should add, private individuals are also held accountable for statements in court. Why should such things be exclusive to courts? Does the truth only matter in front of a judge? Should we not find the act of lying for the sake of greater sales, a despicable act? > Nothing is stopping customers from holding corporations accountable, by taking their business elsewhere if they find a corporation to be unreliable. This is a blatant lie. Customers boycotting Chevron doesn't stop them from buying judges and violating the environments of various nations such as Ecuador. Individual consumers, even consumers coming together to form a large group, still cannot effect any major damage to a corporation. The only entities that can truly "fight" a corporation are similarly sized governments or organized violent attacks on corporate property.
- DoktorDelta 3y agoBecause corporations have a larger impact on the world than any other person*
- mcbits 3y agoSame reason governments should be held more accountable than any other person, if we're going by the "group of persons = person" definition of person.
- thechangelog 3y agoBecause they have vastly more resources, vastly more externalities and vastly more ability to make measurable change. And because their fiduciary duty is for profit and not a sustainable world, their accountability should be even higher.
- anticensor 3y agoThis is only the case in Sweden, and only for Aktienbolayet type companies. No other for-profit entity has a legally required fiduciary obligation to return profits.
- salawat 3y agoBecause they are legal fictions only suffered to exist in order to allow people to do risky things.
- saghm 3y agoThey can't be put in jail, given the death penalty, vote, or be taxed at the same rate as "any other person"; to turn the question around, what makes you presume that this is one of the cases where they should be treated like a person and not one of the ones where they're not, when there are numerous examples of both?
- newswasboring 3y agoThey have a lot more power than any person. More power, more responsibility.
- varenc 3y agoYour link to the deleted blog post is wrong. Here's the real link: https://web.archive.org/web/20230122230554/https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/sustainability/delivering-shipment-zero-a-vision-for-net-zero-carbon-shipments https://web.archive.org/web/20230122230554/https://www.about... Your link was just to their main site, which is still online now. (The root problem is that the posted article's link is also broken due to the affiliate/click tracking stuff businessinsider.com adds. Their redirect system assumes its safe to add additional query args but the wayback machine interprets these as part of the old url to find in its archives)
- varenc 3y agoI tweeted at the article's author and they've now fixed their link as well :-)
- dendrite9 3y agoWell I hope they don't change the Stadium name, that's how I knew they were serious.
- CaptainNegative 3y agoThis HN post has a misleading title (as of the time of this comment). They backed out of a climate pledge (50% delivery emissions reduction by 2030), not "The" Climate Pledge (100% cross-sector carbon neutral by 2040 and a few other things).
- photochemsyn 3y agoLooks like Amazon is also dragging its feet on moving to an all-electric local delivery fleet: https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/13/rivian_amazon_electric_van/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/13/rivian_amazon_electri... Tesla and Ford seem to have some kind of commercial delivery e-van in the works, though. The net-zero claims are mostly nonsense in any case -it means continuing to use fossil fuels for jet transport and shipping/trucking while buying 'offsets' in a dubious and unscientific carbon-trading scheme to reach so-called 'net-zero'. Such offsets don't remove any of the fossil fuel-sourced carbon pumped into the atmosphere on anything like a long-term basis, and are best classified as a fraudulent program pushed by fossil fuel interests in the name of greenwashing their business.
- asdff 3y agoAirlines seem to be more in favor of investing in biofuels for jets than to have them use some other energy source. A review: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2020.00110/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2020.0011...
- jabl 3y agoTo be honest, liquid hydrocarbons are a very good energy source when weight and volume is important, like aircraft. Battery-electric planes will likely become a thing for short range flights, but I'm having a hard time seeing how anything like the current level of long range flights would be compatible with a "zero carbon" society. Biofuels and synthetic fuels will allow a limited amount of long range flights though, so I don't think we'd need to give up on those entirely.
- xracy 3y agoWhat? No! But they super-duper pinky promised. TBH, I don't know why they would do this instead of just... silently missing the target, like I assume most businesses are going to do.
- PKop 3y agoAwesome, good for them. More should oppose the insane climate propaganda and not cave to ideological mob pressure.
- andsoitis 3y ago> insane climate propaganda In a nutshell, what is the climate propaganda?
- blooalien 3y ago"Climate propaganda" is any statement that places environment, life, or literally anything else above the idea that our filthy rich overlords desperately need more money even if it kills us all. More money for the filthy rich is the only thing that matters in the entire Universe. If you believe otherwise, you're a filthy heathen heretic hippie tree hugger.
- smolder 3y agoThe ideology of wanting humans to not send themselves to extinction like we're doing to so many other species. How horrible!
- monero-xmr 3y agoHumans will not send themselves to extinction if the earth gets a few degrees warmer. That is the propaganda. We survived ice ages, and with our modern technology we will survive warming. I'm not saying there won't be negatives, but to say we are all going to die, is absurd to the extreme. Unfortunately that is common today, however it is merely one in a long line of apocalyptic movements which have been common in every century in recorded history.
- smolder 3y agoI didn't say we are all going to die. I still have hope that despite all the recalcitrant folks constantly bemoaning every attempt at collective action to curb the coming problems that we will survive. But it won't be thanks to said people crying "climate propaganda!" The attitude espoused by OP here is worse than useless. It's thanks to propaganda from ideologues who OPPOSE collective action on climate change that there are huge swaths of people who think it's not an issue at all, or some kind of commie plot. Stop the buffoonery, and stop demonizing people who want to prevent future suffering and ecological degradation.
- skwb 3y agoI live in the Seattle area now, and I find it hilarious that the public transportation infrastructure around Climate Pledge Arena (which Amazon bought the naming rights for) is horrendously bad. My wife and I looked into taking the subway + somehow transferring to the monorail, only to see that service was super limited by the time the concert finished. We end up parking nearby since it's cheaper/easier to do so. Completely the worst set of incentives.
- tomcam 3y agoIs Amazon responsible for Seattle public transit in return for naming rights or something? Not following your logic.
- whatever1 3y agoTech population grew faster than the infrastructure in the wider Seattle area. Especially after the return-to-office mandates from the companies, traffic is at LA levels. 1-2 hour 1-way commutes are common.
- influx 3y agoIf only we had a city council and state government that cared about the environment and priorities public transport…
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mbgerring 3y agoIf only we had meaningful state capacity in the US, and didn’t depend on the whims of wealthy individuals
- hackernewds 3y agoIf only we cared less about those without wealth and power, and bulldozed our way over these helpless communities like other countries with solid public transportation have done.
- charles_f 3y agoHonestly, at this stage, if it doesn't align directly with increasing the baseline on the short term, it's hard to see any sort of pledge from large companies as anything more than PR. Amazon backed out, but they could very well have done like the others and buy bullshit carbon offset credits - I guess the math on their tax deductions didn't work. Assuming that we think within system, till incentives like punitive taxation are devised to force the hand of big corporations on that topic, nothing will change. But that won't happen because of lobbies and yaddi-yadda. And even if, I doubt if they wouldn't find ways around it. So, yeah.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 3y agoI mean if the company market cap is skyrocketing and they're making money hand over fist, I think you can read any pledge as "we pledge to do this thing as long as the money continues to pour in at the current rate or better." Whenever revenue starts contracting, all the old promises are basically empty words.
- vasco 3y agoSame way if it gets cold, or food is missing from the supermarket everyone will temporarily stop caring about the environment. Priorities are there for a reason.
- ohthehugemanate 3y agoI think microsoft is the only large hyperscaler that seems to take this as more than a shallow PR push. Their goal is carbon zero by 2030 - not net zero, but actually removing as much carbon from the atmosphere as they put in. They pay for actual carbon removal and help develop that tech in order to get there. And their targets are all three classes of emissions (ie including indirect emissions) which no other tech company even talks about. That's recognized within the carbon monitoring industry... I think they're on the CDP A list for carbon for the third year in a row now? (Amzn and goog have never been there) On the other hand, I don't see people in tech making buying decisions based on this. Why does your company use AWS or GCP, and did the "nothing more than PR" state of their climate commitments even come up in that decision? Complaining on the internet is fun, but changing buying habits is better.
- alfor 3y agoLet corporation be greedy and honest about it. Regulation/incentives and even more technology is going to move the needle, not some greenwashing initiative.
- renewiltord 3y agoThis shit is pointless. It doesn't move the needle with consumers (who are price conscious above all) and activists (who require purity). If you give in to activists a little you will be punished harder than if you do nothing at all primarily because activists don't want an outcome so much as they want to be activists. Given this, serve your customers at all costs. The environment is something you can deal with later.
- PeterStuer 3y ago'Net Zero' as all the 'offset' based schemes are greenwashing accounting shenanigans designed to avoid having to really restrain your emissions.
- Gigachad 3y agoIt's so crazy when you dig in to it. Take some protected forest, then claim "uh actually we are going to bulldoze this unless you buy our carbon credits" then vastly over calculate how much carbon is stored, sell it off as credits for not bulldozing it, and then a few years later, sell the same forest again for credits. And then consumers think they are all cool and good because their flight was "offset". Carbon offsetting is not real. If your product or consumption is creating greenhouse gasses, the only solution is to stop consuming it until it becomes more efficient itself rather than rely on accounting trickery.
- aae42 3y agoWhat's even funnier is when they sell the carbon credit for huge swaths of land that are completely unbuildable and will never really be bulldozed ever... Yea it's a carbon sink, but it'll always be one. There's no way to get ahead
- lozenge 3y agoYes, actual net zero would involve removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which is impossible at the scale these companies require. The equipment doesn't exist beyond a few tiny demonstration projects, and if it did it would cost 100x what the companies want to pay. Offsets are like me offsetting the cost of a night out by buying a coffee machine to help my wife to skip Starbucks. The bank balance still goes down.
- knallfrosch 3y agoI've found out that I can fly 1,000 times net zero per year if I offset that by not flying another 1,000 times. It's that simple.
- iLoveOncall 3y agoCan dang fix the absolute bullshit editorialized title? They did not back out of the climate pledge at all, even the bullet points below the main picture say so: "The company is rolling the goal into a broader Climate Pledge."
- LatteLazy 3y agoAt this point, individual, corporate and even national actions are totally pointless. It's a binding international agreement or we all just do our own thing.
- eb0la 3y agoOne of the reasons I quitted Amazon Prime was ecology. My neighborhood is plagued with Amazon delivery vans. They are everywhere, double parked, which makes traffic a mess in a place that used to be a quiet neigborhood. I am sure Amazon has no idea about how many CO2 they emit, since most of them are freelance contractors. But since they don't pay much, they have no low emission vehicles, and makes the rest of the people emit more CO2 since they double park everywhere.
- curiousgal 3y agoIt's funny because, if anything, this post highlights the futility of consumer-level actions. One corporate action can have the effect of all individual actions of thousands of people over their entire lifetime.
- rtpg 3y agoI somewhat understand the nihilism at play here, but it's not like those trucks exist absent consumer demand. They aren't driving around for fun! It doesn't matter that you are not giving the company money anymore, until enough people independently make that decision and then it starts mattering. This is a thing that happens in every economic sphere.
- tcfhgj 3y agoWell, except sometimes they are (not really though): https://www.ksta.de/ratgeber/verbraucher/retouren-bei-zalando-gps-tracker-zeigen-was-wirklich-mit-der-mode-passiert-1-490909 https://www.ksta.de/ratgeber/verbraucher/retouren-bei-zaland... Returned items were transported at least 7000km and up to 29.000km within Europe
- pnt12 3y agoOn the other hand, consumers have little control over businesses. I'd be fine with eco friendly delivery, eg more wait time to minimize trips in the neighborhood, electric cars, etc. Most of the time I'm sitting on a full online cart for days, and removing stuff I don't really need until I'm happy with the order: I can wait. But where's that option?
- myshpa 3y agoThe wrong Amazon is burning.
- strus 3y agoCarrying about climate was the zero interest rate phenomenon.
- draw_down 3y ago[dead]
- Traubenfuchs 3y agoI would expect anyone radical enough to care about this probably doesn't order from Amazon anyways.
- TheLoafOfBread 3y agoCompanies are starting to figure out that being carbon neutral is expensive. Something what regular people have figured out long time ago.
- solarkraft 3y agoIt should be less expensive than emitting carbon
- meetsinglesusa 3y ago[flagged]