It represents real economic growth by playing against the currently undervalued environmental externality. I'm betting that large corporations will be successful in maneuvering the government toward individualized responsibility that ultimately absolves Amazon from economic responsibility and instead places it on the futurum civis in the form of ecological and economic asceticism. All in all a brilliant move for those who want to see line go up.
>Amazon’s carbon intensity –- a measure that divides its emissions by gross merchandise sales –- fell 1.9%, an indication of the company’s success in delivering products and running its warehouses, data centers and offices more efficiently
It is pretty impressive that they can grow 18% while increasing energy efficiency.
Isn't that part of the problem? That Amazon and other mass consumption distributors are encouraging us to buy more products, thus negating any efficiency gains in carbin emissions?
True. Another example of why that thought-terminating cliché à la '100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions, so my personal choices are irrelevant' is so silly.
Amazon's net emissions are up 18% because hundreds of millions of individuals choose to purchase from them.
The carbon-intensity metric is interesting:
> a measure that divides its emissions by gross merchandise sales
If emissions stay the same, but prices go up... say there is significant inflation, or a supply chain crunch which leads to price-gouging... then the denominator increases. Want to have a great carbon-intensity KPI? Better get that revenue up! Which is somewhat ironic.
Ultimately, Amazon's net emissions are up 18% and how efficiently they produce them isn't a factor in determining those emission's climate forcing effect. I.e., if you and I were on a boat in the ocean and I'm prying up planks from the hull to make children's toys, you would not care how efficiently I am making those toys.
Point taken regarding the the dollar denominated KPI opposed to goods shipped.
>if you and I were on a boat in the ocean and I'm prying up planks from the hull to make children's toys, you would not care how efficiently I am making those toys.
I would care about efficiency if the boat is full of other toy makers and people demanding toys.
In that case, I would care very much about making sure that the toys are coming from the most efferent makers.
I don't think is fair to assume that amazon business growth is entirely newly stimulated consumption. that is to say, they aren't capturing sales from other distributors and companies.
It may well be the case that the carbon footprint for a amazon order is worse than driving to a brick and mortal Walmart. That would be a lot more valuable insight.
8 comments
[ 0.25 ms ] story [ 27.5 ms ] threadIt represents real economic growth by playing against the currently undervalued environmental externality. I'm betting that large corporations will be successful in maneuvering the government toward individualized responsibility that ultimately absolves Amazon from economic responsibility and instead places it on the futurum civis in the form of ecological and economic asceticism. All in all a brilliant move for those who want to see line go up.
>Amazon’s carbon intensity –- a measure that divides its emissions by gross merchandise sales –- fell 1.9%, an indication of the company’s success in delivering products and running its warehouses, data centers and offices more efficiently
It is pretty impressive that they can grow 18% while increasing energy efficiency.
Amazon's net emissions are up 18% because hundreds of millions of individuals choose to purchase from them.
The carbon-intensity metric is interesting:
> a measure that divides its emissions by gross merchandise sales
If emissions stay the same, but prices go up... say there is significant inflation, or a supply chain crunch which leads to price-gouging... then the denominator increases. Want to have a great carbon-intensity KPI? Better get that revenue up! Which is somewhat ironic.
Ultimately, Amazon's net emissions are up 18% and how efficiently they produce them isn't a factor in determining those emission's climate forcing effect. I.e., if you and I were on a boat in the ocean and I'm prying up planks from the hull to make children's toys, you would not care how efficiently I am making those toys.
>if you and I were on a boat in the ocean and I'm prying up planks from the hull to make children's toys, you would not care how efficiently I am making those toys.
I would care about efficiency if the boat is full of other toy makers and people demanding toys.
In that case, I would care very much about making sure that the toys are coming from the most efferent makers.
I don't think is fair to assume that amazon business growth is entirely newly stimulated consumption. that is to say, they aren't capturing sales from other distributors and companies.
It may well be the case that the carbon footprint for a amazon order is worse than driving to a brick and mortal Walmart. That would be a lot more valuable insight.