Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jeff Bezos Commits $10B to Address Climate Change

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 237 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos Commits $10B to Address Climate Change

#201

Post by keanzu »

viklove wrote: post #193
tunesmith wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently did some calculations on car vs plane travel. For commuter flights, it surprised me to find out that for gasoline cars, car travel isn't better than a flight until you get to a carpool of four passengers. For electric cars, a solo driver is about the same as air travel (in an average airport flight) - a second passenger makes it better than air travel. (This was for a flight halfway across the country.) So…

Care to reproduce your calculations here? I'm certain you're off by a factor of 10 (at least). Flying is probably the worst thing you will do in your entire life as far as the environment is concerned.

Aviation Emissions, Impacts & Mitigation: A Primer

FAA Office of Environment and Energy

January 2015

Aviation stands out among transportation modes, however, in terms of improving fuel efficiency over the past decade. As shown in Figure 1: Comparison of Vehicle Fuel Efficiency, in 2004, automobiles and airlines operating in the U.S. had very similar energy intensities, with automobiles at 3,496 BTU/passenger mile versus airlines at 3,505 BTU/passenger mile. Between 2004 and 2012, auto energy intensity fell to 3,193 BTU/passenger mile, for an 8.8% improvement. For the same period, aviation energy intensity fell to 2,654 BTU/passenger mile, a 24.3% improvement and is now significantly lower than automobiles.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/env...

In addition to being more efficient flying is wildly safer. You have a 750x better chance of surviving a commercial flight than a car trip the same distance. (2000-2010)

Re: Jeff Bezos Commits $10B to Address Climate Change

#202

Post by keanzu »

scarejunba wrote: post #121
beachy wrote: post #34

On one level this is to be applauded. On another, shipping cheap plastic junk from China all over the world, to finish up in landfill a few years later, is the very definition of environmental vandalism and is Amazon's core business model.

The real value people like him provide is to make it so that normal people can outsource their sin (and the corresponding indulgences) to him. Someone's got to be buying the cheap plastic junk, my friend. You need a buyer for the middleman to profit.

He's our sin-eater.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin-eater

Re: Jeff Bezos Commits $10B to Address Climate Change

#203

Post by s1artibartfast »

oh_sigh wrote: post #156
s1artibartfast wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As others said, why should it matter? I would be happy even if he got an 100% tax credit. what percent of tax revenue would have gone to climate change vs bombing some civilians in Afghanistan.

What percentage of tax revenue do you think goes to bombing civilians in Afghanistan?

I think 20% of tax revenue and 50% of discretionary budget goes to the military.

I think this is too much and that there are areas with much better ROI where this money could be spent.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

Re: Jeff Bezos Commits $10B to Address Climate Change

#204

Post by rolltiide »

loeg wrote: post #171
rolltiide wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't know the structure of "The Earth Fund" so here are some possibilities: if its an actual fund then it can make more investments, no immediate tax consequences, but any long term capital losses, because nobody has a sustainability solution that makes any money, will serve to offset any taxes that he would have to pay on the long term capital gains of his Amazon stock sales. if its another charitable foundation…

It's technically only 30% of his tax bill for gifts of appreciated capital, which Bezos will almost certainly prefer to 50% of the cost basis (approximately 0 for his shares). See IRS pub 526. Depending on the specifics of how qualified the donation is, the limit might be as low as 20%.

yes, I think I covered my bases on the topic

> another consequence being that a lower % max deduction is possible

It is fun to think about. Ever since I read that part of the tax code I’ve been taking a dim view on the 401(k) statutes since the 501(c)3 and 509(a) statutes are like supercharged tax deferrals and shelters if you have 6-figures annually to put into them

Re: Jeff Bezos Commits $10B to Address Climate Change

#205

Post by [deleted] »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #183
codekilla wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote [1] a couple of months ago, a sort of 'clean baseball' version, under the overall auspices of a fund. I've also recently pitched an idea to win Senate seats, but haven't heard anything back on that one (major funding needed). Anyway, if there is interest, or just to brainstorm (as I enjoy this sorta thing), please drop me a line. grant AT eonias DOT (typical non-profit top level domain) [1] http://d28jgulqbmb…

I appreciate the share. I will be in touch!

[deleted]

Re: Jeff Bezos Commits $10B to Address Climate Change

#206

Post by gok »

ukoki wrote: post #167
entangledqubit wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't make money this way but you can still argue that money that would have gone to taxes has now been redirected by an individual to a cause they solely decided is worthwhile.

> You can't make money this way Are you sure? What about something like this: 1. Buy art for $1M 2. Get your friends to bid up the price of the art by selling other works from the artist to each other at inflated valuations 3. Donate art to art gallery with a valuation of $10M 4. Deduct $10M donation from your taxes

A) that's fraud

B) you still need $10 million of income to deduct

C) this isn't making money. You can't directly deduct a collectible or security you donate. You can give it away without realizing any capital gains however.

Re: Jeff Bezos Commits $10B to Address Climate Change

#207

Post by gok »

loeg wrote: post #141
humbledrone wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I frequently see the "they're just doing this for the tax breaks" sentiment for these kinds of donations (especially when the donor is a corporation or hyper-wealthy individual) but I don't understand the reasoning. From what I understand of tax deductions, a donation of $X basically means that the donor can skip paying taxes on $X of income. This results in a savings of tax% * $X, which is always The tax deduction a…

Personal income tax deductions are additionally capped at 50% of income (and maybe 30% for unearned income? I forget the specifics). So if Bezos' income is $1/year, basically none of this would be deductible if it came from his personal fortune. That said, I think GP is expressing skepticism that the total $10B figure comes from Bezos' personal fortune rather than being a spending plan for AMZN's business. The articl…

Bezos can avoid that limit by donating his Amazon shares directly

Re: Jeff Bezos Commits $10B to Address Climate Change

#208

Post by tunesmith »

viklove wrote: post #193
tunesmith wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently did some calculations on car vs plane travel. For commuter flights, it surprised me to find out that for gasoline cars, car travel isn't better than a flight until you get to a carpool of four passengers. For electric cars, a solo driver is about the same as air travel (in an average airport flight) - a second passenger makes it better than air travel. (This was for a flight halfway across the country.) So…

Care to reproduce your calculations here? I'm certain you're off by a factor of 10 (at least). Flying is probably the worst thing you will do in your entire life as far as the environment is concerned.

This was literally a five-minute exercise with google queries and Calca, so I won't be surprised if you're right. For this trip I used 991 air miles, vs 1177 driving miles.

Co2PerMile = 53 (for a plane)

AirTravelMiles = 991

PeopleOnAirplane = 189 (average passengers per plane)

AirTravelCo2PerPerson = Co2PerMile * AirTravelMiles / PeopleOnAirplane => 277.8995

VehicleGramsPerMile = 411 (average gas car)

DriveMiles = 1177

GramsPerPound = 453.592

Co2PoundsTrip = VehicleGramsPerMile * DriveMiles / GramsPerPound => 1066.4804

1066 is roughly 4x 277.

Or, very roughly, a plane is about 50 lbs/mile, and a car is 1 lb/mile, so it depends on number of passengers in each.

As for an electric car, they say an electric car is currently equivalent in emissions to an 80 mpg car, and the average gas car is 22mpg, so... about 4x.

So again very roughly, for that distance, air travel is better than car travel (in terms of CO2) unless you have a 4-person carpool for gas cars. If it's a one-person electric car, it's roughly equivalent.

Anyway still, the takeaway is that it's the travel distance that has the CO2 impact. Car vs Plane isn't really the point.

(Lemme know if you see a 10x error.)

Re: Jeff Bezos Commits $10B to Address Climate Change

#209

Post by kaonashi »

bpodgursky wrote: post #85
kaonashi wrote: post #60

Is this just another Gates-foundation style tax swindle?

Step 1: Cure polio Step 2: Donate 99% of your remaining money before death Step 3: ??? Step 4: Profit, when the world is a less shitty place It's really the most devious tax swindle of all time.

It's more like

Step 1: Place fortune in a large tax-free foundation

Step 2: Invest that wealth as normal, but without the need to pay taxes

Step 3: Spend charitable funds in such a manner as to increase the value of investments from step 2

Re: Jeff Bezos Commits $10B to Address Climate Change

#210

Post by iso1337 »

viklove wrote: post #193
tunesmith wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently did some calculations on car vs plane travel. For commuter flights, it surprised me to find out that for gasoline cars, car travel isn't better than a flight until you get to a carpool of four passengers. For electric cars, a solo driver is about the same as air travel (in an average airport flight) - a second passenger makes it better than air travel. (This was for a flight halfway across the country.) So…

Care to reproduce your calculations here? I'm certain you're off by a factor of 10 (at least). Flying is probably the worst thing you will do in your entire life as far as the environment is concerned.

Actually if you’re in the US, it’s actually having a child:

https://www.wnpr.org/post/five-ways-reduce-your-carbon-footp...

Post reply on HN