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

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

press.aboutamazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 92 posts

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

#81

Post by oh_sigh »

chillacy wrote: post #76
oh_sigh wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We've already started geo-engineering, just not intentionally.

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"

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

#82

Post by GoodJokes »

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.

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

#83

Post by lukifer »

ip26 wrote: post #68
lukifer wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is your alternative proposal? According to the "The Largest Public Statement of Economists in History": a carbon tax and dividend [0]. The technology of markets is one of price signals and feedback loops, generally on time horizons between nano-second HFTs and quarterly earnings reports. Ecological events, occurring on the scale of decades or centuries, require governments (or other forms of collective action)…

The tax & divided definitely seems like an ideal solution, but we can't waste another twenty years trying to convince voters to institute it. Carbon tax & dividend proposals have gone nowhere for twenty years now. Even in Washington, the latest attempt lost by almost 70% against.

Tax & Dividend isn't necessarily the fastest-acting policy in the world, and I'm keenly aware that we're on a clock; indeed, it seems exceptionally likely we're already beyond an inflection point, and will need something akin to geo-engineering in addition to however we reduce new carbon emissions.

I think a concerted PR effort could move the needle on popularity relatively quickly (which isn't unprecedented on other policy issues: opinions on gay marriage and marijuana legalization both tipped relatively quickly). The fact that it's market-based and doesn't expand government bureaucracy helps sell it to the right, the fact that most working people would come ahead economically helps sell it to the left. But absent that: do you have a better policy solution in mind that is more politically viable? I think the Green New Deal is a pretty good idea, at least in the abstract, but without a major sea change it seems to be DOA as well.

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

#85

Post by ttam »

cogman10 wrote: post #67
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 cyni…

Really depends on HOW they are investing IMO. 2B in equities won't really do anything other than raise the stock prices for green technologies. 2B in green bonds or direct funding may help to move the needle if the case is that these companies are cash strapped. But, IMO, the thing that will actually move the needle more than anything else is if Amazon takes that 2B and actually goes out and builds out renewable sour…

> But, IMO, the thing that will actually move the needle more than anything else is if Amazon takes that 2B and actually goes out and builds out renewable sources and replaces their delivery vehicles with EVs.

Even better, they're doing that outside of the 2B fund.

Amazon is creating a futuristic fleet of 100,000 electric delivery vans https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-creating-fleet-of-ele...

AWS is committed to achieving 100% renewable energy usage for our global infrastructure https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/sustainability/

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

#86

Post by ip26 »

lukifer wrote: post #83
ip26 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tax & divided definitely seems like an ideal solution, but we can't waste another twenty years trying to convince voters to institute it. Carbon tax & dividend proposals have gone nowhere for twenty years now. Even in Washington, the latest attempt lost by almost 70% against.

Tax & Dividend isn't necessarily the fastest-acting policy in the world, and I'm keenly aware that we're on a clock; indeed, it seems exceptionally likely we're already beyond an inflection point, and will need something akin to geo-engineering in addition to however we reduce new carbon emissions. I think a concerted PR effort could move the needle on popularity relatively quickly (which isn't unprecedented on other…

Unfortunately even if we can get everyone to agree that a carbon tax should be implemented, no one can seem to agree exactly how the revenues should be spent. E.g. a flat dividend isn't progressive enough for portions of the left. It seems that's been the big point of contention.

I don't know what the most realistic policy is at this point. Perhaps some mix of continued subsidy for renewable energy & storage, quiet ongoing research into iron fertilization, and pray that we have the technology ready to ramp when the voting public is finally forced to face reality.

Carbon Engineering is my moonshot hope. If synthetic direct air capture fuel ever becomes cheaper than fossil, it would decarbonize many challenging industries overnight, as well as providing a good launch pad for sequestration. (Continued investment in renewable energy makes this more possible)

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

#87

Post by thoughtstheseus »

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.

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

#88

Post by sebazzz »

an_opabinia wrote: post #13

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 impac…

It looks good on an annual report though.

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

#89

Post by skrebbel »

nostromo wrote: post #48
skrebbel wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Dear Jeff Bezos: Amazon is great and all, but instead can you rebuild all of America to be denser walkable cities, with a great public rail system? Signed, Hacker News

Oh come on, I suggested nothing of the sort and you know it. You're not assuming good faith.

My remark is only that if delivery is better for the environment than going shopping, then that is a sign of a badly planned city (in terms of climate impact). Well-optimized delivery will address a symptom but not the cause. The cause is cities built for cars.

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

#90

Post by lukifer »

ip26 wrote: post #86
lukifer wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tax & Dividend isn't necessarily the fastest-acting policy in the world, and I'm keenly aware that we're on a clock; indeed, it seems exceptionally likely we're already beyond an inflection point, and will need something akin to geo-engineering in addition to however we reduce new carbon emissions. I think a concerted PR effort could move the needle on popularity relatively quickly (which isn't unprecedented on other…

Unfortunately even if we can get everyone to agree that a carbon tax should be implemented, no one can seem to agree exactly how the revenues should be spent. E.g. a flat dividend isn't progressive enough for portions of the left. It seems that's been the big point of contention. I don't know what the most realistic policy is at this point. Perhaps some mix of continued subsidy for renewable energy & storage, quiet o…

> E.g. a flat dividend isn't progressive enough for portions of the left

Huh, that's news to me. Can you point to any prominent left politicians/pundits opining that? Is it just that they prefer Green New Deal? Do they object to the "strange bedfellows" of Frank Luntz & co. (if any Republicans like it, it must be a corporate/neo-fascist plot)?

> Carbon Engineering is my moonshot hope.

Yeah, I think we'll need something like this anyway. But with our current tech, it's still orders of magnitude more efficient to not pull the carbon out of the ground in the first place. (One of my crazier/handwavium ideas: massive fail-safe thorium reactor, hundreds of miles away from any human habitation to avoid NIMBY problems, whose only job is to pull carbon out of the air.)

Post reply on HN