FedEx will invest $2 billion to become fully carbon-neutral by 2040

Polycount

Posts: 2,827   +574
Staff member
Forward-looking: FedEx wants to do its part to mitigate the effects of climate change. To do so, the transit company announced a new pledge today: by 2040, it aims to be fully carbon-neutral across all of its operations. This will be a multi-step goal, starting with a $2 billion investment from FedEx HQ in three key areas.

These areas are vehicle electrification, sustainable energy, and carbon "sequestration." For the first, FedEx plans to replace its entire fleet of pickup and delivery trucks with zero-emission EV alternatives by 2040. In the interim, 50 percent of its new vehicle purchases will be EVs by 2025. By 2030, that figure will rise to 100 percent.

As for sustainable energy, that's relatively straightforward: FedEx will "continue to invest in alternative fuels" that can reduce or eliminate emissions for its air and ground vehicles. FedEx has not specified which energy sources it will be pursuing, but solar and wind seem like decent candidates.

Finally, we have the "Carbon sequestration" portion of FedEx's pledge, which will see it funnel part of the $2 billion mentioned before into the Yale Center for Natural Carbon Capture. The cash will help the Center research new ways of absorbing, storing, and otherwise removing excess CO2 from our environment on a "global scale."

"We have a responsibility to take bold action in addressing climate challenges," said FedEx Corp CEO Frederick Smith in a statement. "This goal builds on our longstanding commitment to sustainability throughout our operations, while at the same time investing in long-term, transformational solutions for FedEx and our entire industry."

It remains to be seen whether or not FedEx will be able to achieve its goals, but 2040 is a long way off, so it seems likely. Let's just hope their efforts make a difference.

Permalink to story.

 

scavengerspc

Posts: 1,060   +1,012
TechSpot Elite
It is true that I not only support the EV but also plan to buy a Mach-E when the GT lands.
But I can't help but wonder if all these moves to EV only are happening too fast.

I know it's still a long way off but still.
 

paul1122

Posts: 61   +39
When they are making all these EV's with power from 100% EF power and no mined or no non recyclable materials, then we have done it.
 

p51d007

Posts: 2,672   +2,011
And all of hat electricity will come from where?
Wind? Solar? Not likely. Plus, with the strain on the power grid, what's that going to do?
 

LiveFreeOrFight

Posts: 16   +16
"by 2040, it aims to be fully carbon-neutral across all of its operations."

Where are they going to find those "carbon neutral" aircraft to replace their fleet of JET-A fuel burning cargo aircraft?
 

PEnnn

Posts: 595   +559
Just mention the words "clean energy","solar", "Wind" and the Trumpist trilobites will be triggered in an instant!!
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 1,060   +1,012
TechSpot Elite
"by 2040, it aims to be fully carbon-neutral across all of its operations."

Where are they going to find those "carbon neutral" aircraft to replace their fleet of JET-A fuel burning cargo aircraft?
I guess they are just going to have to be content in the fact that with an all EV fleet they will have already cut company-produced emissions drastically.

Plus we already have EV aircraft tech so who knows where that will be by then.

If you really want answers this stuff is easily found. But I won't accuse you of wanting the facts I promise.
 

LiveFreeOrFight

Posts: 16   +16
I guess they are just going to have to be content in the fact that with an all EV fleet they will have already cut company-produced emissions drastically.

Plus we already have EV aircraft tech so who knows where that will be by then.

If you really want answers this stuff is easily found. But I won't accuse you of wanting the facts I promise.

So it will NOT be "fully carbon-neutral across all of its operations" ?
 

GeforcerFX

Posts: 1,006   +473
"by 2040, it aims to be fully carbon-neutral across all of its operations."

Where are they going to find those "carbon neutral" aircraft to replace their fleet of JET-A fuel burning cargo aircraft?
Jet aircraft have two routes to carbon neutral they can switch to Biofuels (basically fuel made from surface carbon) or they can run hydrogen made from renewable energy. Hydrogen creates some new headaches though, the tanks have to be huge since it's 1/6 the density of conventional JetA and it would require modifying the engines a bit. Then you have all the water vapor, like 3-5 times as much as we currently get from just normal jet aircraft operations. This could still have a bad warming effect. Biofules will prob win out, algae fuels have a better chance of succeeding in the airline fleet vs the car fleet, JetA is already 50-70% more expensive then normal gasoline so they have more wiggle room on the price of a biofuel entry. For the short haul distribution fleet that fly 2,000 - 8,000lb payloads between 300 - 800 miles they can move to electric aircraft, this is the range and size of aircraft that electric will actually find a market for.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 1,060   +1,012
TechSpot Elite
Jet aircraft have two routes to carbon neutral they can switch to Biofuels (basically fuel made from surface carbon) or they can run hydrogen made from renewable energy. Hydrogen creates some new headaches though, the tanks have to be huge since it's 1/6 the density of conventional JetA and it would require modifying the engines a bit. Then you have all the water vapor, like 3-5 times as much as we currently get from just normal jet aircraft operations. This could still have a bad warming effect. Biofules will prob win out, algae fuels have a better chance of succeeding in the airline fleet vs the car fleet, JetA is already 50-70% more expensive then normal gasoline so they have more wiggle room on the price of a biofuel entry. For the short haul distribution fleet that fly 2,000 - 8,000lb payloads between 300 - 800 miles they can move to electric aircraft, this is the range and size of aircraft that electric will actually find a market for.
I would love to read up on that stuff about the fuels for the planes. Found some stuff but can you suggest any?
 

MasterMace

Posts: 167   +129
Only FedEx Ground is that way. FedEx Express drivers are employees...!

FedEx Express tries to contract out to FedEx Ground for deliveries that can be made in time since February last year.

In addition FedEx Ground delivers more packages than FedEx Express. Express averaged 5.99mil packages per day (multiplied out to 366 days for 2020 would be 2.192mil). FedEx Ground delivered 2.54billion packages.
 

Tantor

Posts: 111   +148
And all of hat electricity will come from where?
Wind? Solar? Not likely. Plus, with the strain on the power grid, what's that going to do?

Very true. The recent Texas power debacle showcased the dangers of depending on wind/solar. They're fine as supplemental power sources, but you're always going to need an uninterruptable source such as nuclear, hydro, or fossil fuel.
 

Tantor

Posts: 111   +148
I find all this concern about CO2 to be absolutely silly. CO2 is a 'greenhouse' gas. What are greenhouses used for? To grow plants. And that's exactly what's happening now.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

People concerned about global warming invariably portray it as a hellish dry furnace that burns everything. However, what's really happening is the earth is becoming greener and warmer. Think 'greenhouse' and you're on the right track.

I have Russian friends. They laugh about this issue, because Russia can only benefit. The same for Canada and other cold regions.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 1,060   +1,012
TechSpot Elite
Very true. The recent Texas power debacle showcased the dangers of depending on wind/solar. They're fine as supplemental power sources, but you're always going to need an uninterruptable source such as nuclear, hydro, or fossil fuel.
Man talk about behind the times. Even Fox "News" and OAN have said that Solar and Wind power were not the problem, as have a huge majority of Texans. And of the ones that did fail, proper care and maintenance would have fixed that.
I have Russian friends. They laugh about this issue, because Russia can only benefit. The same for Canada and other cold regions.
Really!? Because I have done 2 projects in Russia at Rostov-on-Don in 2013 and 2015 and guess what, NOBODY is saying that. And there are quite a few Canadians here so ask them if they are like you. Let them speak for themselves. One thing to be a liar, it's another to be a damn liar.
 
Last edited:

scavengerspc

Posts: 1,060   +1,012
TechSpot Elite
What are greenhouses used for? To grow plants. And that's exactly what's happening now.
Yep CO2 is a plant's favorite. Problem is that those plants get bigger, have babies, and then, Ta-Da more CO2. Maybe, I dont know, watch the video YOU linked to. Plants are by far the biggest producer but we have disrupted the balance. A hair-trigger balance. And while I'm not going to say I believe we are doomed it must be paid due attention.

Remember what NASA said?

"And as global temperatures rise, scientists say the output of carbon dioxide by plants will accelerate"
 

Tantor

Posts: 111   +148
Man talk about behind the times. Even Fox "News" and OAN have said that Solar and Wind power were not the problem, as have a huge majority of Texans. And of the ones that did fail, proper care and maintenance would have fixed that.

Really!? Because I have done 2 projects in Russia at Rostov-on-Don in 2013 and 2015 and guess what, NOBODY is saying that. And there are quite a few Canadians here so ask them if they are like you. Let them speak for themselves. One thing to be a liar, it's another to be a damn liar.

It's not that wind and solar were 'the problem". It's that they failed, in and of themselves. You simply cannot count on them to be the primary power source.

I'm always amazed how fast Leftists start flinging around accusations of lying.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 1,060   +1,012
TechSpot Elite
It's not that wind and solar were 'the problem". It's that they failed, in and of themselves. You simply cannot count on them to be the primary power source.

I'm always amazed how fast Leftists start flinging around accusations of lying.
And I really should not have to repeat that if they were prepared for winter what small number did fail would not have. And I want to say that I meant it's your Russian friends that were lying to you for whatever reason.. Russians are VERY aware of climate change.

Some of those towns famous for -30 to -50 degree winter temps have reached near 40 degrees often in the last decade. Ice melt in Siberia is a massive concern.