Over 4,000 Amazon employees have signed a letter requesting a company-wide climate change...

[Polycount]

What just happened? Although tech companies Amazon and Google putting more of an emphasis on "going green" and reducing their carbon footprint, their efforts aren't quite good enough for some employees. Over 4,000 Amazon employees have co-signed an open letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and the company's board of directors asking leadership to adopt a company-wide, comprehensive climate plan.

In the letter, employees ask for Amazon to "completely" transition away from fossil fuels rather than relying on carbon offsets, while also putting a greater priority on potential climate impact when making business decisions. Workers also hope that Amazon will treat them more fairly when climate events disrupt their day-to-day operations.

"Unsafe or inaccessible workplaces should not be a reason to withhold pay, terminate, or otherwise penalize employees — including hourly and contract workers," the letter reads.

In addition to laying future principles that Amazon employees would like the company to adopt, the letter also examines sustainability measures the retail giant has already taken. Specifically, employees feel that some of these measures aren't strong enough to have a significant impact on the environment.

"...we’ve set a goal of at least 50 solar installations in warehouse facilities by 2020," employees write. "This represents only 6% of buildings in our global fulfillment network and a fraction of our overall carbon footprint."

It remains to be seen how big of an impact (if any) this letter will have on Amazon's operations.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/79604-over-4000-amazon-employees-have-signed-letter-requesting.html

 

[psycros]

I have no sympathy for a cutthroat like Bezos but if I were him I'd trace this letter back to its real origin, which is undoubtedly a leftist astroturfing agency. I would expose this group and whoever funds it for attempting to clandestinely influence a major corporation..essentially call them out for engaging in the same kind of manipulation as Facebook disinformation bots. Amazon's Co2 production is negligible compared to almost any other industry - they don't manufacture anything and they've only got a small delivery fleet of their own (for now). Their warehouses and other spaces are already pretty efficient by all accounts and a few solar cells aren't going to do jack outside of the desert states like CA, NV and so on. If these employees are really that concerned about the climate then t they need to write letters to all the Chinese junk makers whose products make up the bulk of Amazon's physical wares. Those producers are subject to virtually NO environmental regulations.

 

[brucek]

I agree in spirit Psycros.

Their real energy usage is probably in their data centers, a little for themselves, and probably a huge amount for their Amazon Web Services clients. I'm not sure what it all adds up to but it ain't peanuts.

 

[JB3543]

4,000 Amazon employees have signed a letter concerning climate change. Sounds like a lot, almost like a movement. Right?

Not really. Yet again, the media is wildly exaggerating things. This is almost exclusive to the liberal media - who don't think facts are all that important.

Let's do the math: Amazon has 613,300 employees. So 4000/613,300 is 0.0065. That's about 1 employee out of 153.

Not quite the "movement" after all...

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

4,000 Amazon employees have signed a letter concerning climate change. Sounds like a lot, almost like a movement. Right?

Not really. Yet again, the media is wildly exaggerating things. This is almost exclusive to the liberal media - who don't think facts are all that important.

Let's do the math: Amazon has 613,300 employees. So 4000/613,300 is 0.0065. That's about 1 employee out of 153.

Not quite the "movement" after all...

Not 4000 employees... OVER 4000! See, if we put that word 'OVER' in there it sounds like more. You could say 'ONLY' 4200 Employees... or you could say 'ONLY' .65% of employees, and all would be factually equal. This is a great example of bias... just giving the facts that tell the story you want to tell and leaving out context. Reporters hate context though - facts are easier to spin in a vacuum.

 

[Evernessince]

4,000 Amazon employees have signed a letter concerning climate change. Sounds like a lot, almost like a movement. Right?

Not really. Yet again, the media is wildly exaggerating things. This is almost exclusive to the liberal media - who don't think facts are all that important.

Let's do the math: Amazon has 613,300 employees. So 4000/613,300 is 0.0065. That's about 1 employee out of 153.

Not quite the "movement" after all...

What exactly are you jabber jawing about here, the word movement isn't even in the article.

Just an FYI, saying "Over 4,000" is factually correct. At no point in your comment do you disprove that at least 4,001 employees signed that letter.

Stop watching so much Alex Jones, "Libs" aren't out to eat your children buddy.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

What exactly are you jabber jawing about here, the word movement isn't even in the article.

Just an FYI, saying "Over 4,000" is factually correct. At no point in your comment do you disprove that at least 4,001 employees signed that letter.

I don't know if my point (and his) went over your head, or if you're just trolling.

 

[Evernessince]

I don't know if my point (and his) went over your head, or if you're just trolling.

I could honestly care less about your posts and didn't read your's because, like this one, it adds nothing to the conversation.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

I could honestly care less about your posts and didn't read your's because, like this one, it adds nothing to the conversation.

Really? cause the phrase 'Over 4000' wasn't in his post, it was in mine.

 

[PEnnn]

Ah yes, the "Climate Change is Hoax" crowd jumped at this one in no time.

Damn those leftists, they want clean air, clean water and a decent place to leave for their kids, the *******s!!

Listen to Alex Jones and the oil industry lawyers, aka the real scientists instead.

 

[tkabou]

Ah yes, the "Climate Change is Hoax" crowd jumped at this one in no time.

Damn those leftists, they want clean air, clean water and a decent place to leave for their kids, the *******s!!

Listen to Alex Jones and the oil industry lawyers, aka the real scientists instead.

It is a hoax and a scam on a global scale. Those same scientists that claim global warming and climate change came out this week with published studies that the CO2 levels and temperature of the planet were the same 200 million years ago, you know, back when vegetation was ripe, no CO2-producing humans and cars were around...

It's a not a conspiracy to think that there's huge money to be made by forcing other countries to contribute billions of their GDPs to something that has marginal effects, and as science confirmed, we've been there before with or without us being present on the planet. There's people that are making money hand over fist promoting this agenda, because that's all it is. I appreciate "green solutions" like CO2 scrubbers for cleaner air, and innovative technologies to clean our water, but as long as big money, politicians, and lobbyists are pushing this agenda, people will be skeptical.

 

[Evernessince]

Really? cause the phrase 'Over 4000' wasn't in his post, it was in mine.

It's in the article's title

 

[Axle Grease]

Ah yes, the "Climate Change is Hoax" crowd jumped at this one in no time.

Damn those leftists, they want clean air, clean water and a decent place to leave for their kids, the *******s!!

No, they are not so much interested in clean air, clean water and a decent place to live for their kids as
for the destruction of capitalism in the name of 'saving the planet', and pushing for social justice. The most recent and notable example of the same mindset is bimbo socialist AOC's push for the "Green New Deal". "The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don't address climate change..." yeah, yeah... The Left has donned the mantle of environmentalism to push socialism. Nothing has changed since the mid-80's, and climate related predictions are still shite.

Listen to Alex Jones and the oil industry lawyers, aka the real scientists instead.

[/QUOTE]

Interesting... I despite Alex Jones, always have. Vacate your echo-chamber...

 

[Evernessince]

No, they are not so much interested in clean air, clean water and a decent place to live for their kids as
for the destruction of capitalism in the name of 'saving the planet', and pushing for social justice. The most recent and notable example of the same mindset is bimbo socialist AOC's push for the "Green New Deal". "The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don't address climate change..." yeah, yeah... The Left has donned the mantle of environmentalism to push socialism. Nothing has changed since the mid-80's, and climate related predictions are still shite.

Interesting... I despite Alex Jones, always have. Vacate your echo-chamber...[/QUOTE]

"The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don't address climate change..."

This is a sensationalized version of what scientists reported. The world isn't ending in 12 years but at the 12 year mark the effects of climate change are projected to be irreversible. A 2.5 degree global increase in temperature which can damage many sensitive species, especially marine life; among many other effects.

The Left doesn't need to don the mantle of environmentalism to bring socialism to America. There are already many socialist programs in place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States

Those are only from a single part of the government. For example, Border Patrol and the military are socialist programs. Just like welfare, we pay into those programs whether they directly benefit us or not because the country as a whole benefits.

What some don't seem to understand is that the republicans support socialism as well. Subsidies from the government to corporations? Socialism. School choice programs that give private and charter schools government money? Socialism. Paying companies to jail our prisoners? Socialism. The only difference between Republican socialism and Democrat socialism is that Republicans overwhelmingly favor companies and the Rich when selecting who benefits from the programs.

In addition, unless your are going to refute the basic greenhouse gas effect and the over 4 decades we now have of data on the impact of emissions on the environment, I don't see how you can dismiss such evidence with zero proof. There isn't a single scientific body in the world that has refuted the many papers being published in scientific journals today. If the biggest argument you can come up with against it is calling AOC a "bimbo", you'd better think of something better then dismissing a female's argument through sexism.

 

[Axle Grease]

I
"The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don't address climate change..."

This is a sensationalized version of what scientists reported. The world isn't ending in 12 years but at the 12 year mark the effects of climate change are projected to be irreversible. A 2.5 degree global increase in temperature which can damage many sensitive species, especially marine life; among many other effects.

She pushed a falsehood. Whether she lied or spoke out of ignorance, only she knows.

Here's another falsehood: "The world isn't ending in 12 years but at the 12 year mark the effects of climate change are projected to be irreversible. "

Climate scientists have made no such claim.

The Left doesn't need to don the mantle of environmentalism to bring socialism to America. There are already many socialist programs in place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States

Those are only from a single part of the government. For example, Border Patrol and the military are socialist programs. Just like welfare, we pay into those programs whether they directly benefit us or not because the country as a whole benefits.

Socialists may find value in having a military and border patrol for repressing dissidents, executing people; preventing unarmed, long suffering citizens from leaving, just as others
may value having the same for more positive ends that protect the citizens within a country's borders.. However they were never borne from Socialist doctrine and are therefore not socialist programs.

What some don't seem to understand is that the republicans support socialism as well. Subsidies from the government to corporations? Socialism. School choice programs that give private and charter schools government money? Socialism. Paying companies to jail our prisoners? Socialism. The only difference between Republican socialism and Democrat socialism is that Republicans overwhelmingly favor companies and the Rich when selecting who benefits from the programs.

You're right. Republicans do support some socialist programs, which is unfortunate, but the main difference between the two sides is the extent and methodology. Republicans
still have some awareness of how a free economy and a free, prosperous people go hand-in-hand, whereas that is completely lost on the Left. Also republicans don't try to shut down alternative views by calling their political opponents Nazis, Fascists, White Nationalists, and White Supremacists, racist, or sexists.

In addition, unless your are going to refute the basic greenhouse gas effect and the over 4 decades we now have of data on the impact of emissions on the environment, I don't see how you can dismiss such evidence with zero proof. There isn't a single scientific body in the world that has refuted the many papers being published in scientific journals today. If the biggest argument you can come up with against it is calling AOC a "bimbo", you'd better think of something better then dismissing a female's argument through sexism.

Calling AOC a bimbo, which she is, was not my argument against any accumulation of scientific findings but her penchant for spreading bulls*t. Hey! Beto O'Rourke is a bimbo, too, so stick your specious claim that I'm a sexist where the Sun doesn't shine. Also, the basic greenhouse effect is one process that in itself is affected by a very complex system of processes which scientists are still trying to understand. That's why climate based predictions of doom and gloom have been way off track. The world of climate science needs better climate models.

 

[Dimitrios]

I worked at a huge wine distributor in CT that is similar to Amazon's warehouse. Hartley& Parker installed solar panels on the roof. Not sure how much electricity it made but it did charge the owners TESLA and that warehouse is the size of a football field. Most electricity comes from the charging of forklifts. Mechanical Conveyor belts are placed in corners to move the heavy cases of wine around the building but maybe 60% is relied on gravity.

 

[JB3543]

4,000 Amazon employees have signed a letter concerning climate change. Sounds like a lot, almost like a movement. Right?

Not really. Yet again, the media is wildly exaggerating things. This is almost exclusive to the liberal media - who don't think facts are all that important.

Let's do the math: Amazon has 613,300 employees. So 4000/613,300 is 0.0065. That's about 1 employee out of 153.

Not quite the "movement" after all...

What exactly are you jabber jawing about here, the word movement isn't even in the article.

Just an FYI, saying "Over 4,000" is factually correct. At no point in your comment do you disprove that at least 4,001 employees signed that letter.

Stop watching so much Alex Jones, "Libs" aren't out to eat your children buddy.

()()()()()

"Jabber jawing"? What century are you from?

"Movement" is a concept, not an actual quote from the article. Get it?

Yes, "over 4,000" is factually correct, but is misleading. It is the "misleading" part I was aiming at, not trying to please my 4th grade English teacher. And I wasn't trying to disprove the "4,001" thing either.

I don't watch Alex Jones, but thanks for the tip.

No, Libs aren't out to eat my kids, just be misleading as hell.

FYI.

 

[Evernessince]

She pushed a falsehood. Whether she lied or spoke out of ignorance, only she knows.

Here's another falsehood: "The world isn't ending in 12 years but at the 12 year mark the effects of climate change are projected to be irreversible. "

Climate scientists have made no such claim.

Perhaps you should do some basic research before calling something untrue. Here's the report: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

Here's a summary of that report in case you don't want to read: https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...ails-looming-climate-crisis/story?id=58354235

Socialists may find value in having a military and border patrol for repressing dissidents, executing people; preventing unarmed, long suffering citizens from leaving, just as others
may value having the same for more positive ends that protect the citizens within a country's borders.. However they were never borne from Socialist doctrine and are therefore not socialist programs.

None of which you mentioned can be attributed to socialism. What you mentioned are specific administrative policies and can be implemented under any form of government. Please learn the difference between the system and the administration of said system.

Never borne from socialist doctrine? Let's see, Everyone wanted protection, so they all chip in to support a military. Socialism. The premise for creating a military is the EXACT SAME as creating universal health care or free public education. Please, now you are just arguing semantics.

You're right. Republicans do support some socialist programs, which is unfortunate, but the main difference between the two sides is the extent and methodology. Republicans
still have some awareness of how a free economy and a free, prosperous people go hand-in-hand, whereas that is completely lost on the Left. Also republicans don't try to shut down alternative views by calling their political opponents Nazis, Fascists, White Nationalists, and White Supremacists, racist, or sexists.

Well first off, the United States isn't a free economy. Free Economy is a political ideology in which the market is guided completely by itself with zero interference that completely self regulates but also still allows fair trade. The fact that the government regulates business at all means the US isn't a free economy. The fact that the government protects intellectual property through law means the US isn't a free economy. These are all rules and regulations after all. People who believe in a free economy are naive, do you honestly think companies wouldn't steal IP if the government wasn't their to protect it. No, they will 100% of the time and that's why the ideology of a free economy is tampered with other policies in the United States. In addition, a free economy also requires the voluntary exchange of goods, meaning that things like monopoly also disqualify an ecomony as free. If you only have a single choice in ISP, that is not a free economy.

Republicans don't try to shut down alternative views?

This is from back in 2016 on a single republican: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html

Please do not make me laugh so hard. Both the left and right put down opposing opinions, human nature that at least a few will do so. The difference being on what. The left calling out self-proclaimed white supremacists in steve bannon is bad? Are you going to tell me the white supremacists in Charlottesville misspelled their signs and in fact are not all about white power? Psychological anchoring exists on both sides but it is clear that it is leading republicans down the wrong path. I should not have to quantify the difference between actual white supremacists and middle of the road Americans.

Calling AOC a bimbo, which she is, was not my argument against any accumulation of scientific findings but her penchant for spreading bulls*t. Hey! Beto O'Rourke is a bimbo, too, so stick your specious claim that I'm a sexist where the Sun doesn't shine. Also, the basic greenhouse effect is one process that in itself is affected by a very complex system of processes which scientists are still trying to understand. That's why climate based predictions of doom and gloom have been way off track. The world of climate science needs better climate models.

Trying to cover up your sexist use of the word bimbo change that it was in fact sexist. Why else would you first use a world used to denigrate females and now try to pepper it on everyone in an attempt to appear like you use it on everyone? Please you are going to have to try harder to hide it next time. I can't say you are completely to blame, this type of thing is often baked into people from their environment.

And yes, we do need better climate models. That said, the temperature rise we are already seeing is pretty worrying.

()()()()()

"Jabber jawing"? What century are you from?

"Movement" is a concept, not an actual quote from the article. Get it?

Yes, "over 4,000" is factually correct, but is misleading. It is the "misleading" part I was aiming at, not trying to please my 4th grade English teacher. And I wasn't trying to disprove the "4,001" thing either.

I don't watch Alex Jones, but thanks for the tip.

No, Libs aren't out to eat my kids, just be misleading as hell.

FYI.

I'm no fan of the media's generous use of ambiguous words but if that's the entire premise of your argument I find it rather hypocritical given that Trump represents the right. Are you honestly going to tell me that Trump isn't worse then the media? Please, the man is the king of misleading statements and outright lies. It's not a close comparison. The media's job is to get view and sensationalize, the president's is not. The difference in responsibility and still the president does far more then exaggerate.

 

[JB3543]

She pushed a falsehood. Whether she lied or spoke out of ignorance, only she knows.

Here's another falsehood: "The world isn't ending in 12 years but at the 12 year mark the effects of climate change are projected to be irreversible. "

Climate scientists have made no such claim.

Perhaps you should do some basic research before calling something untrue. Here's the report: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

Here's a summary of that report in case you don't want to read: https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...ails-looming-climate-crisis/story?id=58354235

Socialists may find value in having a military and border patrol for repressing dissidents, executing people; preventing unarmed, long suffering citizens from leaving, just as others
may value having the same for more positive ends that protect the citizens within a country's borders.. However they were never borne from Socialist doctrine and are therefore not socialist programs.

None of which you mentioned can be attributed to socialism. What you mentioned are specific administrative policies and can be implemented under any form of government. Please learn the difference between the system and the administration of said system.

Never borne from socialist doctrine? Let's see, Everyone wanted protection, so they all chip in to support a military. Socialism. The premise for creating a military is the EXACT SAME as creating universal health care or free public education. Please, now you are just arguing semantics.

You're right. Republicans do support some socialist programs, which is unfortunate, but the main difference between the two sides is the extent and methodology. Republicans
still have some awareness of how a free economy and a free, prosperous people go hand-in-hand, whereas that is completely lost on the Left. Also republicans don't try to shut down alternative views by calling their political opponents Nazis, Fascists, White Nationalists, and White Supremacists, racist, or sexists.

Well first off, the United States isn't a free economy. Free Economy is a political ideology in which the market is guided completely by itself with zero interference that completely self regulates but also still allows fair trade. The fact that the government regulates business at all means the US isn't a free economy. The fact that the government protects intellectual property through law means the US isn't a free economy. These are all rules and regulations after all. People who believe in a free economy are naive, do you honestly think companies wouldn't steal IP if the government wasn't their to protect it. No, they will 100% of the time and that's why the ideology of a free economy is tampered with other policies in the United States. In addition, a free economy also requires the voluntary exchange of goods, meaning that things like monopoly also disqualify an ecomony as free. If you only have a single choice in ISP, that is not a free economy.

Republicans don't try to shut down alternative views?

This is from back in 2016 on a single republican: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html

Please do not make me laugh so hard. Both the left and right put down opposing opinions, human nature that at least a few will do so. The difference being on what. The left calling out self-proclaimed white supremacists in steve bannon is bad? Are you going to tell me the white supremacists in Charlottesville misspelled their signs and in fact are not all about white power? Psychological anchoring exists on both sides but it is clear that it is leading republicans down the wrong path. I should not have to quantify the difference between actual white supremacists and middle of the road Americans.

Calling AOC a bimbo, which she is, was not my argument against any accumulation of scientific findings but her penchant for spreading bulls*t. Hey! Beto O'Rourke is a bimbo, too, so stick your specious claim that I'm a sexist where the Sun doesn't shine. Also, the basic greenhouse effect is one process that in itself is affected by a very complex system of processes which scientists are still trying to understand. That's why climate based predictions of doom and gloom have been way off track. The world of climate science needs better climate models.

Trying to cover up your sexist use of the word bimbo change that it was in fact sexist. Why else would you first use a world used to denigrate females and now try to pepper it on everyone in an attempt to appear like you use it on everyone? Please you are going to have to try harder to hide it next time. I can't say you are completely to blame, this type of thing is often baked into people from their environment.

And yes, we do need better climate models. That said, the temperature rise we are already seeing is pretty worrying.

()()()()()

"Jabber jawing"? What century are you from?

"Movement" is a concept, not an actual quote from the article. Get it?

Yes, "over 4,000" is factually correct, but is misleading. It is the "misleading" part I was aiming at, not trying to please my 4th grade English teacher. And I wasn't trying to disprove the "4,001" thing either.

I don't watch Alex Jones, but thanks for the tip.

No, Libs aren't out to eat my kids, just be misleading as hell.

FYI.

I'm no fan of the media's generous use of ambiguous words but if that's the entire premise of your argument I find it rather hypocritical given that Trump represents the right. Are you honestly going to tell me that Trump isn't worse then the media? Please, the man is the king of misleading statements and outright lies. It's not a close comparison. The media's job is to get view and sensationalize, the president's is not. The difference in responsibility and still the president does far more then exaggerate.

()()()()()

A few months ago Trump was "quoted" as saying the USA needs to deploy 6G telecom (in order to keep pace with the Chinese). And he seemed like a complete retard because 5G is barely coming out. Then a few days later it came out what he really said - to the effect: "We need to deploy 5G as soon as possible - and even 6G..." The liberal media left that out. And, yeah, he seemed like an *****. Only it turns out the liberal media had screwed his words and meaning to the point where he looked simple. THAT is your BS liberal media!And that's one of many, many other misrepresentations. And use "than" instead of "then".