
Jeff Bezos Commits $10B to Address Climate Change - gok
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/technology/jeff-bezos-climate-change-earth-fund.html
======
inerte
After reading Winners Take All my level of cynicism is through the roof with
headlines like this.

$10b of his own personal fortune? That won't results in tax breaks / deduction
because can be considered a donation? Or does that include money Amazon-the-
company is spending on "climate change" efforts, such as buying electric
delivery trucks instead of gas ones? Investments in "green datacenters"? Is
any of this new investment that's needed anyway for Amazon-the-company to
operate, but now it's green so it gets added up to the $10b?

Is Bezos, worth $130b today be worth $120b tomorrow because of this? Or do we
have to add up a hundred different things with some creative accounting and
lots of goodwill?

~~~
humbledrone
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 < $X. Since tax% is always < 100%, it
seems that the donation is always negative-sum for the donor.

The tax deduction also seems like a boon for the beneficiary, since they
receive $X instead of (1 - tax%) * $X.

Can you help me understand the cynicism? How does the donor benefit here
(aside from PR etc)? It seems like they do not come out ahead financially, and
the tax breaks benefit the recipient of the donation.

~~~
smallgovt
I think ultimately this cynicism is born out of envy/jealousy for the good
will that such a donation engenders.

As you've pointed out, any logical analysis would conclude that, even in the
most extreme cases, there's still a sizable positive benefit to society.

People have a problem with "undeserved" good will as if good will is some
scarce resource that's limited in supply. I think the reality is they're
envious.

~~~
tetris11
Angry. The word you are looking for is angry.

Its just a constant reminder that we live at the mercy of these elites, that
our tax dollars don't appear to have any effect in bringing about the change
that we want because these scumbags have rewritten the laws in their favour so
that the money only concentrates towards them.

What can we do about it? Absolutely nothing, but I'm sure as hell not going to
pander to their 'benevolence'

~~~
GreenJelloShot
Is there anything Bezos could do at this point that would NOT make you angry?

~~~
mercer
Somehow use most of his filthy amount of wealth, much of it acquired in filthy
ways, to things that are not him?

I'm perpetually baffled at how one person having this much wealth is somehow
considered okay. Sure, we can argue about where it goes instead, but jesus
christ is this an unfathomable amount of wealth that really shouldn't be in
one person's control.

~~~
GreenJelloShot
I honestly cannot understand this attitude. It sounds like pure jealousy. You
are saying that we should stop people from being too successful.

Bezos earned all of his wealth honestly. He offered products and services for
prices that people were willing to pay. He did not steal. He did not force
anyone into anything. If he is stupid rich, it is because he was able to
provide things people wanted more effectively than anyone else.

How can you possibly justify punishing success? What right do we have to give
him money for doing what we want, and then turning around and taking it away.
What sort of message does that send to other people?

"Work hard and be successful, but not _TOO_ successful..."

~~~
mercer
I could go into the broader problem I have with a single person having that
much wealth/power.

But really, mostly it's that Bezos is a giant piece of shit. His company has a
long history of controversy and anything good he does doesn't erase that. That
has nothing to do with all the upstanding people in the world who are trying
to be 'successful'.

------
gpu_explorer
These comments do surprise me yes.

The amount of conflict in the remarks is because both parties are right. It's
very wonderful for Jeff Bezos to donate $10B dollars. But also it's right
about private jets, which generate much carbon pollution.

It's fair to say that everyone has to do their part against climate problems.
I for one make personal sacrifices yes. Less meat, less consuming, trying for
local purchases as often as possible so the cheese I eat is not from France,
driving a lot less, and also I fly much less. This year only one trip home
instead of two.

For us to lift out of poverty many more people, it's worrying about the carbon
costs of this. But now we have to behave smarter and people for whom
sacrifices are easiest should make them first.

~~~
tunesmith
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 yeah, limiting long distance travel is the way to go. I just found it
surprising because I think a lot of people might choose to drive instead of
fly, thinking it's better for the environment - usually not unless you're
carpooling.

~~~
viklove
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.

~~~
keanzu
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...](https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/Primer_Jan2015.pdf)

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)

------
legitster
$10b is an _insane_ initial endowment. That's about a quarter of what the Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation have after 20 years.

It would be nice to have more details about the goals or objectives.

~~~
adventured
It's a huge initial endowment for sure. It would be a little more fair to
include the other $50 billion the Gates Foundation has already given (ie
they're up around $100 billion so far, with perhaps another $250 billion yet
to come).

The Gates Foundation has ~$45-$50 billion in assets currently and has given
away more than $50 billion thus far (~$23 billion of that giving is from
Warren Buffett's contributions; Buffett's donations have to be used rapidly
after they're given to the foundation (within the year or such if I recall),
that money isn't allowed to pile up). The foundation as it's known today - The
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation - got started with $16 billion in 1999/2000.

Gates + Buffett = $210 billion currently. Due to the Buffett money pouring in,
they basically can't give it all away as fast as Bill & Melinda had originally
planned, so they're likely going to miss their timeline for giving the Gates
fortune away (in their lifetimes was the first goal; that shifted to now being
within 20 years after their passing).

~~~
legitster
Thanks! Those are some really interesting numbers.

------
abraae
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.

~~~
legitster
Climate change is an order of magnitude bigger deal than plastics and garbage.

~~~
dizzy3gg
the churn of those plastic products and the net cost adds up

------
BinaryIdiot
Do we know how much emissions can be attributed to Amazon / AWS? I'm curious
if this $10 billion fund could offset that or if it's too small to cover their
own use.

Though, to be fair to Amazon, this is at least a good goal:

> Amazon expects 80% of its energy use to come from renewable energy sources
> by 2024, up from a current rate of 40%, before transition to zero emissions
> by 2030.

~~~
standardUser
It's kind of irrelevant how much harm a single company does, since that
company exists to serve a demand that would simply be filled by other
companies if it didn't exist. Maybe those theoretical other companies would
have marginally better business practices vis-a-vis the environment, but it's
not like they would operate in a wholly alternative economic system.

~~~
maximente
simplifying down complex issues to fit "the curves" narrative often misses a
lot of really important nuance.

to wit, let's imagine there's an incumbent company that serves out the demand
in an incredibly efficient but environmentally harmful manner. further suppose
this is a large national player that's willing to eat some losses in order to
crowd out the whole "efficient allocation of resources" type new businesses
that may spring up and serve that demand in an environmentally friendly
manner.

according to "the curves", there's no room to displace that incumbent because
they're stuck in a local maximum when it comes exclusively to satisfying
demand. but it's pretty clear that there are externalities that, when
considered, make it an attractive target for change by different players.

------
bensonn
This says he "commits" 10B to a new initiative named after himself. What do
terms like "commits" and "pledges" mean? From the article it looks like all he
did was post on Instagram.

Is there more to this than an IG post? Is there anything legally binding,
anything that actually moves the money outside of his control? Did his
networth just drop 10B?

------
K0SM0S
Well, F yeah!! Thank you, Mr Bezos. Mad props to you.

 _(To cynicism and idealism, I say: know when to take a win.)_

------
theklub
Couldn't he just buy out the major coal energy companies and force them to
become 100% wind+solar+etc within x years.

~~~
soVeryTired
Presumably the minor coal energy companies would quickly become new major
companies in the vaccuum left behind.

~~~
mediaman
Not really. Coal is not economic to make new plants. New plants are generally
natural gas or renewable. So shutting down old plants shifts demand to NG or
solar/wind.

------
cswiercz
Related: “Against Against Billionaire Philanthropy”
([https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-
billio...](https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billionaire-
philanthropy/))

~~~
DennisP
Based on that article, Bezos just pledged more money to fight climate change
than the U.S. government has spent on it in the past 25 years.

~~~
adventured
How do you get to that figure? As one example the US Government spends
billions of dollars per year subsidizing renewable energy, ie fighting climate
change. $6.7 billion in 2016 alone. I'm not arguing that's an appropriate sum,
however your 25 year premise is drastically wrong.

Since 2010, I'd bet the US Government has spent in the neighborhood of
$60-$100 billion on renewable energy subsidies. The EIA reports that for 2010
and 2013 the figures were a combined $30 billion.

Then throw in nuclear energy subsidies over the last 25 years, which is
comparable to the Bezos figure by itself.

~~~
DennisP
> $154 billion on climate-change-related activities since 1993 [but] 94
> percent of the money was going to programs that weren’t primarily focused on
> climate change — things like nuclear energy. The money marked as climate
> spending wasn’t going to new initiatives. Instead, “it’s a bunch of related
> things we were already doing,”

So 6% of the money being actual new money focused on fixing climate, times
$154 billion, is $9.24 billion.

I think that's an appropriate comparison since the Bezos money is new money
specifically for fixing climate.

------
rdiddly
Well, better to take part of the money you made storing carbon in the
atmosphere, and use it to mitigate carbon in the atmosphere, than to use it
for something else..... riiiiight?

------
iceman7733
I think this money could be used much more effectively by attacking other more
pressing issues (like child nutrition). Climate Change is not such a cut-and-
dry situation, it's difficult to parse out the facts from the political
commentary/posturing. Bjorn Lomborg articulates all this better than I ever
could.

------
chriscatoya
The money is great, of course, but a piece of me wonders every time I see this
sort of thing if spending time managing these endeavors directly would be more
impactful towards the goal.

------
neonate
[https://archive.md/eb3kq](https://archive.md/eb3kq)

------
Ididntdothis
I am a little worried that this initiative will only do things that don’t cost
Bezos too much money. I feel the same when Silicon Valley guys push UBI. It
often seems a way for them to keep their money while pretending to do
something.

Maybe I am too cynical but these guys got to where they are by always looking
out for themselves first.

------
mistrial9
What are the tax implications of this wealth-transfer? Who are the winners?

~~~
rolltiide
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, then the whole $10B will offset up to
50% of his whole tax bill any year, rolling forward till there is no more to
deduct. not just limited to any particular type of capital tax. he can also
just donate his amazon shares without selling them first, gaining a charitable
deduction on the entire value and no capital gains tax event, but depending on
the type of charitable foundation the donation could be limited to his cost
basis, instead of the current fair market value, another consequence being
that a lower % max deduction is possible. Actually this could be genius
because his cost basis might have become pegged to the fair market value in
the divorce. The IRS _allows_ divorcing couples to keep their original cost
basis on split property but could be optional, given the nature of their
settlement where it seems there were modifications onto what the stock
contract actually is - with some shares transferred but voting rights
retained.

So for example, there is almost no scenario where Jeff Bezos has to pay any
taxes on the $4Billion in Amazon shares he sold earlier this year. Whether he
converts another $10B shares to cash or not.

So even though he 'spends' on a cause and theoretically doesn't get to use
that money for himself, even though its not paying the government either, he
doesn't actually lose any money he ever actually had.

It's nice that a transaction towards this cause is occurring.

~~~
loeg
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%.

~~~
rolltiide
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

------
viburnum
Be smarter to just back a political movement, but that would actually work,
and diminish Bezos's own power.

~~~
legitster
I don't understand this. Backing a political movement is probably the _worst_
thing he could do. He's completely distrusted politically, and polls terribly
with the general public. He would only taint any movement he backed.

~~~
loceng
If he had backed (now suspended) Presidential candidate Andrew Yang early
enough he could have aligned himself with Yang's message: highlighting too
that Amazon paid $0 in taxes + is closing 30% of malls, etc. - which would be
him acknowledging and responding to the issues at hand that Yang; allowing him
to acknowledge the current system's structure - that all companies including
Jeff's - must compete within, but that it's ultimately a problem for society
(even if it's good for the economy/GDP).

------
ajharrison
A nice way to keep 10 billion out of reach from the tax man.

------
vkaku
Let's see, Jeff.... Cautious optimism here. I'll hand it to you when you're
putting this money in to fix the world - not your taxes.

------
kaonashi
Is this just another Gates-foundation style tax swindle?

~~~
bpodgursky
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.

~~~
kaonashi
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

~~~
bpodgursky
Can you walk me through how it ends in anything other than Gates having given
his money away through the Gates foundation? Also, for what it's worth (and I
don't think this is even essential to the point), the Gates Foundation has an
explicit mandate to spend down all reserves within 20 years of their death:

> Also announced was the decision to spend all of the foundation's resources
> within 50 years after Bill's and Melinda's deaths.[177][178][179][180] This
> was later lowered to within 20 years of their death.[181][182] This would
> close the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust and effectively end the Bill
> & Melinda Gates Foundation

(source
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Lifespan))

~~~
kaonashi
He doesn't 'give money away' no-string-attached. He uses the donations to
control the way the economy deals with the externalities of capitalism. It's
fundamentally anti-democratic for that share of the world's economy to be
driven by the whims of one man.

~~~
iso947
It is, but perhaps unfettered democracy isn’t a great system in the first
place

~~~
kaonashi
Not saying everyone needs to have the same level of say in the outcome of the
economy, but there's a minimum below which the system becomes unresponsive to
real human need and a maximum above which diminishing returns sets in.

------
rpiguy
Billionaire invests $10B dollars to virtue signal and control the behavior of
the poor, while not changing his lifestyle at all. 165M dollar environmentally
excessive mansion, private jets, and a rocket program that dumps carbon into
the air.

I’ll be impressed when billionaires actually make sacrifices themselves,
rather than just write checks.

Checks are important, but let’s be real about these people.

~~~
xxpor
I know this is completely not your point, but do rockets actually dump a lot
of carbon? I thought most rocket exhaust was mostly water.

~~~
dwaltrip
Yes, relatively speaking, each launch contributes a "large" amount, but it is
completely irrelevant when looking at the overall picture. There are ~100
launches a year, compared with 7 billion miles driven by automobiles per year
[1] for example.

I don't have a source handy, but I remember hearing that each launch is the
equivalent of the annual output of 2 passenger vehicles. So all rockets
launches worldwide = 200 drivers.

[1]
[https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171113006466/en/Fut...](https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171113006466/en/Future-
Cars-2040-Miles-Traveled-Soar-Sales)

------
harry8
Worlds richest man continues to pay zero tax while making fatuous
annoucnements.

That should be the preface on every single Bezos article. Every time his name
is mentioned, it should explained as follows "Jeff Bezos, who is the world's
richest man and neither he nor is company have ever paid any tax at all."

Then people can effectively make their own mind up about whatever his PR team
is pushing this week. It's impossible to be cynical enough, in my opinion.
YMMV.

Disagree? Write down what you think this announcement means. Review it in a
year and see if you were misled.

