> 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.
Not if the alternative is bikeable and walkable cities with decent public transport, though.
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
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.
How do you expect this would change Amazon's logistics and how favorable they are for consumers? For my part, at the very least, I'm still likely to get a lot of things delivered. Local stores are very rarely cheaper for anything non-immediate and delivery takes much less of my time than going to a store and back.
At a guess, Amazon's still better than this alternative for many scenarios. Maybe not ten times better, but still better.
I understand that this is an unusual personality trait. Still, I'm reluctant to give it up.
If I'm morally not allowed to buy stuff because its bad for the environment, then what incentive do I have to earn more than 40k/year? Do I exist just to pay taxes to the government to fund "more moral" causes than my own consumption?
I'd love to see something like a personal carbon quota, same for every person on a planet.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andriacheng/2019/12/04/amid-rec...
American cities are not (for the most part) bikeable and certainly not walkable. Literally everything is designed to be driven to in a car.
The decent public transport would help, but since it's been made a political issue it's not exactly as easy as just working within the constraints of the system.