About two years ago I watched a Swedish documentary that covered several hypothesis as to why so many fish has disappeared from the Baltic sea.

One of the concerns raised were that the fleet of smaller fishing vessels were being replaced by large factory trawlers that were a lot more efficient. They fished so much fish that a lot of it was sold as feedstock to salmon breeders.

They confronted one of the ship-owners and he argued that if you looked at CO2 emissions (per ton of fish caught), their fleet was actually _better_ for the environment -- climate change and all that.

I thought that was quite illuminating. I am not entirely convinced yet that we as a society are solving the right problems. I think we can all agree on that we need to sacrifice such jerks into the nearest volcano to appease the Climate Gods (Ruffin and Pussface).

I think we can all agree on that we need to sacrifice such jerks into the nearest volcano...

Please do this with 90+% of the world's population. That solves several problems simultaneously: a) it removes jerks with absolute disregard of nature and lacking any type of common sense, b) overpopulation and too high resource use and c) significant reduction of noise and light pollution.

"I am not entirely convinced yet that we as a society are solving the right problems."

I don't see much evidence of problem-solving so far; not for the big-picture problems. CO2 is still increasing, species are still going extinct, wealth distribution is ever more lopsided, etc.

I wish I could say that at least we're trying to address those, but actually we haven't even really cracked the problem of how to discuss problems rationally (as a society); I mean, most discussions about that sort of stuff turn into name-calling very quickly - sometimes it's fairly refined name-calling, but still it's not anything that's going to yield a viable solution.

And even if we could figure out solutions, another problem we haven't solved is how to make plans for more than 10 years or so in the future, and stick to them.

I don't have solutions either. Hopefully, someone will come up with viable fusion power or some other miracle before it's too late.

> the fleet of smaller fishing vessels were being replaced by large factory trawlers that were a lot more efficient. They fished so much fish

Don't those countries have quotas/limits on their fishing industries? If so, no more fish should be getting caught, overall. If not, their problems have only just begun. We've long since past the point where humans could fish the worlds oceans to extinction of all profitable species if there were no regulations preventing it.

Amazon is in the talks with several global designers to make a new logo. It is said to support more green colors and uses 45% less ink on the packaging cartons. The ink savings, together with the green color will save an estimated 3% CO2 equivalent on Amazon's account. Sources did mention some export of environmental impact because the carton needs to be pre-treated with some new chemicals for the green ink to stick. This carton treatment will probably be outsourced to the Asian carton production sites with the source trees being imported from Finish and Swedish forests, which should last at least 30 more years.

An Amazon spokesperson told us that they expect to be both CO2 and carton neutral by 2050. " We are always working hard to do our best. ". Questions about how much CO2 and equivalents have been outsourced went unanswered.

Never mind the logo - that's just window dressing.

What about doing something positive, such as only using:

- recyclable or compostable packaging materials

- couriers with electric delivery vehicles.

I think the title says it all.

Either

a) Amazon takes the position that CO2 is bad [which I do not believe, I might add] and does REAL reductions,

or

b) They should just be honest about what they're doing and stop acting like smug liberals, trying to justify it with a tap-dancing "scientist"

If you want to talk about science, and then use it to justify a "the solution to pollution is dilution" type of argument, you're only going to make yourself look like a GINORMOUS HYPOCRITE.

My personal belief is that CO2 is insignificant to any kind of climate change, not only because it's just 0.04% of the atmosphere (and in equilibrium), but because it does not absorb the IR frequencies (in any significant amount) to prevent black body radiation from cooling the earth at night. But I'll move along.

Be as it may a lot of governments STILL insist on controlling CO2. So if Amazon is trying to justify that it's ok if THEY emit it, because [insert excuse here], they're just trying to be treated "special" and be given "special exemptions", like some kind of 'corporate welfare' or a 2-tiered form of justice (i.e. one regulation for ME, and another for THEE).

Maybe Bezos should just build a NUCLEAR REACTOR with power output equal to Amazon's consumption. Then the carbon footprint will be ZERO.

It seems like carbon trading is a new gold fever.

Is it already reserved for big bois or is there a place for a small guy developing a trading platform?

Let's say you find a company willing to get rid of their carbon footprint. You buy it from them and where would you sell it?

Do you need to be "in the circle" of people who came up with this?

Politically motivated "Investigation" by SEPA, to quiet the media....which of course will find that its been disposed off properly.

Don't see any complaints here about the skip per day many supermarker stores fills with food waste (and much much more over the Xmas period (and when I say period I mean from late August to New Year....who eats mincemeat pies in August/September? Result being we chucked out shelves and shelves out every night for weeks on end when they inevitably went off months before Xmas....)

Also "former" employee....no mention of why he is a former employee....

Also manufacturers often require unsold stock to be destroyed for retailer credit rather than returned, then there is the quantities of faulty products, counterfeit products, damaged in transit products that aren't fit for resale (would you want to buy headphones someone else had had on their head?....not me for sure...)

But hey why bother doing any investigation when we can just quote tabloid papers and "light news" channels like STV....

Shame as the register used to do serious investigations and actually look into what was going on, rather than just copy and pasting from other sources....seems standards are slipping...be as bad as the BBC at this rate....

I hate Amazon. Any company that rakes in so much money and yet treats its employees like used bog roll instead of sharing that profit with the employees who made all that profit possible should be burnt to the ground with extreme prejudice, preferably with its executive management locked inside.

That said, could an argument be made that, despite Amazon's ginormous carbon footprint, might the overall carbon picture be less bad than it would be if Amazon's customers each went out (in cars, of course, because ... reasons) and bought their whatever instead of having it delivered in trucks/vans that, one assumes, cover multiple locations on a somewhat efficient route?

Not that it will matter much now, as lockdowns are unlocked and people will both go out to buy whatever AND have Amazon deliver whatever else, but I still wonder.

You can also argue that Amazon pays a pittance so that employees can't afford too many things and thus the carbon footprint is limited...