The Hidden Environmental Cost of Amazon Prime's Free, Fast Shipping (buzzfeednews.com)

Amazon's Prime Day shopping spree offers free, fast shipping -- but experts say there's a hidden environmental cost that doesn't show up on the checkout page. From a report: Expedited shipping means your packages may not be as consolidated as they could be, leading to more cars and trucks required to deliver them, and an increase in packaging waste, which researchers have found is adding more congestion to our cities, pollutants to our air, and cardboard to our landfills. Free and fast shipping has always been a Prime membership's marquee perk -- one that's drawn in over 100 million subscribers who pay $119 annually. A 2017 study by UPS found that nearly all (96%) US customers had made a purchase on a marketplace like Amazon or Walmart, and over half (55%) said free or discounted shipping was the primary reason.

[...] That convenience is encouraging people in the US to buy more, and to make more individual purchases rather than placing a single order for several items. "There are more sales in lower-price products online than there have been in stores," Marshal Cohen, chief industry advisor at the NPD Group, told BuzzFeed News. And all of those transactions are negatively impacting our planet, according to Miguel Jaller, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Davis: "People are consuming more. There's more demand created by the availability of these cheap products and cheap delivery options."

Comments

Hidden?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Small items cost more on Prime than they do at Walmart. The costs are right there for anybody who understands the Price Mechanism as an element of basic economics.

Oh, wait, it's *fucking Buzzfeed* on /. again. GDI.

Not quite accurate

[Solandri]

Expedited shipping means your packages may not be as consolidated as they could be, leading to more cars and trucks required to deliver them, and an increase in packaging waste, which researchers have found is adding more congestion to our cities, pollutants to our air, and cardboard to our landfills

This is a classic misunderstanding of opportunity cost. Comparing the scenarios as if the alternative is for the packages to materialize in your house via a Star Trek-style transporter and zero pollution.

If Amazon weren't shipping the items to you, you would probably drive to a local store to buy it. Multiple stores if you're buying a variety of things. In the vast majority of cases, that will burn more fuel and cause more pollution than delivery via UPS. The average UPS driver makes about 120 deliveries a day, driving about 150 miles. So total vehicle-miles per package is only about 1.25 miles. (The longer cross-state transport would've happened anyway delivering the item you bought to your local store.)

The excess packaging part I agree with. I peeves me that when Amazon is running promotions like their "$1 digital credit for slower shipping", it's per order rather than per item, or per $x spent. It encourages me to save my items for later, and purchase them one at a time, rather than put them all in one order which can be shipped in a single box. To their credit, I've found that if I place multiple orders in rapid succession, they're smart enough to consolidate all of them into a single shipment.

Re:Best environmental solution: urbanism

[Anonymous Coward]

Best environmental solution -- live in a city where you can walk or bike to the store.

*

NO, the best solution is to quit consuming stuff you don't fucking need.

Of course that is a solution that escapes most of you, because your brains have been conditioned to make you want to consume, and most of you are
too mentally weak to resist, so you consume. And you eat, drink, fart, and shit and piss, and in the end your worthless lives will amount to nothing.

Bozosucko on THAT, motherfucker.

The hidden costs of driving to Wal Mart

[Snotnose]

You're burning gasoline, which dumps stuff in the atmosphere. You're using public roads, which are heavily subsidized. The people who work at WalMart are also getting food stamps or other welfare. All that for a $1.39 tube of toothpaste.

Face it, we're connected as hell. Everyfuckingthing we do has hidden costs. Get over with it, it's called modern living.

Re:Ya, but ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I do. In addition, I often select standard shipping when I don't care about arrival time. Prime has caused me to buy more through Amazon, but has also drastically reduced my driving. Often in the past, even when combining trips, I would drive quite a few extra miles to get supplies I now purchase from Amazon. I don't know which is better for the environment, but it feels more efficient to have the post office deliver a few things than me driving 15 minutes extra to pick it up elsewhere. It definitely saves my time and I usually get exactly what I need. When driving to a store, often the item I want isn't in stock, causing a second trip later or a compromise on another similar item. I really don't enjoy shopping and know exactly what I want, so on line orders work for me. Groceries and household are still bought the old fashioned way about once a week.

NOT hidden

[Alwin Henseler]

The "hidden" cost they're talking about is NOT reflected in the price.

Anyone who's ever read Friedrich Hayek's "The Use of Knowledge in Society" should know: externalities apart, some way, somehow any extra environmental burden (read: resource usage) will be worked into the price. Trucks can't drive around extra miles at US$0 / mile cost. No matter how cheap the gas or how little they pay their drivers.

Maybe prices don't differentiate between environmentally efficient or wasteful options. Maybe there are some externalities that enable Amazon to ship goods cheaper than they should be. But gas still costs money. Electricity too. More trucking miles = more trucks needed, more driver time, and more maintenance to do on those trucks. And with Amazon being a for-profit company, those extra costs will have to be recouped somehow. Either in higher prices for products, or higher prices for premium services.

So grandparent is right. The only thing (possibly) hidden is how end-user pricing is calculated.

Re:NOT hidden

[rtb61]

The problem is, you either get in your car, drive to the shop, park it in the forest destroying car park, go to the store, wait for service, get service, chat for some time, but the product, carry it back to your car and drive your whole car (the delivery packaging) with one fucking package and one person, back home. That will never economically or environmentally compete with ordering online, package goes from warehouse, to delivery vehicle with many, many other packages and only makes a one way journey, a route with deliveries on route and the final delivery should return closer to the warehouse for efficiency. Delivery vans, based upon cyclic use et al and a flat floor, slow speed and constant acceleration and deceleration, plus a large flat roof, make for excellent electric vehicle design and that solar panel does count once it pays for itself, it still generates revenue, direct tax free revenue.

Direct deliveries from logistic centres is far more efficient ie from factory (no outgoing warehousing required), to logistic centre (for picking and packing), to the consumer. So you put retail workers out of work but the whole retail centre, the land used, the energy used, the building, also are not required, that land could be a park with trees (but of course less reality, the city itself does not need to grow as much to provide the infrastructure space for that retail space. The retail chain style simply can not economically nor environmentally compete with the logistic chain style. You just need more logistics companies to jump into retail and provide competition and shrink Amazon down to a manageable for the rest of society scale. Unkowledgeable women writing fantasy rubbish is utterly pointless. The kind of stupid stuff like "However, people arenâ(TM)t offsetting the traffic to shopping malls and grocery stores by buying online" is a stupid as fuck, so they buy that product online and go to the mall to what not buy that product, what the fuck are they doing in the mall if the already bought that product, probably buying something fucking else, or for a meal or the cinema. Nobody does both, it's fucking nuts, you do not buy online and they go to a mall to not buy the product, you do one or the other for that product.

Re: NOT hidden

[Anonymous Coward]

Pick a side, won't you? Here's how I see this, and I admit that this may be a false dichotomy.

On one hand, have no kids. This means shitting in the rivers, burning the forests, because I'm living my life to the fullest and there's no reason to do otherwise.

On the other hand, have children. This means proper management of the natural resources so my children have a world to live in that's better than when it was given to me by my parents.

What's another option? I have no kids, save the whales, and... leave the planet to the whales? Fuck that. If I'm not leaving this place to my children then I'm going to party like it's the end of the world. Because when I'm dead it may as well be the end of the world. If I bring the end of the world because of how I live then I won't care after I'm dead.

If children are of no value to you then why value the planet? I'm honestly trying to figure this out.

Re: NOT hidden

[blindseer]

Children are of value. In moderation, as with anything.

I agree, but the GPP expressed anger (for lack of a better word) at anyone having children.

But this is reality, and we all know that shit is just going to hit the fan. There will be no moderation of 7+ billion people.

The only place experiencing population growth from children born in the country are nations in Africa and some parts of Asia. Europe and the American continents are seeing growth only due to immigration. You want to moderate that growth? You want to see humanity's impact on the environment reduced? I'd suggest restricting immigration.

When an immigrant from Africa comes to Europe or the American continents they then adopt the lifestyle of the area. In Africa they don't burn fuel for heat like those of us in colder climates. They cook with renewable fuels like wood and cattle dung. They walk or ride bicycles where they need to go, maybe ride beasts of burden in rural areas and take public transportation in the cities. They use natural light most of the time, and I understand that solar power and batteries are popular for lighting at night. Should they immigrate to America or somewhere in Europe then they heat their homes with natural gas, cook on electric stoves, move around with cars and motorcycles, and buy piles of cheap plastic trinkets like their neighbors.

I suggest we keep immigration to a minimum, for the sake of saving the planet.

Do you believe it cruel to restrict people from fleeing oppression and war? That assumes the only way for these people to end their suffering is to flee from it. Evil is not stopped by fleeing from it. These people flee seeking an education for their children, work, and freedom. They can have that in Africa. I am not opposed to bringing it to them. I saw an interesting talk, a TED Talk as I recall, on how bringing people electricity means children getting an education from their mothers because the mothers aren't washing clothes by hand, giving them time to read to their children, and they get light to read by. With education comes smaller families, that was a different TED Talk.

Bring Africa wind, solar, and nuclear power so they can have electricity, then we can see the population growth moderate itself. Make their lives better where they are so they don't have anything to flee.

Re:Best environmental solution: urbanism

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're going to walk or bike to the store every day? How many bags of groceries can you carry for a family? Do you have the time to shop every day or do you have help to bring those groceries back? I'm guessing you actually don't buy groceries for a family and you eat out, thus actually consuming more than you realize.

Better idea. You do what you want, and I do what I want. And we don't try to shame each other for our difference of opinion.

Or we can settle this another way - but the outcome is always uncertain.

Re:Best environmental solution: urbanism

[BlazeMiskulin]

NO, the best solution is to quit consuming stuff you don't fucking need.

Stuff like... computers, internet access, and electricity?

Extra food is not âoehoardingâ

[SuperKendall]

Having extra food around is not âoehoardingâ, itâ(TM)s common sense as anyone who has had to ride out a bad storm could tell you...

Having some bulk food items (like a huge bag of rice) not only gives you a lot of margin for eating, it can also save you a ton of money (as long as you are careful not to buy anything youâ(TM)ll waste much of)

Re:Best environmental solution: urbanism

[blindseer]

many people outside the US live that way, and it works well.

Then why do so many of them come here? Why do they protest so much if denied entry at the border? Why do people risk their lives, and the lives of their children, to cross deserts, rivers, and seas, in hopes to put their feet on American soil?

My guess is that it doesn't work so well for them.

Re:Best environmental solution: urbanism

[b0s0z0ku]

You don't hear about people who are relatively happy in Europe or richer Asian countries and aren't clamoring to go to the US.

I buy odds and ends on Amazon

[rsilvergun]

because I got tired of going to a store to find them and either not finding them or having to search for half an hour-45 minutes because stores like to hide such things so I'll go all over and maybe pick up 5 or 6 other things.

Brick & Mortar Stores did several things that have pushed me away. First, they used computers to figure out exactly what sells and only stock that. Meaning if I want something that folks don't buy every single day I've got to go online, and if I'm going online I might as well skip the trip. Second, they took the "milk at the back of the store" philosophy to crazy heights and put everything I buy routinely at the maximum distance from each other, making shopping an all around miserable experience. Oh, and they massively understaff their stores to save money on wages (while cutting pay and benefits) meaning everybody at any store I shop at is just as miserable as I am.

Is it any wonder I avoid shopping in stores as much as possible?