To anyone who is mad at Bezos for destroying the environment before pledging to donate $10B, keep in mind that it easily could have been anyone else and they could have not chosen to pledge $10B....
To anyone who is mad at Bezos for destroying the environment before pledging to donate $10B, keep in mind that it easily could have been anyone else and they could have not chosen to pledge $10B.
There's a good point to be made by both sides here - the reality is that it happened, and someone pledging to do something is much better than nothing, but at the same time the problem was exacerbated by the individual making the pledge so we should be cautious to absolve them of their responsibility.
And many of us still hate him. Sure, his philanthropy work is pretty great. But this is exactly how mobsters and robber barons behave. A bit of philanthropy does not negate the tremendous harm...
Do people not remember how hated Bill Gates was? It took years of philanthropy to reverse that.
And many of us still hate him. Sure, his philanthropy work is pretty great. But this is exactly how mobsters and robber barons behave.
A bit of philanthropy does not negate the tremendous harm that was done in the name of building his empire.
The thesis of this article seems to be: (this is not a quote from the article, but rather my paraphrase) Needless to say this is a flawed premise. It is true that there is the possibility that...
The thesis of this article seems to be:
Amazon contributes greatly to climate change, and Bezos's pledge is coming from his personal wealth as opposed to the corporation - therefore, it will do no good.
(this is not a quote from the article, but rather my paraphrase)
Needless to say this is a flawed premise. It is true that there is the possibility that this pledge will do no good - perhaps it will be mismanaged, perhaps it will fund pseudoscience, perhaps it will not effectively power lobbying efforts, etc. It is also true that this pledge will likely not cancel out the contributions to climate change that arise from Amazon's continued operations (which provides this money in the first place). But neither of those imply that this won't have a positive impact, certainly moreso than would be the case without it. This isn't the same as saying "hey, we should be happy we got something". I think we're perfectly capable of acknowledging both that a $10 billion fund is nothing to shake a stick at, while also acknowledging that it is not enough and more will have to be down to reign in the corporate excesses that have contributed to climate change in the first place.
I'm no fan of billionaires or corporations, but if this $10 billion leads to positive advances it should be considered a good thing.
If I ever become super rich, remind me not to donate 10 billion dollars. It gets you nothing but criticism.
To anyone who is mad at Bezos for destroying the environment before pledging to donate $10B, keep in mind that it easily could have been anyone else and they could have not chosen to pledge $10B.
There's a good point to be made by both sides here - the reality is that it happened, and someone pledging to do something is much better than nothing, but at the same time the problem was exacerbated by the individual making the pledge so we should be cautious to absolve them of their responsibility.
And many of us still hate him. Sure, his philanthropy work is pretty great. But this is exactly how mobsters and robber barons behave.
A bit of philanthropy does not negate the tremendous harm that was done in the name of building his empire.
The thesis of this article seems to be:
(this is not a quote from the article, but rather my paraphrase)
Needless to say this is a flawed premise. It is true that there is the possibility that this pledge will do no good - perhaps it will be mismanaged, perhaps it will fund pseudoscience, perhaps it will not effectively power lobbying efforts, etc. It is also true that this pledge will likely not cancel out the contributions to climate change that arise from Amazon's continued operations (which provides this money in the first place). But neither of those imply that this won't have a positive impact, certainly moreso than would be the case without it. This isn't the same as saying "hey, we should be happy we got something". I think we're perfectly capable of acknowledging both that a $10 billion fund is nothing to shake a stick at, while also acknowledging that it is not enough and more will have to be down to reign in the corporate excesses that have contributed to climate change in the first place.
I'm no fan of billionaires or corporations, but if this $10 billion leads to positive advances it should be considered a good thing.