Amazon: environmental destruction at its Prime

As a corporation, Amazon allows and promotes the continuation of dangerous production cycles. Despite its practices’ highly destructive implications on environmental stability, Amazon believes that mass production for the needs of individuals is necessary, and this belief is clearly indicated through its production practices and consumption processes.

Amazon makes consumption undoubtedly simple. With a mere click of a button, you can get your product almost instantly anywhere in the world. And with this increased demand and ease of access comes a decreased attention to how things are produced. Instead, the lens is focused elsewhere – we are more absorbed in approaches that are conducive to creating the most profitable methods of production. 

Currently, production in bulk is the most popular method, requiring the harvest of a more significant number of resources. With this, ethical issues of resource over-extraction are exacerbated, especially in low-income nations where mass manufacturing is encouraged due to relaxed regulations and an intense need for foreign direct investment from multinationals. These production methods and ethical issues are, therefore, mutually dependent.  

This is a greatly promising consumer deal that many customers use to get their products as soon as possible

In terms of numbers, Amazon contributes a great deal to environmental destruction through its packaging process. There are roughly  “165 billion packages” shipped to the US annually, which is equivalent to “1 billion trees worth” of thrown-away packing. This is not to mention plastics that are also discarded along with other materials used in parcels. Thus, through its packaging, as well as the carbon footprint from mass shipping across the globe through air freight, container trucks, and ports, Amazon is regarded as a significant contributor to climate change. This isn’t helped by the consumer demand that arises from Amazon’s convenient next-day delivery and its promise of magically getting to your door within a day. This is a greatly promising consumer deal that many customers use to get their products as soon as possible. 

This, inevitably, has tremendous effects on the environment with the pressure of faster shipping and packaging. Over 100 million have already paid $119 annually for the Amazon Prime premium delivery treatment, highlighting just how appealing the service is. Such a high demand for products makes it difficult for this online shopping volume to remain sustainable. In 2021, their carbon footprint rose by 19%, rising with over 71.54 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, a number expected to grow.

Contributing to environmental degradation with a massive corporation, while trying to fight it with some philanthropic gesture, seems oxymoronic at best

The real issue may not be Amazon, but the current economy that thrives upon individual consumption, with little thought for environmental turnouts, and instead customers only caring about what is printed on a balance sheet. This sort of thinking has to be rebuked and halted for any real progress to be made. Rather than pitiful pleas for sustainable packaging and nothing more, calls to action must affect how corporations think and act altogether. This can only be achieved through cultural and policy shifts that consider the importance of sustainable resources.

Amazon makes an attempt at this by grasping to a plea made by their chairman Jeff Bezos to become more environmentally sustainable through his Earth Fund with a goal “of granting $10 billion by 2030.” There has to be some attempt on his part to reduce this environmental toll in supply even if it means hampering business success. Either way, at present, contributing to environmental degradation with a massive corporation, while trying to fight it with some philanthropic gesture, seems oxymoronic at best. And this seems to be some sort of stunt to improve public perceptions on the part of Bezos. This has been a popular gesture extended by many wealthy entrepreneurs and philanthropists such as Bill Gates, investing “more than $2 billion toward climate technologies.” Though, in a similar fashion, Microsoft expected to emit “16 million metric tons of carbon.” These are two sentences that do not belong together when talking about a corporate chairman’s ‘attempts’ at ‘fixing’ the climate crisis.

We can make this change by fostering new environmentally conscious cultures and sourcing products from local sources

Referring back to Amazon, the negative press surrounding the company has attempted to remind the global conglomerate of its social corporate responsibility. However, this has only prompted the company to make small, lousy environmental efforts. It seems Amazon is merely greenwashing. Amazon hopes this will rid the mosquitos of the press ritualistically pricking and pruning its fresh skin. Spraying a little bug spray should help, and these temporary actions act as some deterrent to the criticism that is warranted to come its way. Unfortunately, this is how most corporations get away with mass environmental destruction. 

Overall, this crisis involves Amazon from its sourcing of materials, supply, resource use, and the ability (thanks to the revelations of a globalised world pulling us closer together through development in containerisation, shipping, and air freight) to draw shipping times smaller and smaller. We can make this change by fostering new environmentally conscious cultures and sourcing products from local sources. Items, such as clothes, food, and electronics, that can all feasibly be developed nationally or regionally, can contribute to local economic development instead. This will ultimately help to foster a healthier and sustainable space on the Earth we all share.