Emily Cunningham

Most people have a vague sense that burning up more oil is bad for the climate, but don't realize HOW bad. It's reeeeally bad.

In order to have a shot at staying within 1.5° warming, we must "rapidly reduce and eliminate all production and use of coal, oil, and natural gas and invent and scale up negative emissions technology."

2° warming "wld mean rising sea levels, freshwater shortages, reduced agricultural productivity, food stress, & the conflicts & emigration that come in their wake." "A lot of people will die, & not because they burn to death. It'll be because we don't have enough food & water."

"Climate change could be kept in check if a phaseout of all fossil fuel infrastructure were to begin immediately, according to research." "keeping within the 1.5C limit is possible if radical action is taken immediately."

“Whether it’s drilling a new gas well, keeping an old coal power station open, or even buying a diesel car, the choices we make today will largely determine the climate pathways of tomorrow."

Again: Amazon has a choice. Recall the difference in devastation between 1.5 and 2 warming. Recall that "keeping within the 1.5C limit is possible if radical action is taken immediately." Now recall Amazon boasting it can help oil companies "optimize production & profitability.”

From one of Amazon's public case studies: “Historically, [pipeline] routes were plotted using paper maps, and it would take a month to get a route. With PPRO, now we can do it in about eight hours.” This is both terrifying and sickening given what's at stake.

The climate science is known. The data is known. Amazon knows what's at stake yet chooses to firmly align itself on the wrong side of history. With powerful fossil fuel interests which are hell bent on making as much money as they can while they burn down our future.