What if Jeff Bezos spent 1% of his Net Worth on Environmental Initiatives?

Whenever climate change solutions are posed by scientists, governments, private companies, or concerned citizens, the immediate question that is subsequently asked is “Well what is the cost of this solution?”.  Financial implications reside at or near the center of any argument against comprehensive climate change action.  While it is true that any climate change initiative will come at some cost, a combination of technological innovation and financial market shifts have helped significantly reduce the cost of many key actions necessary to mitigate climate change.  

To better understand the financial implications of climate change solutions, this article will hypothetically evaluate the impact if Jeff Bezos were to spend 1% of his 191 billion net worth, or 1.91 billion dollars, on environmental initiatives.  Listed below is a theoretical proposal for what Mr. Bezos can accomplish by spending 1.91 billion dollars on energy, conservation, and transportation initiatives that would have a substantial impact on improving the environment and mitigating climate change.  While this hypothetical budget of almost 2 billion dollars seems like a lot of money, it is important to note that the United States government spends between 10 and 50 billion dollars every year on fossil fuel subsidies that lower the cost of coal, oil, and natural gas production, so this plan is cheap compared to fossil fuels!

Renewable Energy – 860 million dollars (~45% of budget)

In this scenario, renewable energy will receive the plurality of funds from Jeff Bezos.  This investment will mainly go towards addressing a major hurdle for widespread renewable energy infrastructure: upfront costs of construction.  Many renewable energy projects have previously struggled to procure funding for high upfront costs, but technological innovation has drastically reduced the costs of solar power by 76% and wind power 34% from 2009 to 2017.

Funding for a 1 MegaWatt (MW) solar farm is between roughly $800,000 and $1.3 million.  For this analysis, we will assume the cost is on the higher side at $1.25 million.  By allocating $400 million to upfront solar costs, this can generate 320MW of power.

Funding for a 2 MW wind turbine costs roughly $2.6 million.  By allocating 460 million, this proposal can fund 175 wind turbines that can generate 350 MW of power.

Overall, this hypothetical proposal can provide 670 MW of clean power every year, which is roughly equivalent to the amount of power provided by a major coal power plant.  Therefore, this proposal could generate the same amount of power as a coal power plant and support the electrical needs of thousands of homes and businesses, without the dangerous environmental impacts of coal burning.  For example, In 2019, the US released 5.1 million tons of carbon dioxide and there are 241 coal power plants in the U.S, meaning that an average coal power plant produces over 21,000 tons of carbon dioxide. 

In summation, replacing a coal power plant with the renewable energy funded by this proposal could prevent over 21,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere every year, while also seamlessly powering thousands of homes and businesses. 

Conservation – 670 million dollars (~35% of budget)

The funds Mr. Bezos provides for the conservation of this proposal will be entirely allocated to forest restoration.  Forests are powerful carbon sinks that have the ability to remove substantial amounts of carbon from the atmosphere, which will help mitigate the effects of climate change, as well as provide much needed habitat to innumerable species of flora and fauna.  

Scientists have conservatively estimated the overall cost of restoring one hectare, or 2.5 acres, of forest at $2,000.  For this hypothetical proposal, the cost of restoration will be adjusted to $2,500 to account for any potential logistical hurdles restoration projects may face.  

So, at the cost of $2,500 an acre, this proposal can fund the restoration of 268,000 hectares of forests, which is equivalent to a forest roughly 2/3 the size of Rhode Island (400,166 hectares).  It is estimated that a single hectare of mature trees absorbs 6.4 tons of carbon dioxide a year, so the fully restored forest from this proposal can remove 1.7 million tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every year once the replanted trees mature.

Transportation – 380 million dollars (~25% of budget)

The final portion of the proposal for spending Mr. Bezos money on environmental initiatives is transportation.  This proposal will focus on electrifying public transit systems across the United States, specifically buses.  While a bus of people commuting to work in a city certainly emits less greenhouse gases compared to if all those people commuted in individual cars, large buses still release a substantial number of emissions.  

The average cost for an electric bus is $750,000 according to multiple estimates.  This proposal will allocate 225 million to financing the hefty upfront cost of electric buses.  This money will provide the funds needed to create 300 electric buses.  For context, that many buses can electrify 20% of Seattle’s entire bus fleet.  The remaining funds will be diverted to help with the various logistics and infrastructure challenges of creating systems of charging stations for buses.

By investing in electric buses, cities can further reduce their carbon footprint and provide more sustainable transit options for thousands of people.  Additionally, electric buses can be powered by renewable energy which will further help decarbonize the transportation sector.

Conclusion

Saving the world from the effects of climate change will undoubtably come at a monetary cost that society must grapple with.  For centuries the world profited substantially off industrialization, deforestation, and fossil fuels, but that destruction has come at a cost that society will now be forced to reckon with if the world is to stop climate change.  

Sure, the solutions to climate change are expensive, but the hypothetical proposal discussed in this article shows that an incredible amount of positive change can be accomplished at a fraction of the budget society spends on fossil fuels.  Additionally, the positive externalities resulting from renewable energy, improved conservation measures, and electrified transportation system, have immeasurable positive financial values.  For example, a healthier environment drastically reduces medical bills for people everywhere due to less pollution related illnesses.

While spending considerable financial resources on climate change solutions may seem difficult, it is both necessary to stop climate change and will also provide a multitude of other financial, medical, and quality of life benefits for people around the world.

Bibliography

7, Keith Taryani August. “Wind Turbine COST: Worth the Million-Dollar Price in 2021?” Weather Guard Lightning Tech, 22 July 2021, weatherguardwind.com/how-much-does-wind-turbine-cost-worth-it/. 

“Fossil Fuel Subsidies & Finance.” Oil Change International, 29 May 2018, priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/. 

“How Is Electricity Measured?” Union of Concerned Scientists, www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-electricity-measured. 

Löf, Magnus, et al. “Restoring Forests: Regeneration and Ecosystem Function for the Future.” New Forests, Springer Netherlands, 28 Mar. 2019, link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11056-019-09713-0. 

“List of Coal-Fired Power Stations in the United States.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 11 Aug. 2021, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coal-fired_power_stations_in_the_United_States. 

“Solar Market Insight Report 2020 Q2.” SEIA, www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-market-insight-report-2020-q2. 

“U.S. Energy Information Administration - Eia - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Ap, www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/.