a thoughtful web.
Share good ideas and conversation.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by mk
mk  ·  70 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Amazon Warehouse tour

    Loaded bins arrive on the conveyor, and a display tells the packer what size of box to use.

We just got a new watch battery for my daughter. The sliver of a battery package was in a 9" cube with air cushions. I'm surprised it is the most cost-effective approach. I wonder if it has more to do with being seen in delivery?





ilex  ·  69 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I have heard a theory that Amazon sometimes uses boxes strictly larger than necessary so they can be used to keep other boxes from sliding around during shipping.

kleinbl00  ·  70 days ago  ·  link  ·  

LOL I just got $300 worth of watch lubricants.

Packages, within packages, within packages. All this was within a box that was packed by a human so of course it was within a tiny flat rate box. But Amazon relies on conveyors and automation and those envelopes they use require an entirely different set of processes. For some reason Amazon stores their batteries in the "box" section of the warehouse as opposed to the "envelope" section of the warehouse so a box is what you get.

When I get watch batteries from Esslinger or CasKer they show up in padded mailers. When I get them from Amazon they're in boxes. It's the most cost-effective approach from a gestalt point of view because material handling is their profit margin. Meanwhile I ordered an adjustable height workbench from Home Depot that was damaged in shipping. I had to meticulously repack all the styrofoam and haul it back to Home Depot... but then they sent me another, all 150lbs of it, next day air AM from the opposite coast.

The costs of shipping have been completely buried by the externalities of logistics.

wasoxygen  ·  70 days ago  ·  link  ·  

My last watch battery order came in a padded envelope. Perhaps the packer was out of envelopes and used the nearest substitute. If shipping is priced by weight it not make much difference.

I wonder if the added cardboard going to the landfill, now that many municipalities have given up on recycling, represents a net positive for carbon sequestration.

mk  ·  70 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I would be surprised if the production of a cardboard box is carbon-negative.

edit: I had to look.

Some article suggesting cardboard is worse than plastic:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/mar/31/plastics-cardboard

A site that says the CO2 emissions for cardboard generation is: 3.3 kg per kg:

http://www.greenrationbook.org.uk/resources/footprints-cardboard/

Europeans really getting into the details:

http://www.cepi.org/system/files/public/documents/publications/environment/2017/NEWcarbon%20footprint-final_1.pdf

I don't think cardboard counts as sequestration.