I think they're pretty different cases.
Amazon's one was essentially a side project for them, likely fully funded in-house using their R&D (research and development) budget.
In Nate's case, it was their entire product. They received funding from investors purely for the AI functionality that didn't actually exist or work. They specifically claimed that it did work, which is how they got the money. They spent all the investor money and had essentially nothing to show for it.
Building houses that are properly insulated would help far more since people wouldn't have to use heating and cooling as often, yet that doesn't seem to be a thing that builders are actually doing. I'm an Aussie living in California in a house built in the 1960s, and it's better insulated than an Aussie house built in the 2010s.
In any case, updating food packaging to include an environmental score isn't a bad idea. Hopefully it'd work out better than the health score, which is still entirely voluntary and doesn't always make sense.