3 ms·

I am not an expert in this area, but polyethylene made from living plants takes rather fewer millenia to sustainably source than polyethylene made from petroleu

I am not an expert in this area, but polyethylene made from living plants takes rather fewer millenia to sustainably source than polyethylene made from petroleum.

ars 9y ago
What?? No. It makes no difference. What matters is the ENERGY. Not the atoms. We have absolutely no shortage of atoms, we have an unlimited supply of those. What matter is the energy inherent in the oil. And I see absolutely nothing in this press release about where the energy comes from.
- eropple 9y ago
  Do we have an unlimited supply of petroleum and the bandwidth to extract all of it at a reasonable price? Because, last I checked, that stuff is used for a lot of other things that is not "making Legos". Or is this just the "well, if all power isn't green it's just so futile" argument in a fetching hat?
  - cf498 9y ago
    Its about the footprint of the production. The problem here is that prior processes in this field needed alot more input energy and they have relied on conventional power input. They actually had worse footprints despite "producing plastic from thin air".
    - eropple 9y ago
      I understand that part, and I understand opportunity cost. I don't understand the frankly nastily-phrased assertions of "greenwashing"; even if it is currently inefficient due to using additional conventional power, that's not likely to stay the case over time, and I think it's a much longer row to hoe to assert that over a reasonable time horizon it would remain inefficient enough to make it less viable than continuing with current practices. Meanwhile, it looks like Lego-the-company is pretty heavily involved in the development of sustainable energy sources to use and to offset their own power usage[0]. [0] - https://www.lego.com/en-us/aboutus/news-room/2017/may/100-percent-renewable-milestone https://www.lego.com/en-us/aboutus/news-room/2017/may/100-pe...
      - cf498 9y ago
        If it is inefficient to a degree, that they have a bigger footprint then standard production it is a huge problem. They arent running a study on the possibilities of this kind of plastic production, they used it in production environment. If they are creating more pollution this way despite labeling themself sustainable it kind of is greenwashing.
        eropple 9y ago
        We're talking about the effects over a time horizon, though, not instantaneously--the instantaneous conversation is both misleading and uninteresting. Five years from now, their sustainable energy production/backing outpaces their usage, and they're still using the same process--does it magically become not-greenwashing at that point? Was it retroactively not greenwashing? Don't get me wrong--of course greenwashing is a thing that exists. But so does unwarranted cynicism.
        cf498 9y ago
        I think you start your argument from the point, that sustainable energy is around the corner. I have to point out, a lot of people have thought that way for a long time. The instantaneous effect is very important if there isnt sustainable energy around the corner. If it isnt, this is plain and simply an extremely inefficient way to produce plastics. Creating plastics from non petroleum sources is of course a great process, but it wasnt developed by Lego. Others arent using it because they produce actually a bigger footrpint with this "sustainable" process". If I dont miss anything, Lego adapted to that process before there was a positive impact or even before a non negative impact is a realistic prediction.
        ars 9y ago
        You are missing the point. Sourcing atoms through a plant will never be environmentally better just because the atoms touched a plant. It's energy that matters, but this press release doesn't mention that at all (and I bet it's because this new process uses more, not less, energy). If they save energy because the plant puts the atoms in the right configuration, that would be something. Are they? I doubt it, because if they were they would have said it.
  - ars 9y ago
    > Do we have an unlimited supply of petroleum and the bandwidth to extract all of it at a reasonable price? Pretty much yes. As long as you have a source of energy we have effectively unlimited supplies. I said it to you in another post: It's the energy that matters, not where the atoms happened to last sit.
- simias 9y ago
  It's the same idea behind bio fuels, some of it is effectively solar energy. The solar energy is used by the plant to take CO2 from the atmosphere and grow. Then this is used to make bio-stuff. If later that bio-stuff releases its carbon into the atmosphere... Well it was already there to begin with, not hidden underground. At worse, and if you don't count the energy used to transform the plant material into plastic/fuel/..., this it's carbon-neutral as no new carbon atoms are released into the atmosphere. Now I've heard people argue that in the end the energy cost to transform the plant into this bio-stuff negates the benefits from growing the material versus digging it out of the earth but I don't know enough about the subject to know who's right and who's wrong.

I am not an expert in this area, but polyethylene made from living plants takes rather fewer millenia to sustainably source than polyethylene made from petroleum.

ars 9y ago

What?? No. It makes no difference. What matters is the ENERGY. Not the atoms. We have absolutely no shortage of atoms, we have an unlimited supply of those. What matter is the energy inherent in the oil. And I see absolutely nothing in this press release about where the energy comes from.

eropple 9y ago
Do we have an unlimited supply of petroleum and the bandwidth to extract all of it at a reasonable price? Because, last I checked, that stuff is used for a lot of other things that is not "making Legos". Or is this just the "well, if all power isn't green it's just so futile" argument in a fetching hat?
- cf498 9y ago
  Its about the footprint of the production. The problem here is that prior processes in this field needed alot more input energy and they have relied on conventional power input. They actually had worse footprints despite "producing plastic from thin air".
  - eropple 9y ago
    I understand that part, and I understand opportunity cost. I don't understand the frankly nastily-phrased assertions of "greenwashing"; even if it is currently inefficient due to using additional conventional power, that's not likely to stay the case over time, and I think it's a much longer row to hoe to assert that over a reasonable time horizon it would remain inefficient enough to make it less viable than continuing with current practices. Meanwhile, it looks like Lego-the-company is pretty heavily involved in the development of sustainable energy sources to use and to offset their own power usage[0]. [0] - https://www.lego.com/en-us/aboutus/news-room/2017/may/100-percent-renewable-milestone https://www.lego.com/en-us/aboutus/news-room/2017/may/100-pe...
    - cf498 9y ago
      If it is inefficient to a degree, that they have a bigger footprint then standard production it is a huge problem. They arent running a study on the possibilities of this kind of plastic production, they used it in production environment. If they are creating more pollution this way despite labeling themself sustainable it kind of is greenwashing.
      - eropple 9y ago
        We're talking about the effects over a time horizon, though, not instantaneously--the instantaneous conversation is both misleading and uninteresting. Five years from now, their sustainable energy production/backing outpaces their usage, and they're still using the same process--does it magically become not-greenwashing at that point? Was it retroactively not greenwashing? Don't get me wrong--of course greenwashing is a thing that exists. But so does unwarranted cynicism.
        cf498 9y ago
        I think you start your argument from the point, that sustainable energy is around the corner. I have to point out, a lot of people have thought that way for a long time. The instantaneous effect is very important if there isnt sustainable energy around the corner. If it isnt, this is plain and simply an extremely inefficient way to produce plastics. Creating plastics from non petroleum sources is of course a great process, but it wasnt developed by Lego. Others arent using it because they produce actually a bigger footrpint with this "sustainable" process". If I dont miss anything, Lego adapted to that process before there was a positive impact or even before a non negative impact is a realistic prediction.
        ars 9y ago
        You are missing the point. Sourcing atoms through a plant will never be environmentally better just because the atoms touched a plant. It's energy that matters, but this press release doesn't mention that at all (and I bet it's because this new process uses more, not less, energy). If they save energy because the plant puts the atoms in the right configuration, that would be something. Are they? I doubt it, because if they were they would have said it.
- ars 9y ago
  > Do we have an unlimited supply of petroleum and the bandwidth to extract all of it at a reasonable price? Pretty much yes. As long as you have a source of energy we have effectively unlimited supplies. I said it to you in another post: It's the energy that matters, not where the atoms happened to last sit.
simias 9y ago
It's the same idea behind bio fuels, some of it is effectively solar energy. The solar energy is used by the plant to take CO2 from the atmosphere and grow. Then this is used to make bio-stuff. If later that bio-stuff releases its carbon into the atmosphere... Well it was already there to begin with, not hidden underground. At worse, and if you don't count the energy used to transform the plant material into plastic/fuel/..., this it's carbon-neutral as no new carbon atoms are released into the atmosphere. Now I've heard people argue that in the end the energy cost to transform the plant into this bio-stuff negates the benefits from growing the material versus digging it out of the earth but I don't know enough about the subject to know who's right and who's wrong.