3 ms·

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 convent

by 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.
      - eropple 9y ago
        Energy is substitutable, but the raw materials have externalities, yes, in both energy and other costs? If you are using petroproducts, you are perpetuating everything around petroproducts, from the costs of extraction (human, environmental, energy) to their externalities (pollution etc.) to the fundamentally scarce nature of them. Using more energy in a way that can be ramped into more sustainable sources (if it currently is not sustainably sourced--but, again, Lego seems to be at the least offsetting their energy use in toto) with fewer externalities is not the same thing. There are functional curves to look at here with more variables than what the raw count of joules that the process itself uses.
        ars 9y ago
        This is carbon and hydrogen we are talking about. A more sustainable, more common, more easily sourced, material doesn't exist (other than nitrogen and oxygen). You can get it from anywhere. Getting it from a plant changes absolutely nothing. Here's the part you are missing: Do you know why, if it's so easy to get, they most commonly source it as a petrochemical? It's not because oil is an especially great source, it's because when you do so you save energy. Because that oil has energy, and you can use it while making your product. To source your atoms elsewhere, then burn oil to gain energy needed to modify your product is backwards in environmental friendliness. You are adding another layer of inefficiency to oil usage. > There are functional curves to look at here with more variables than what the raw count of joules that the process itself uses. That's what they want you to think "look we are making environmental progress". It's not so. Sourcing carbohydrates is easy. Energy is hard, and they've made no progress there.

by cf498 9y ago

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.
    - eropple 9y ago
      Energy is substitutable, but the raw materials have externalities, yes, in both energy and other costs? If you are using petroproducts, you are perpetuating everything around petroproducts, from the costs of extraction (human, environmental, energy) to their externalities (pollution etc.) to the fundamentally scarce nature of them. Using more energy in a way that can be ramped into more sustainable sources (if it currently is not sustainably sourced--but, again, Lego seems to be at the least offsetting their energy use in toto) with fewer externalities is not the same thing. There are functional curves to look at here with more variables than what the raw count of joules that the process itself uses.
      - ars 9y ago
        This is carbon and hydrogen we are talking about. A more sustainable, more common, more easily sourced, material doesn't exist (other than nitrogen and oxygen). You can get it from anywhere. Getting it from a plant changes absolutely nothing. Here's the part you are missing: Do you know why, if it's so easy to get, they most commonly source it as a petrochemical? It's not because oil is an especially great source, it's because when you do so you save energy. Because that oil has energy, and you can use it while making your product. To source your atoms elsewhere, then burn oil to gain energy needed to modify your product is backwards in environmental friendliness. You are adding another layer of inefficiency to oil usage. > There are functional curves to look at here with more variables than what the raw count of joules that the process itself uses. That's what they want you to think "look we are making environmental progress". It's not so. Sourcing carbohydrates is easy. Energy is hard, and they've made no progress there.