4 ms·

> Lego emits about a million tons of carbon dioxide each year That's about 214133 passenger vehicles driven for one year, or 107980 homes' energy use for one y

by 21 8y ago

> Lego emits about a million tons of carbon dioxide each year That's about 214133 passenger vehicles driven for one year, or 107980 homes' energy use for one year according to this: https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calc... Just like the plastic straw ban, it's basically meaningless in the grand scheme of things, but obviously very important for their brand. It would probably be much better to invest that money for example in less polluting ocean shipments, which are a huge problem, but that doesn't have the "feel good" factor about it.

craftyguy 8y ago
Stop treating every improvement as "if it's not a silver bullet, then it's not worth doing." Consider for a split second that we may have to make lots of little incremental improvements to have a large gain...
- elmerfud 8y ago
  I don't believe that's what the original poster was saying at all. It was that when "going green" the marketing department seems to be one deciding what they do first rather than the engineering team.
  - threeseed 8y ago
    And what evidence is there of this ? Because it sure sounds like you just made this up. In most companies these policies have come from the CEO down largely because there has been significant demand coming from (a) employees, (b) consumers and (c) shareholders.
  - webkike 8y ago
    This point seems to imply moral imperatives should be ignored if they don't originate from the engineering department.
  - ddingus 8y ago
    Who knows? Could be the product of lunchtime chats about the world, their place in it, etc... many people in the company may have contributed with marketing making a move.
- analbeads01 8y ago
  I will then consider in the rest of that second from my math education (public school no less) that when dealing with orders of magnitude incremental improvements basically will never get you where you need to be. Might feel good though.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    By that same logic, there's no point in voting in elections, or paying your taxes, or even commenting on HN (since the number of HN users that aren't you is at least several orders of magnitude more than you).
- hueving 8y ago
  Consider for a second that we aren't making lots of incremental improvements though. We're making negligible improvements that are highly visible for marketing and feel good reasons. This is even worse than doing nothing at all because the people that would actually make sacrifices to help are placated by these charades. This is just like the table water ban. "Meaningful change is hard, let's max out virtue signaling points instead."
  - 9935c101ab17a66 8y ago
    This is a really well-written rebuttal to the "straws are destroying the planet" narrative in general.
    - specialist 8y ago
      Every journey begins with the first step. Imagine the competitive advantage Lego will have once they develop this new source of material. You've heard of Moore's Law, ya? Like Einstein said, the most powerful force in the world is compound interest. Same thing.
      - hueving 8y ago
        Moore's law (or the exponential effect in general) hasn't applied to any other modern fields (last 200 years) and had finally failed in semiconductors. It's not an actual law, it's just an observation of a manufacturing system benefiting from its own gains. So unless Lego's output costs cut in half with a reduction in co2 production, there won't be anything like a moores law effect.
        specialist 8y ago
        "or the exponential effect in general" Uh huh. No progress, no innovation. So this is irrelevant too: Metcalfe's Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law "costs cut in half" Uh huh. We'll never have carbon taxes either.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  I think pounds of beef is a great way to measure impact. I don't see any real easy numbers, but it seems a pound of beef is probably in the ballpark of 20 pounds of CO₂, so 1 million tons translates into 50,000 tons of beef, or a few days of US consumption (which is above 1 pound/week per person). So giving up Legos entirely is like getting everyone in the US to eat chicken 5 times a year.
- r00fus 8y ago
  From a PR perspective (which is what Lego is concerned about first and foremost), iterative solutions that have no big splash are not deemed "useful". The problem is that everything is about perception and there's no followthrough to our myopic/distracted news media. This probably ties more into the ongoing devolution of journalism into "reportage".
- tajen 8y ago
  ... according to the legendary measure that 5% + 5% + 5% ... will allow us to divide by 6-10 our CO2 emissions, which is simply not true. To access these kinds of savings: - A great depression - A drastic reduction of population Any other “saving” measure will immediately be followed by a temptation to use the unused resources. Politically saying “no” to consumption when the resources are available means saying “no” to increasing the government debt by 10: It’s the right solution but politically unviable. Global warming and govt debt is actually the same problem, by the way. So it’s worth mentioning from the GP that incremental improvements won’t get us out of global warming. Or else, we’ve been lied to about the scale that “we must divide out consumption by 10”.
erk__ 8y ago
LEGO is already getting all their energy from renewables sources since last year [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...
- GW150914 8y ago
  Bit of a nitpick, but they’re not getting their energy from those sources, they’re offsetting their use with those sources. I want to be clear that they helped build actual wind farms and didn’t just buy carbon credit “indulgences” so full credit to them, but it’s still a difference I feel needs to be pointed out.
  - caf 8y ago
    Electricity is relatively fungible. It's a distinction without a difference - it's like claiming that I don't get my pay from my employer because my boss doesn't actually hand me a packet full of cash each fortnight.
inimino 8y ago
Couldn't the research they are doing help other industries using plastics to become more environmentally friendly? Even if their numbers aren't that impressive in the grand scheme of things, the total usage of ABS is surely a lot higher than Lego bricks. Innovation in what they are good at (plastic bricks, not shipping) seems like a responsible thing to do, even if it is also good PR.
viraptor 8y ago
That's assuming the impact of this change only applies to the raw CO2 transfer. But there's material research which can apply in other places, there's pressure on other known companies, etc. Even if it's a marketing push, the fact that people may see that some companies try to reduce reliance on wasteful production and start looking at other products they buy is a positive thing. We probably can't predict right now if Lego can have a bigger impact on the world by trying to offset the current emission from other companies, or by being public about adjusting their prices. Pure production numbers give us only part of the answer.

by 21 8y ago

craftyguy 8y ago

Stop treating every improvement as "if it's not a silver bullet, then it's not worth doing." Consider for a split second that we may have to make lots of little incremental improvements to have a large gain...

elmerfud 8y ago
I don't believe that's what the original poster was saying at all. It was that when "going green" the marketing department seems to be one deciding what they do first rather than the engineering team.
- threeseed 8y ago
  And what evidence is there of this ? Because it sure sounds like you just made this up. In most companies these policies have come from the CEO down largely because there has been significant demand coming from (a) employees, (b) consumers and (c) shareholders.
- webkike 8y ago
  This point seems to imply moral imperatives should be ignored if they don't originate from the engineering department.
- ddingus 8y ago
  Who knows? Could be the product of lunchtime chats about the world, their place in it, etc... many people in the company may have contributed with marketing making a move.
analbeads01 8y ago
I will then consider in the rest of that second from my math education (public school no less) that when dealing with orders of magnitude incremental improvements basically will never get you where you need to be. Might feel good though.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  By that same logic, there's no point in voting in elections, or paying your taxes, or even commenting on HN (since the number of HN users that aren't you is at least several orders of magnitude more than you).
hueving 8y ago
Consider for a second that we aren't making lots of incremental improvements though. We're making negligible improvements that are highly visible for marketing and feel good reasons. This is even worse than doing nothing at all because the people that would actually make sacrifices to help are placated by these charades. This is just like the table water ban. "Meaningful change is hard, let's max out virtue signaling points instead."
- 9935c101ab17a66 8y ago
  This is a really well-written rebuttal to the "straws are destroying the planet" narrative in general.
  - specialist 8y ago
    Every journey begins with the first step. Imagine the competitive advantage Lego will have once they develop this new source of material. You've heard of Moore's Law, ya? Like Einstein said, the most powerful force in the world is compound interest. Same thing.
    - hueving 8y ago
      Moore's law (or the exponential effect in general) hasn't applied to any other modern fields (last 200 years) and had finally failed in semiconductors. It's not an actual law, it's just an observation of a manufacturing system benefiting from its own gains. So unless Lego's output costs cut in half with a reduction in co2 production, there won't be anything like a moores law effect.
      - specialist 8y ago
        "or the exponential effect in general" Uh huh. No progress, no innovation. So this is irrelevant too: Metcalfe's Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law "costs cut in half" Uh huh. We'll never have carbon taxes either.
maxerickson 8y ago
I think pounds of beef is a great way to measure impact. I don't see any real easy numbers, but it seems a pound of beef is probably in the ballpark of 20 pounds of CO₂, so 1 million tons translates into 50,000 tons of beef, or a few days of US consumption (which is above 1 pound/week per person). So giving up Legos entirely is like getting everyone in the US to eat chicken 5 times a year.
r00fus 8y ago
From a PR perspective (which is what Lego is concerned about first and foremost), iterative solutions that have no big splash are not deemed "useful". The problem is that everything is about perception and there's no followthrough to our myopic/distracted news media. This probably ties more into the ongoing devolution of journalism into "reportage".
tajen 8y ago
... according to the legendary measure that 5% + 5% + 5% ... will allow us to divide by 6-10 our CO2 emissions, which is simply not true. To access these kinds of savings: - A great depression - A drastic reduction of population Any other “saving” measure will immediately be followed by a temptation to use the unused resources. Politically saying “no” to consumption when the resources are available means saying “no” to increasing the government debt by 10: It’s the right solution but politically unviable. Global warming and govt debt is actually the same problem, by the way. So it’s worth mentioning from the GP that incremental improvements won’t get us out of global warming. Or else, we’ve been lied to about the scale that “we must divide out consumption by 10”.

erk__ 8y ago

LEGO is already getting all their energy from renewables sources since last year [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...

GW150914 8y ago
Bit of a nitpick, but they’re not getting their energy from those sources, they’re offsetting their use with those sources. I want to be clear that they helped build actual wind farms and didn’t just buy carbon credit “indulgences” so full credit to them, but it’s still a difference I feel needs to be pointed out.
- caf 8y ago
  Electricity is relatively fungible. It's a distinction without a difference - it's like claiming that I don't get my pay from my employer because my boss doesn't actually hand me a packet full of cash each fortnight.

inimino 8y ago

Couldn't the research they are doing help other industries using plastics to become more environmentally friendly? Even if their numbers aren't that impressive in the grand scheme of things, the total usage of ABS is surely a lot higher than Lego bricks. Innovation in what they are good at (plastic bricks, not shipping) seems like a responsible thing to do, even if it is also good PR.

viraptor 8y ago

That's assuming the impact of this change only applies to the raw CO2 transfer. But there's material research which can apply in other places, there's pressure on other known companies, etc. Even if it's a marketing push, the fact that people may see that some companies try to reduce reliance on wasteful production and start looking at other products they buy is a positive thing. We probably can't predict right now if Lego can have a bigger impact on the world by trying to offset the current emission from other companies, or by being public about adjusting their prices. Pure production numbers give us only part of the answer.