3 ms·
That doesn't seem to be the reason why they're abandoning the plan. It seems like instead it's because they would have to change the entire manufacturing chain,
by capableweb 3y ago
That doesn't seem to be the reason why they're abandoning the plan. It seems like instead it's because they would have to change the entire manufacturing chain, and therefore increase their carbon footprint by changing to recycled plastics instead of decreasing it.
> The “level of disruption to the manufacturing environment was such that we needed to change everything in our factories” to scale up recycled PET use, he said. “After all that, the carbon footprint would have been higher. It was disappointing.”
- mytailorisrich 3y agoI think if we replace 'carbon footprint' by 'too expensive' we might get closer to the actual reason. Edit: I am sure that their factories are upgraded periodically so they should defer to the next upgrade instead of doing it now if that's too expensive and resources-hungry. Same as with changing car to an EV, the best for the environment is probably to keep your current ICE car until it's time to replace it and only then to buy an EV. In any case, Lego's problem is that their business is fundamentally plastics at a time when plastics have got a bad rep to the point of being the bogeyman in some cases, and this shows that they are struggling to find a way around that even if only in term of image.
- VBprogrammer 3y agoThose things have a pretty high correlation in many cases.
- eimrine 3y ago> It seems like instead it's because they would have to change the entire manufacturing chain I live in such a place where all chemistry products from grocery shops used to decrease their package. For example, Ariel 500g become Ariel 400g and it happens not only to P&G goods. That tells me that claims about hardness of changing some giant well-functioning manufacturing processes are just a BS.