Comment by owenversteeg | Hacker News Reader

Comment by owenversteeg | Hacker News Reader

Sounds noble, but how much of a difference does it make? 1 million tons of co2/yr is not that much. That's about the equivalent of a town of 60,000 Americans. Put in carbon credit terms, that's about $5-10 million bucks worth of carbon for a company making about $1.5 billion in profit per year.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the company to just plant trees or do environmental work or something? I imagine researching and eventually switching to an entirely different material will be on the order of (at least) a half a billion dollars for a company with six billion bucks a year in revenue, probably more.

[edit] I agree with the general sentiment of the comments below, and trust me I'm as concerned about climate change as the rest, but LEGO has so far invested about $200 million into something with an environmental cost of around $5-10 million - and they haven't even gotten close with the solutions they've found so far. $200 million spent in the right places can do a massive amount of good, far more IMHO than a more sustainable LEGO.

To put things in perspective: each LEGO brick is 47 grams of co2. One transatlantic flight is about 3 tons of co2. So one transatlantic flight is equivalent to nearly 60,000 LEGO pieces.

I agree that changes have to come from everywhere to effectively fight global warming, but I think that there's a limit. At what point do you just not bother? There's got to be a cutoff. And couldn't 200 million bucks be used so much more effectively against climate change?

OTOH: it's a high-profile company with exacting requirements for its pieces. If they can convert, companies that might have been on the fence ("it's too hard! our requirements are special! nobody else is doing it") might jump in, too.

Everyone, everywhere, including businesses large and small will need to reduce and find alternatives if we are to have any hope of fixing the problem.

The more who avoid the issue and just plant a few trees, the longer it will take, and the lower the chances of us ever having done enough.

"just plant a few trees" sounds pretty dismissive.

Trees are effective at capturing carbon and building with timber is an effective way to lock up that carbon for a long time.

> is an effective way to lock up that carbon for a long time

It is not. It may be locked up for a little while (~100 years) but we're talking about ridiculous amounts in comparison of the millions of years that make up for long-term carbon cycle. When it degrades (burning, decomposition) it just releases the carbon. The tldr of the environmentally problematic human action on the carbon cycle is that we are pumping carbon from the long-term cycle (coal, petroleum, eg inside the earth's crust) into the short-term cycle (atmosphere, biosphere). Biosphere already so huge that there's no way we can make up for our pumping by making it bigger. We just have to stop emptying the long-term cycle. (or find a way to pump the other way; i'm no geologist or chemist but this sounds very unlikely for energy efficiency reason)

You could bury it underground / in a swamp.

Yeah of course, like when you kill someone and make a baby the next day it cancels out and everybody is fine. We need to stop with this bs "carbon credit" and other "just plant trees" making dirty petrochemical industries wash themselves from any responsibility (with their argument "hey what are you talking about i just invested as much into fighting climate change as building new refineries, this is huge money"). There is only one way to win against climate change and it's to solve the root of the problem, not pour money into the consequences, ignore the causes and call it a day.

Of course investing money into problematic consequences is useful, but as a society we need to stop lying to ourselves about the root of the problem which is our lifestyle. We consume too much energy, we need to lower petrochemical industry to it's bare minimum (eg eliminate most plastic packaging and recycle it more), we need to stop intensive agriculture and extremist exploitation of natural resources and ecosystems. And we need to change our personal lifestyle, buy less ultra-packaged cooked meals, buy fruits/vegs/cereals/sugar in bulk, not buy a car to our kids just because why not. And make people around follow your lead by hassling them. And yeah, i meant "around you" literally, do go after people that leave trash in parks or throw cigarette buts on the street (be nice, pick it up, but do engage conversation).

When LEGO will replace plastic with something nicer they will be doing the only useful thing they could do, which is actually solving once and for all the environmental problems their business creates. Not simply being "concerned" and rolling out a green logo.

Come on.

I'm not talking about rolling out a green logo or planting just a handful of trees, I'm saying what if LEGO took the money from their efforts and applied it to more powerful conservation efforts.

The reality is that every climate-saving action costs money and effort, and some are drastically more helpful than others. Turning off my laptop at night helps, but just barely (@10Wh/night, power from a dirty coal plant = 3.6kWh/yr = 3.6kg CO2/yr.) Biking instead of driving to work helps; say your commute is 10km/6 miles return trip, you save ~2.5kg CO2/day [0], 260 workdays = 650 kg CO2/yr.

But even if you did that, and many other little things to reduce your footprint, it would still be absolutely dwarfed by one transatlantic return flight at nearly 3000kg CO2 produced.

Two points I'm trying to make here:

1) Some ways of reducing emissions are very powerful, others are not. It's worthwile to spend our efforts on the biggest polluters, because:

2) Climate change is an extremely urgent problem that must be tackled NOW. LEGO's efforts are noble, but even if successful they have a small cumulative effect that builds year over year. Depending on what LEGO invests they'll take one to five hundred years to pay off. Meanwhile, the planet will become an unliveable hellscape far sooner. Why not invest the money in something with a more immediate and powerful effect?

[0] https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-t...

What of the ripple effects of their investment in the research? If they are actually able to devise a sustainable alternative with the same properties, I would imagine that would have quite the applicability elsewhere.

Undoubtedly.

Lego is sometimes an odd company. Their goals don't always align with profits. I have a feeling the ownership allows the direction a lot of leeway in sacrificing short term profits in order to satisfy their core values, one of which is sustainability.

As for if this "should" be done. In Denmark we have a national mentality that says you should fix your own problems before you judge anyone else. So, without pressure to maximize profits, I think it's likely that they are only concerned with how to maximize the "green" value within their own company. In essence it's a very Danish thing to be so focused on yourself that you don't consider if it really matters.

Every bit counts, and it'll count even more for eco conscious millennials and their children. Lego is a long term company.

Ever heard of: many a little makes a mickle?

Planting trees doesn’t help if the problem is your product is made from a material that has a finite supply.

It’s not about the enviroment. It’s about virtue-signaling strongly enough to protect their business interests. You won’t see “Lego Buys Carbon Credits” as a headline on HN.

It's far simpler and less cynical than that.

The majority of people in this world want the world to be clean and free of the effects of climate change. Companies are comprised of these people. Hence there will always be internal struggles to "do your part" from employees. Especially since that often ends up making products that are more sustainable not just environmentally friendly. And so win-win for everyone.

I agree with your synicism. But I still think it's a good thing. It might be a insignificant amount of plastic but it's a very visible use of plastic. Plus it's one less company using plastic which raises pressure on the others.

Finally if through their research/testing they do come up with durable alternatives to plastic it's a win for us all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com