Should LEGO cut ties with Shell?

[Bipin]

They did in the 70s and 80s in Europe.

There were several Shell sets in the normal product range, like we have Octan since the 90s.

e.g. these three that I had/have:

http://brickset.com/...-1/Tanker-Wagon

http://brickset.com/...Shell-Tow-Truck

http://brickset.com/...Service-Station

and others with Shell logos:

http://brickset.com/...k-Service-Tower

In North-America there were equivalent Exxon sets:

http://brickset.com/...xon-Gas-Station vs http://brickset.com/...Service-Station

http://brickset.com/...xon-Fuel-Tanker vs http://brickset.com/...l-Petrol-Tanker

and a few others

Also, the more recent ones were not sold by Lego and seemed more of a Ferrari licence, were still related to Shell, made for them, distributed in Shell stations and had Shell logos.

http://brickset.com/...ubtheme-Ferrari

It is not as "bad" has if they still had regular Shell sets sold in toy stores, of course, but in a way I would agree with Greenpeace on the point that they should stop such commercial products. I just find bad the way all that story occurred, since they made it look like if they were still making sets like those from the 70s/80s.

Oops, I had meant to say in recent times (e.g. 2000's) when they had only partnered with Shell, via proxy, by partnering with Ferrari. Regardless, I don't really see those older sets as ones relevant when discussing the current rhetoric. As far as the sets go that are tied directly to Shell, I'd say those are a moot point for Greenpeace's cause. Those sets were made in a different era; a different zeitgeist. Many companies have developed ties we'd deem unsavory nowadays, yet they were perfectly acceptable at that time, decades ago. You can't really blame them for that by applying alternate, current rhetoric to events that far in the past. The bottom line though, is that LEGO seems to only be involved with Shell from a raw materials standpoint. They need to get their ABS/oil for ABS plastic from somewhere and in doing so chose the least bad option, which sometimes constitutes making a deal with the devil. To that end, on the grand scale of things, a few decades-old toys involving a brand/business partner of LEGO should be pretty low on the list of issues Greenpeace should tackle when it comes to issues that threaten natural environments.

[williejm]

the Greenpeace campaign is calling for an end to the *existing* and *current* partnership between Lego and Shell,and Shell's unsuitability as a partner ... it's not about Shell-branded stable doors from yesteryear, or what the ingredients of the bricks are.

[Bipin]

LEGO's partnership with Shell is limited at those sets of yesteryear, or in today's case, the "ingredients" for LEGO bricks; ABS plastic. Their partnership has quite pragmatic roots, based upon the need for raw materials used to create plastic. It's something LEGO doesn't have a lot of leverage in; these oil companies, Shell or otherwise, are all fairly unsavory yet they provide LEGO with a necessity. if LEGO cuts ties with shell, they'd have to move to another equally bad if not worse provider. I'd say LEGO maintaining ties with Shell is a bit more of a "need" than a "want", which makes me feel as though Greenpeace is picking on/putting too much emphasis on the wrong person in this case.

[antp]

Do TLG really buy oil for making plastic? It seems more realistic that they buy already-made plastic, without link to the original oil company. For them Shell is just a commercial partnership for promotional sets.

[1974]

No, they buy readymade pellets. They have never been in the actual plastic making industry as far as I know

[legoman19892]

the Greenpeace campaign is calling for an end to the *existing* and *current* partnership between Lego and Shell,and Shell's unsuitability as a partner ... it's not about Shell-branded stable doors from yesteryear, or what the ingredients of the bricks are.

If the only reason is because Royal Shell and LEGO happen to be in Denmark, then sure parting ways makes sense based on the planet promise.

However, if there is other business deals based on Shell giving the oil to a plastic making company and that plastic making company giving LEGO the plastic, or Shell directly giving LEGO oil for production then parting ways makes zero sense. they would have to go through another oil company somehow and the cost for the plastic will probably change.

[Bipin]

Through SEPC (Shell Eastern Petrochemicals Complex) and other, similar locations, Shell does operate and own/co-own some mono-ethylene glycol (MEG) facilities, plus ethylene cracking facilities which provide cracked (refined) oil for MEG facilities. Mono-ethylene glycol is integral to the creation of many plastics. As well, Shell's hydrocarbon cracking results in the creation of butadiene and vinyl benzene (styrene) which are, of course, integral to ABS (acrylic butadiene styrene). It wouldn't be unreasonable to think that Shell is in business with selling LEGO the raw materials for their bricks, given that they are already in the industry of creating those materials.

Regardless, I think we can all agree this would be a step forward: http://newswire.net/newsroom/pr/00080393-lego-plastic-abs-bio-plastic.html Creating plastic from other organic molecules (e.g. saccharides - sugars) would certainly be possible, as they are chemically similar to the hydrocarbons currently used (which lack the oxygen found in saccharides).

[AyliffeMakit]

Yeah, great work with Photoshop Greenpeace, I'm sure that thousands of AFOLs won't criticise you for doing that... Oh wait, I already did.

[ShaydDeGrai]

Should LEGO cut ties with Shell?? Honestly the real question is: "should environmentalists cut ties with Greenpeace"

Between their tactics in the field, their shoddy "research" and active propaganda campaign, Greenpeace, today, just makes it harder for _real_ energy researchers, environmental engineers, green urban planners and conservation groups to be taken seriously.

I had a grad student years ago that was a Greenpeace activist who spent most of her spare time (and my lab's SGI computing cycles) photoshopping fake "evidence" for her cell to seed across the web as "proof" everything Greenpeace did was absolutely necessary for the survival of the planet and anyone who didn't actively support Greenpeace and its methods was inherently evil.

One night I accidentally walked in a pizza party where she and her friends had taken over my lab to troll chat rooms and message boards to "refute" any postings they found that painted Greenpeace as anything less than the second coming of Christ and to cyber-bully anyone making detracting comments. Ironically, although the campus had a very advanced recycling program (for the day), when I broke up the party, they didn't bother to sort bottles cans of paper into the various bins, they just threw everything in the trash and threatened to stage a sit-in for infringing on their right to free speech ( Actually, I was enforcing the "no trespassing" sign posted in the lobby of the building as my student was the only one among them to have any affiliation with the university and even she wasn't supposed to be there at 1 in the morning.)

As a lifelong engineer, I believe in tackling tough problems through understanding, consensus building and long term vision; grandstanding, bullying and finger-pointing are self-defeating tactics that just stir up dissent among uneducated mobs and make it harder for rational discussions to take place.

There was a time when Greenpeace raised a voice that needed to be heard, but when the speaker is grabbing more headlines than the message - it's time to get off the stage.

[AyliffeMakit]

Can we start hashtag #blockGreenpeace now?

EDIT: I just did.

Edited July 17, 2014 by AyliffeMakit

[Moebius118]

Should LEGO cut ties with Shell?? Honestly the real question is: "should environmentalists cut ties with Greenpeace"

Between their tactics in the field, their shoddy "research" and active propaganda campaign, Greenpeace, today, just makes it harder for _real_ energy researchers, environmental engineers, green urban planners and conservation groups to be taken seriously.

I had a grad student years ago that was a Greenpeace activist who spent most of her spare time (and my lab's SGI computing cycles) photoshopping fake "evidence" for her cell to seed across the web as "proof" everything Greenpeace did was absolutely necessary for the survival of the planet and anyone who didn't actively support Greenpeace and its methods was inherently evil.

One night I accidentally walked in a pizza party where she and her friends had taken over my lab to troll chat rooms and message boards to "refute" any postings they found that painted Greenpeace as anything less than the second coming of Christ and to cyber-bully anyone making detracting comments. Ironically, although the campus had a very advanced recycling program (for the day), when I broke up the party, they didn't bother to sort bottles cans of paper into the various bins, they just threw everything in the trash and threatened to stage a sit-in for infringing on their right to free speech ( Actually, I was enforcing the "no trespassing" sign posted in the lobby of the building as my student was the only one among them to have any affiliation with the university and even she wasn't supposed to be there at 1 in the morning.)

As a lifelong engineer, I believe in tackling tough problems through understanding, consensus building and long term vision; grandstanding, bullying and finger-pointing are self-defeating tactics that just stir up dissent among uneducated mobs and make it harder for rational discussions to take place.

There was a time when Greenpeace raised a voice that needed to be heard, but when the speaker is grabbing more headlines than the message - it's time to get off the stage.

Bravo sir. The same sentiments exactly that I have expressed here as well. You are asking the right questions and having the right conversations. The kind that lead to solutions and ends environmental/energy ignorance and hypocrisy. It really does help to be an engineer sometimes. Or maybe all the time.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Moebius118

[pbat]

My impression is that Greenpeace wants to distract from their very own misconduct.

[EvilTwin]

My impression is that Greenpeace wants to distract from their very own misconduct.

Not really "misconduct". More like the stupid action of one person who was given responsibility beyond their ability.

And, it is not much of a distraction really, is it? "Oh we have lost some money, therefore we will distract people from that by doing exactly the same kind of thing that we were doing anyway. Brilliant!"

There is nothing particularly amoral about losing money on financial markets. If you think there is, you should probably not go into any bank again, ever.

[pbat]

Not really "misconduct". More like the stupid action of one person who was given responsibility beyond their ability.

Speculating with giving money is OK as long as I make profit? I guess the people who donated for Greenpeace did so in order to protect the environment (and to silence their conscience), not to let them bet on exchange rates. If I donated to Greenpeace I would be really pissed off reading such news: If Geenpeace is not responsible-minded with regards to money, why should they be with anything else? Maybe they used to be idealists, but nowadays they are nothing but lobbyists spending other people's money in an inefficient way and enjoying an easy life at stupid donors' charge.

And, it is not much of a distraction really, is it? "Oh we have lost some money, therefore we will distract people from that by doing exactly the same kind of thing that we were doing anyway. Brilliant!"

If all the media report on the questionable assault on LEGO, the headlines on Greenpeace's mismanagement disappear and the populace is likely to forget it. If Greenpeace is clever at something, then to manipulate the public opinion and to guilt-trip somebody. And if they don't want their business of selling of indulgences to stop, the last thing they needed to deal with is to have a bad press.

There is nothing particularly amoral about losing money on financial markets. If you think there is, you should probably not go into any bank again, ever.

It's not amoral to lose my very own money I worked for hard. But it is amoral to misappropriate donations: Nobody donates to Greenpeace to let them speculate, but to protect the environment. Amoral is to spend other people's money in a thoughtless and ignorant way.

[EvilTwin]

Speculating with giving money is OK as long as I make profit?

No, that is not what I said.

Please understand that "Greenpeace" did not speculate with the money; one misguided individual did. It is comparable to previous financial incidents- for example, Barings Bank did not indulge in speculative trading, Nick Leeson, acting as an individual, did.

I guess the people who donated for Greenpeace did so in order to protect the environment (and to silence their conscience), not to let them bet on exchange rates.

"Greenpeace" did not "bet on exchange rates". Once again, it was one individual. Speculating on exchange rates is a risky, but normal, part of financial trading. One might consider any type of speculative investment as "betting"; if so, anyone who owns any stocks and shares is a gambler. Those of us who are more active investors know the difference.

However, any charity with a sizeable amount of assets will have a diverse portfolio of investments of both higher and lower risk types. Greenpeace are not the first charity to get caught out with a high risk investment and sometimes even lower risk investments go bad. A few years ago when various Icelandic banks collapsed, several charities who had deposited money with them, enticed by their higher interest rates, lost everything.

If I donated to Greenpeace I would be really pissed off reading such news:

Yes, I imagine anyone would. I was pleased to see that Greenpeace took internal action and the individual responsible was fired.

If Geenpeace is not responsible-minded with regards to money, ....

Once again, this was the action of one individual... further, a quick glance at Greenpeace's annual reports shows that generally, they are responsible with the money they are given, as I would expect any sizeable charity to be.

but nowadays they are nothing but lobbyists spending other people's money in an inefficient way and enjoying an easy life at stupid donors' charge.

I am bored now. If all donors are "stupid" in your terms it is clear you are not capable of reasonable discussion on this matter.

[Missing Brick]

Someone posted a picture on twitter that sums up the situation nicely:

http://twitter.com/sh1tbemeltin/status/490141208778641408/photo/1

[pbat]

No, that is not what I said.

Please understand that "Greenpeace" did not speculate with the money; one misguided individual did. It is comparable to previous financial incidents- for example, Barings Bank did not indulge in speculative trading, Nick Leeson, acting as an individual, did.

If the organisation allows a single individual to do so and if it lacks control mechanisms to prevent such actions, the organisation as a whole fails and not just the one single misguided individual. Why do they have a board of directors if one single individual can dump millions?

"Greenpeace" did not "bet on exchange rates". Once again, it was one individual. Speculating on exchange rates is a risky, but normal, part of financial trading. One might consider any type of speculative investment as "betting"; if so, anyone who owns any stocks and shares is a gambler. Those of us who are more active investors know the difference.

Sorry, but that's hair-splitting: Yield is the price for risk. No risk no yield, the higher the risk the higher the yield. There is no substantial difference between gambling and investing. Only the degree of risk varies. On page 39 of the most recent annual report, Greenpeace states that 3.8m were lost on forward contracts. Wikipedia defines forward contracts so: "Forwards, like other derivative securities, can be used to hedge risk (typically currency or exchange rate risk), as a means of speculation [...]."

Merriam Webster defines "to speculate" as:

: to think about something and make guesses about it

: to form ideas or theories about something usually when there are many things not known about it

: to invest money in ways that could produce a large profit but that also involve a lot of risk

"Bet" on the other hand is defined as:

: an agreement in which people try to guess what will happen and the person who guesses wrong has to give something (such as money) to the person who guesses right

: the money or other valuable thing that you could win or lose in a bet

: a choice made by thinking about what will probably happen

and "gambling" as:

: to play a game in which you can win or lose money or possessions : to bet money or other valuable things

: to risk losing (an amount of money) in a game or bet

: to risk losing (something valuable or important) in order to do or achieve something

Having these definitions in mind, I see no reason, why speculation should be distinct from gambling. And yes, every stock owner is a gambler. That's the essence of capitalism and is not necessarily a bad thing. But as said before, any organisation that lacks proper controlling and does not at least use the four-eye-principle when it comes to spending large amounts of money is as responsible as the misbehaving individual. I'm glad you mention Barings Bank: "Barings' collapse was due to the unauthorised and ultimately catastrophic activities of, it appears, one individual (Leeson) that went undetected as a consequence of a failure of management and other internal controls of the most basic kind. [...]." (21 Jul 1995 : Column 544) If Greenpeace fails to do something simple as monitoring their very own staff, why should someone trust them any longer in the really important topics?

However, any charity with a sizeable amount of assets will have a diverse portfolio of investments of both higher and lower risk types. Greenpeace are not the first charity to get caught out with a high risk investment and sometimes even lower risk investments go bad. A few years ago when various Icelandic banks collapsed, several charities who had deposited money with them, enticed by their higher interest rates, lost everything.

Why for God's sake does Greenpeace have to have "a sizeable amount of assets" instead of spending the donations as intended, and that prompt? Only 9% of the annual campaign expenditure were spend on "forests" (p. 40), 7% on "oceans", but 18% on "media & communications", another 7% on "public information and outreach" and 3% on "political, science & business". Do you mind me to subsume these 28% under "propaganda"?

Yes, I imagine anyone would. I was pleased to see that Greenpeace took internal action and the individual responsible was fired.

This can only be a first step! Killing the messenger is easy, but understanding the message properly is not: They have to implement effective controlling mechanisms! The whole board of directors should be fired, too, IMHO.

Once again, this was the action of one individual... further, a quick glance at Greenpeace's annual reports shows that generally, they are responsible with the money they are given, as I would expect any sizeable charity to be.

Really? They dumped 22% (30.3m EUR) on "Marine operations & action support" (p. 40), with the result that one third of their fleet is seized by russian authorities. Sorry, but that's not what I call responsible.

I am bored now. If all donors are "stupid" in your terms it is clear you are not capable of reasonable discussion on this matter.

You misunderstand me on purpose, do you? If I was a donor for Greenpeace, I would feel stupid to see that from an income of 288.360m EUR only 12m EUR are spent on (rain-)forests, less than 10m EUR on oceans and 4.6m EUR on sustainable agriculture (p.41). In other words: If I donate 1 dollar to Greenpeace, the (rain-)forests benefit with as much as 4.16 cents, the oceans with 3.33 cents and sustainable agriculture with 1.61 cent. More than one third (98.800m EUR out of 288.360m EUR) are used for begging fundraising expenditure.

I don't claim other charitys to be any better, but I am not sure if people really know how little money they donate to Greenpeace is actually spent for the environment and how much money just trickles away.

[Moebius118]

Someone posted a picture on twitter that sums up the situation nicely:

http://twitter.com/s...8641408/photo/1

You'd be surprised how many people here in the US never thought about where plastics come from. Or most of their everyday materials and goods. Life is best for them when everything is taken for granted. Ignorance, bliss.

[EvilTwin]

If the organisation allows a single individual to do so and if it lacks control mechanisms to prevent such actions, the organisation as a whole fails and not just the one single misguided individual. Why do they have a board of directors if one single individual can dump millions?

You could ask the same question of any of the various organisations that were completely derailed by one rogue individual. Nick Leeson for example. I would expect that a massive international bank would have "control mechanisms" but that doesn't stop a determined person getting round them.

There is no substantial difference between gambling and investing.

If you truly believe this then you should probably close any pension fund or savings account that you might have. They are gambling with your money!

Why for God's sake does Greenpeace have to have "a sizeable amount of assets" instead of spending the donations as intended, and that prompt?

Are you really asking such a question? A major international organisation has to plan for the future. Actually on closer examination it appears that Greenpeace's assets aren't as large as I thought they might be; but they are still considerable. They have to pay people now and in the future, they require credit now and in the future, they have to service their debts now and in the future, they have to plan asset management, they have to have an emergency fund, they have to respond to the changing world. For example nobody foresaw the Gult of Mexico oil spill but Greenpeace scientists were there shortly afterwards monitoring how the spilled oil was affecting the food chain in the area. They would not have been able to do that if they didn't have resources available.

Only 9% of the annual campaign expenditure were spend on "forests" (p. 40), 7% on "oceans", but 18% on "media & communications", another 7% on "public information and outreach" and 3% on "political, science & business". Do you mind me to subsume these 28% under "propaganda"?

Any organisation which relies on raising public awareness will spend quite a bit of money on media and communications, etc. They seem to be effective; otherwise this long and tedious thread would not exist.

The whole board of directors should be fired, too, IMHO.

Do you really believe that to be true? If so I suggest that a sense of perspective needs to be regained.

You misunderstand me on purpose, do you?

Huh? Read back what you wrote and then read what I wrote.

OK this thread has been completely driven off the rails. It's clear there can be no grown-up discussion of this topic.I am going to play with my Lego.

[BrickBuilder3213]

You know what's funny about all this? Lego's Facebook page is receiving all of the negative comments. Yet, Shell only recieves a fraction of negative comments for what they do.

Something clearly isn't right here. Lego isn't the bad guy, Shell is. So why are people being so nasty towards the company that originally made those people so happy and joyful?

[pbat]

You could ask the same question of any of the various organisations that were completely derailed by one rogue individual. Nick Leeson for example. I would expect that a massive international bank would have "control mechanisms" but that doesn't stop a determined person getting round them.

Can we agree that greed and rapacity is a bad thing? Or do you belong to the sort of people believing that the end justifies the means?

If you truly believe this then you should probably close any pension fund or savings account that you might have. They are gambling with your money!

It's their damn job to gamble with my money! As long as they are better in gambling than I am, there is no problem with it. The bank always wins. Faites vos Jeux!

Are you really asking such a question? A major international organisation has to plan for the future. Actually on closer examination it appears that Greenpeace's assets aren't as large as I thought they might be; but they are still considerable. They have to pay people now and in the future, they require credit now and in the future, they have to service their debts now and in the future, they have to plan asset management, they have to have an emergency fund, they have to respond to the changing world. For example nobody foresaw the Gult of Mexico oil spill but Greenpeace scientists were there shortly afterwards monitoring how the spilled oil was affecting the food chain in the area. They would not have been able to do that if they didn't have resources available.

More than a quarter of a billion bucks of annual income is quite a nest egg, isn't it? Or do you belong to the sort of people subsuming such figures under "peanuts"?

Any organisation which relies on raising public awareness will spend quite a bit of money on media and communications, etc. They seem to be effective; otherwise this long and tedious thread would not exist.

And here you exactly hit the bull's-eye: It's not first and foremost about protecting the environment. It's all about raising public awareness, about gaining airtime, Facebook likes and re-tweets -- all to get even more donations from people with a guilty conscience about their ecological footprint. Lobbyism at its best. Or is it astroturfing? Nevermind. At least we have some news in the silly season.

By the way: This thread might be long, but in no way tedious: To dismantle your arguments is quite amusing for me. Thanks for being such a fair and balanced discussion partner.

Do you really believe that to be true? If so I suggest that a sense of perspective needs to be regained.

I am convinced that the saying is true "A fish rots from the head down". Maybe I am wrong, but please prove me so.

Huh? Read back what you wrote and then read what I wrote.

I did so. And I wonder if you are on Greenpeace's payroll or just trolling for fun.

OK this thread has been completely driven off the rails. It's clear there can be no grown-up discussion of this topic.

I agree on that. Let's get back to topic: Should LEGO cut ties with Shell? You drove me so far to yell: Hell no, let's re-release set 1256 . Or better yet, release a new series with "collectible drilling rigs": Brent Spar, Deepwater Horizon and Draupner-E would make a good start...

I even wonder when PETA will do down LEGO for cruelly abusing innocent animals in sets like 1370 .

No, seriously: If Greenpeace was not that bone-headed and stubborn, but a bit more good-natured [sic!], they would not bash LEGO for its Shell connections from the very past but rather co-promote the current arctic subtheme and thus generate a win-win-situation both for LEGO and Greenpeace's concerns about the arctic: That children learn early that the arctic is an important environment endangered and worth to protect. Although that probably wouldn't result in three million Youtube clicks in three days. But I still guess that "divide et impera" is true and that intransigent extremists such as Greenpeace are barking up the wrong tree, especially when attacking LEGO.

I am going to play with my Lego.

At least one thing we have in common ...

[Ap11AP]

Found this on YouTube and thought I may as well put it here in case anyone else wants to watch it...

Probably posted in wrong topic/section, so feel free to move it

Edited July 19, 2014 by Ap11AP

[TNT apples]

This is slightly creepy, but "Shell is polluting our kids' imaginations"? How ridiculous!

Edited July 19, 2014 by TNT apples

[ummester]

I heard a rumor that TLG were going to change the way the bricks are made and use less (or no) petrol. It was just a rumor, from a friend - so no basis for fact that I know of - but it does make sense considering the way the planet's environment is looking ATM.

Not that I think LEGO pollutes kids imaginations - but plastics do pollute the planet.

[lightningtiger]

I normal support the good work Greenpeace does do......but they jumped the shark on this one......I don't call a handful of collectable car sets as working closely with Shell......if it was the 70/80's then yeah there were lots of Shell sets.

I hope they cleaned all that oil off that Lego and give it to a children's hospital.....the Lego that is not the oil.