Should LEGO cut ties with Shell?

[williejm]

High quality debate there. Feel free to check out the spec on the only purpose-built Greenpeace ship: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2011/nov/10/greenpeace-rainbow-warrior-3-interactive

Anyways, still stands that Shell aren't worthy partners for Lego.

Edited July 8, 2014 by williejm

[legoman19892]

Their new campaign video.

[Moebius118]

Ugh. This is ridiculous. There will always be certain groups and people that can never accept that oil is a necessary and essential part of our modern & industrial society. However do we have to progress to eventually remove our massive dependence on it? Yes it does. Does it mean we need to change our culture and infrastructure to a more sustainable, resource balanced society? Absolutely. But those things don't happen over night. And you are better off building momentum with oil companies to institute these massive changes rather than against them.

Greenpeace is not helping. They complicate and radicalize the narrative. When you build this no compromise for the environment stance you deny good things like wind farms and solar plants. You deny biofuels and efficient fossil fuel plants and nuclear. The energy conglomerates know the change is inevitable. They know more than any other group on this planet their revenues are based on a finite resource. I've worked with many energy companies including Shell in North America. They are all flocking to biofuels and bio fuel research initiatives. Why? Cause the margins on petroleum goods are so hardened and saturated and under government and public scrutiny while biofuel profit incentives turn almost 3x on the dollar margin of petroleum if not more per gallon.

Instead of promoting the whole oil is evil rhetoric how bout we just continue to incentivize sustainable practice instead and build a smart energy portfolio for all needs? I am for Shell. I am for Exxon. I am for LEGO. I am for Octan. I am for ABS plastic. I am for petroleum. I am for alternative energy. I am for sustainable long term thinking societies and corporations. I am against environmental radicalism. I am against the skewed messages they propagandize.

Lego should not cut ties to anyone. Nor should they ever end their fictional Octan company. Octan is going green too. It sends out the right message for anyone who cares enough.

Sorry for the soap box. Maybe.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Moebius118

[Cyberbricker]

Hello Faefrost

Do you have some credible evidence to back up that statement?

Strangely I can't find them on any list of recognised terrorist organisations such as this one:

http://en.wikipedia....t_organisations

Of course the other possibility is that you just made that up. But that is too horrific to contemplate

I do a lot of volunteer work for a handful of organizations in Belgium and recently a politician leaked a blacklist on to the media with organizations they consider hostile to the government and its ideals. On it are some of the organizations I am a volunteer for.

One of these organizations I am a volunteer for just wants to help people to live healthier and cut back on eating meat, not stop completely, but jut eat a meat-free meal one day a week to help yourself and the environment.

This is apparently against the "economy" (lots of Belgian politicians have shares in the livestock industry) and costs our country money (more like costing our politicians money...) Anyone think they are biased to put us on a blacklist????

Other "organizations on the list are "The Outlaws", "Hell's Angels", "Bite Back", "Greenpeace"...

Edited July 8, 2014 by Cyberbricker

[1974]

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, allways been like that

'Bout that video, can GP actually use LEGO for the purpose? It's promoting GP also and I thought TLG didn't allow their products to be used like that, no?

[williejm]

Well TLG are happy for their products to officially be used to promote Shell, the Daily Mail and the Sun... but those are whole 'nother threads.

It's interesting to me how a little bit of politics on here is rounded on. Worth remembering TLG's stated commitments on partners, the environment and the future, which is all Greenpeace is trying to get them to square. Which doesn't seem all that radical or unreasonable to me.

[legoman19892]

Well TLG are happy for their products to officially be used to promote Shell, the Daily Mail and the Sun... but those are whole 'nother threads.

It's interesting to me how a little bit of politics on here is rounded on. Worth remembering TLG's stated commitments on partners, the environment and the future, which is all Greenpeace is trying to get them to square. Which doesn't seem all that radical or unreasonable to me.

Yes, but Shell hasn't acted on it yet. Plus, LEGO already stated they plan on staying with Shell on the 1st of July.

[xtremegoogler]

Interesting that nobody mentioned the atrocities committed by Shell in Nigeria yet.

[montgocloud]

Why doesn't Greenpeace focus on stopping Shell from drilling in the arctic? Isn't that the bigger problem? How does bullying a toy company achieve their end goal of stopping Shell from arctic drilling? Quick answer: it doesn't. It just makes for better, more controversial headlines.

[Superkalle]

1) Radical movements like Greenpeace are actually needed to "kick-start" us normal people. I have some understanding for their methods in that sense. But having said that, I think now they are going off-track by using LEGO to hit Shell. What I find interesting though is that Greenpeace yet hasn't hit on TLG for new Arctic series from CITY....in which small LEGO mini-figures look for precious gems (or whatever it is) under the ice.

2) IMHO bio-fuel is not the future as it was mentioned in one reply. Forests should be used to make timber and paper. Farm lands should be used to grow crops to eat. Rain forests should be left alone. And the oil that remains should be used to make plastic (no joke) and for those vehicles that need high density fuels, such as airplanes. The future is spelled electric and hydrogen vehicles. And with Electric I don't even necessarily mean battery powered vehicles, but electric roads. I work in the vehicle industry, and these are things we are talking about now at least. The electricity and hydrogen will be made by solar power (wind has too little energy density and wind mills are too big and ugly to be frank), and by nuclear power. Once again IMHO (best to say).

[twenty6twelve]

null

Edited August 4, 2014 by twenty6twelve

[Vindicare]

Ack! Shell is polluting our kids imaginations! Run away while there's still hope for your kids!

Sorry...but that was the funniest part of that stupid video.

[CMP]

Why doesn't Greenpeace focus on stopping Shell from drilling in the arctic? Isn't that the bigger problem? How does bullying a toy company achieve their end goal of stopping Shell from arctic drilling? Quick answer: it doesn't. It just makes for better, more controversial headlines.

Toy company is an easier target for them I suppose.

[williejm]

Why doesn't Greenpeace focus on stopping Shell from drilling in the arctic? Isn't that the bigger problem? How does bullying a toy company achieve their end goal of stopping Shell from arctic drilling? Quick answer: it doesn't. It just makes for better, more controversial headlines.

Eh?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/24/greenpeace-activists-arctic-oil-russia

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/27/us-norway-oil-greenpeace-idUSKBN0E70TV20140527

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/breaking-greenpeace-nordic-intercepts-shell-ship-again-20120503

[Moebius118]

1) Radical movements like Greenpeace are actually needed to "kick-start" us normal people. I have some understanding for their methods in that sense. But having said that, I think now they are going off-track by using LEGO to hit Shell.

2) IMHO bio-fuel is not the future as it was mentioned in one reply. Forests should be used to make timber and paper. Farm lands should be used to grow crops to eat. Rain forests should be left alone. And the oil that remains should be used to make plastic (no joke) and for those vehicles that need high density fuels, such as airplanes. The future is spelled electric and hydrogen vehicles. And with Electric I don't even necessarily mean battery powered vehicles, but electric roads. I work in the vehicle industry, and these are things we are talking about now at least. The electricity and hydrogen will be made by solar power (wind has too little energy density and wind mills are too big and ugly to be frank), and by nuclear power. Once again IMHO (best to say).

To 1) There was a time I could easily believe organizations like Greenpeace played a major role in awareness and the role of enviro-watchdog. Today however the topic is almost on every dinner table in the developed world. I disagree with the current Greenpeace as I do not think their actions result in a healthy contribution to the overall energy/environment conversation. All of that publicity and opposition but no compromises, no solutions.

To 2) I don't disagree with you. If you told me biofuels were the future I'd be skeptical as well especially with a global food crisis around the next corner. I don't know what the complete energy solution for mankind is. I love the electric roads and the European hydrogen highway proposals. There so many people out there who have ideas on what our balanced energy portfolio should look like. There's many factors and variables involve in paying for the costs of all the infrastructure as well as unforeseen effects and cultural backlash to any initiatives. There's a massive anti-nuclear power lobby growing. Ocean wind farms are turning out to be a viable idea but again people will oppose those too for other reasons.There the technological leaps to be made, then the economic ones of actually implementing them on a national scale. But we gotta give power and room to these organizations and companies to try and find these solutions. Like Lockheed trying to build power plants out of ocean thermal conversion. Or the US Navy trying to run their ships off of algae. Or Exxon trying to harvest bio-gas from our landfills. There is a lot going on and a lot of people looking for solutions wherever they may be. If we aren't involved we need to at least give them the room and not complicate the narrative. Its not gonna happen tomorrow. But we can't all just sit in the dark and turn off our cars in the meantime.

This is why I say people should take a second look at who is actually looking to solve our energy crisis. Its not the people protesting on oil rigs. For the time being we need those oil rigs.

[AyliffeMakit]

The reaction they want from the ad: "Legos are destroying kids with Shell! I must stop existing and sign this form!

The reaction they'll probably get: "Where can I download that version of Everything is Awesome?"

'Bout that video, can GP actually use LEGO for the purpose? It's promoting GP also and I thought TLG didn't allow their products to be used like that, no?

If it stays on Youtube then it's probably fine, but if it ever appears on the telly as an advert, then TLG may have the right to take legal action for using it's logo and products without permission. Also Warner Bros may jump onto the legal action bandwagon when they find out that they've also used the song "Everything is Awesome" and the minifigures of Emmet and Wyldstyle, which are licensed to them. So Greenpeace could end up a whole lot more trouble if it goes on the telly.

[Superkalle]

This is why I say people should take a second look at who is actually looking to solve our energy crisis. Its not the people protesting on oil rigs. For the time being we need those oil rigs.

Fully agree on that.

Another thing I thought about...is it really Shell that is to blame for drilling in the arctic (or whereever it is). Isn't it the government in the countries that allow this that is to blame? But maybe I'm going a bit off-topic now?

[1974]

Consumers are to blame. We don't want oil @ 200US$/barrel, do we?

[Moebius118]

Fully agree on that.

Another thing I thought about...is it really Shell that is to blame for drilling in the arctic (or whereever it is). Isn't it the government in the countries that allow this that is to blame? But maybe I'm going a bit off-topic now?

Quite possible. Just as many of the third world countries' governments that open themselves up to foreign drilling like in Africa. That is not to say the oil companies themselves are saints. We should rightfully hold them guilty and to the fire when they think they can cut corners in procedure, safety, labor, disposal or security in remote areas or foreign lands where regulation is far more lax. Which unfortunately they do from time to time. Although sometimes the line between honest human error versus incompetence and negligence is hard to define in such complex operations. But these are things I don't think Greenpeace is interested in anymore.

Consumers are to blame. We don't want oil @ 200US$/barrel, do we?

Bingo. Right on the money. Most people need to realize oil companies are somewhat slaves of the national political machines. When oil prices rise, the cost of everything rises. Food. Staple and luxury items. Travel. Home heating and air conditioning. Electricity itself. No politician wants to answer to an angry voter base when our cost of living noticeably skyrockets all around us. It is the same reason why most countries heavily subsidize their domestic agriculture (amongst other reasons). I for one would be very afraid of that $/barrel impact on the pricing of my LEGO.

[1974]

Yeah, but I happen to make my own LEGO bricks on my 3D printer, so suck it Shell!

[Faefrost]

Yeah, but I happen to make my own LEGO bricks on my 3D printer, so suck it Shell!

Using what type of plastic?

[Captain Cam]

So if lego would end its relations with shell lego's plastic would go up in money but down in production. I think this whole thing is full of it.

Plus with Legos already costing a bit of money if more money would be added to buy parts and beautiful mocs that are on this forum would probably not exist.

[Missing Brick]

Like so many other products, Lego is made, manufactured and transported by oil by-products. It's thanks to companies like Shell that we have such a huge variety of plastic products, from Lego to life rafts to hip replacements. It's thanks to companies like Shell that we have warmth and light in our homes, fertilisers on our crops, food in our shops, on our tables and in our stomachs. It's thanks to them that we have fuel in our cars and planes, semiconductors in our iPads, phones, TVs and life support machines in our hospitals. It's thanks to them that we have long lives of comfort and leisure instead of the short harsh lives our ancestors suffered ; labouring away all day to scrape a living off the land.

Greenpeace was founded with noble intentions to protect the environment and to stop whales being fished to extinction - but those battles have been largely won. Now they have become a $multi-billion organisation that rakes in donations by running bogus scaremongering campaigns against legitimate businesses like Shell & Lego that produce products we all need and love.

[GregoryBrick]

Are people still making the argument that oil production is useful, therefore individual actors and actions in the industry are above reproach? Because it seems to have shown up several times in this thread, but doesn't make any sense.

It's thanks to them that we have long lives of comfort and leisure instead of the short harsh lives our ancestors suffered ; labouring away all day to scrape a living off the land.

I'm afraid that this is incorrect. Working 8+ hours a day, 5-7 days a week is the product of industrialization, international commerce, and technological change. The capacity to generate wealth and increase productivity has no direct effect on increasing leisure time. To repeat the point, people's leisure time isn't thanks to modern advances in production. Prior to these long-term, massive changes in social organization, our ancestors worked 8-20 hours per week to produce all that they needed/wanted to live (the specifics are dependent on things like social organization and climate etc.). How do we know this? Because anthropologists and economists went out and checked. This isn't to say that we should resort to that form of economic activity, simply that we certainly don't have to thank Shell for our leisure hours. Leisure time in the present for industrialized countries is the consequence of the social democratic state and the labour rights movement. This is getting well off-topic and I'd rather just talk about clicking plastic bricks together but if we're going to emphasize how important facts are, those are some.

[Faefrost]

Are people still making the argument that oil production is useful, therefore individual actors and actions in the industry are above reproach? Because it seems to have shown up several times in this thread, but doesn't make any sense.

Individual actors can and should be held responsible for specific misdeeds. But "Oil or Energy Production" is not in and of itself a misdeed. Unfortunately that is not and has never been the view or approach taken by Greenpeace.