At the heart of this town lies a building that is a veritable temple to the area’s most famous creation, the humble Lego brick. It is filled with complex creations, from a 50-foot tree to a collection of multicolored dinosaurs, all of them built with a product that has barely changed in more than 50 years.
A short walk away in its research lab, though, Lego is trying to refashion the product it is best known for: It wants to eliminate its dependence on petroleum-based plastics, and build its toys entirely from plant-based or recycled materials by 2030.
That’s one heck of a materials science challenge.
It’s going to be a true challenge given that the fake lego bricks are only now starting to catch up with the quality of the originals. It isn’t so simple so just mold a piece of plastic.
Only 4% of oil is used to make plastics. Figure may be higher if you include natural gas. However the point is that Lego needs to take a holistic view.
It is very easy for a displacement of feed-stock to cause more than a corresponding increase in energy use or habitat destruction.
The article leads with statements on carbon emissions and then pivots to replacing the plastic. Hints of green-washing. I am certain Lego corporate is well intended, but needs to beware of of unintended consequences.
A well researched paper could address this concern easily and they should link to that in any PR. Life is easier if news self verifies. We cant just believe the source anymore.
It’s not just about where the materials come from, but also what happens after the stuff get thrown out… Biodegradable plastic solves a crucial problem that is only tangentially related to oil shortage and emissions issues.
Edited 2018-09-02 12:49 UTC
… Given the fact that my kids (and myself) build fairly large constructions using both new and (40+ year) old bricks I got as a kid, I must admit I would rather have Lego keep the bricks as-is.
More-ever, after a good clean the 40 y/o bricks are nearly indistinguishable from new ones. (Minus some scratches and minor loss of brightness).
Somehow I doubt that non-plastic material will retain this amazing durability.
– Gilboa
People had the same worries about using composites in aircraft. It turns out that fear was all for nothing as composites have improved aircraft in nearly every way.
You should have more confidence in science.
With all due respect, I’m not a red-neck hilly-billy that’s afraid of “change”.
1. The original Lego bricks were designed and built in a different age with **extreme** durability in mind.
2. It is very likely that the bean-counters @Lego will follow the current trend of building product with planned obsolescence (citing “environmental reasons”) that will last far less than the exiting bricks (that, as I pointed earlier managed to survive ~40+ years without losing their shine)
Trusting (or not trusting) “ssscciencccceee” has exactly zero to do with the point I’m making.
– Gilboa
Edited 2018-09-02 16:53 UTC
You say that but you also say, “Somehow I doubt that non-plastic material will retain this amazing durability.” So you claim science has nothing to do with it but also voice your lack-of-confidence in the science of “non-plastic material” being able to “retain this amazing durability”. And I simply pointed out a similar case where that fear and lack-of-confidence turned out to be a total waste.
Don’t foolishly assume that a company that prides itself on making a quality product suddenly decides to do a 180 and hides behind the guise of wanting to become more environmentally friendly. In case you didn’t get the memo, being more environmentally friendly is a thing these days; It’s popular. Not everything every company does is a cheap money-grab.
Oh and btw, those Legos of yours that are 40+ years old.. They contain toxic materials that are no longer allowed today due to health & safety. But go ahead and keep praising them. I suppose replacing highly accurate & durable mercury-in-glass thermometers with equally accurate & durable organic-fluid-in-glass thermometers was just a cheap money-grab too.
Have you bothered to read my comment before posting?
I never claimed that the problem is with lack of trust in science, or with the material science experts @Lego, nor did I imply anything of the sort.
1. Lego has a vested business interest in building parts that don’t last 100 years (E.g. planned obsolescence).
2. Designing ABS replacement with the same durability characteristics is far more complicated than finding a material that will only last 5-10 years.
3. More-ever, such a material will most likely be far more expensive that a material that will only last 5-10 years.
4. Highly durable materials are usually harder to dispose of and/or recycle, which more-or-less goes against of the point of switching to a “green” materials.
5. Lego can actually get a away with lowering the durability of Lego parts (as in, avoiding a P.R. nightmare), by citing “green” reasons.
6. Worst of all (from my perspective), most Lego customers couldn’t care less it the parts last 3 years or 50 years. (I very much do).
So sure, the scccccieeeeentistssss @Lego can create a “green” material that will be (nearly) as durable as ABS.
However, given the reasons cited above, I really, really, really doubt that they will be asked to create such a material.
As such, back to my original point:
“Somehow I doubt that (the) non-plastic material (designed by Lego’s material science experts) will retain this amazing durability.”
– Gilboa
Edited 2018-09-03 12:00 UTC
BTW, if you read between the lines, I trust “science” far more than you.
Planned obsolescence can only be achieved if you have **very** good modeling and and can predict, with high certainty when and how certain components will fail.
60 years ago the science wasn’t there, so they used brute force.
Edited 2018-09-03 12:43 UTC
The “reasons” you listed above are nearly all baseless assumptions or the exact opposite of what reality shows us. Now, you are free to believe LEGO, the most profitable toy company in the world, wanting to make a green product is all just a ruse.. A big conspiracy to introduce “planned obsolescence” in an attempt to squeeze their customers wallets. A very risky move for such a successful company – considering the potential image & PR disaster should this plot be undercovered, a very stupid move as well.
I, on the other hand, believe something far less sinister. Due to lack of any evidence that supports your conspiracy claim, I believe the company genuinely has interest in making their products less toxic and more environmentally friendly. This would not only be in line with popular trends but be a PR home run as well. Rather than risk their success with a greed-based evil plot, they would be strengthening their business moving forward.
So, we’ll agree to disagree.
Kids use Lego for what, 5 years? 10 years (if you have multiple kids)? So they’ll use a material that lasts 5-10 years and no-one will notice.
However, I will, as again, I’m using 40+ y/o parts.
– Gilboa
Edited 2018-09-04 08:42 UTC
Have you ever looked up how many pounds of Lego’s are donated each year? It’s a lot. Have you ever looked up how many places there are that deal only with Lego donations? It’s a lot. Legos tend to have a very long life whether they’re passed down in families, resold as a business or to help charities such as kids with cancer, or shipped by the container load to 3rd world countries.
As I said, you’re free to believe in your conspiracy theory despite there being no evidence to support it. I’ll continue to believe the far more logical and sensical thing – that Lego wants to improve their product and score good PR in the process.
I disagree, ilovebeer… I mean, have you tasted airline food lately?
Not in a while. I tend to just stick with the beef jerky & almonds I usually bring.
I don’t think LEGO is trying to make a less durable product. If they wanted to do that they probably would have done so before now. Also, I have read a couple of articles recently that claimed LEGO was having trouble meeting demand.
LEGO last because they are made of ABS, which is a good material for the product. It’s very durable with good acid resistance, which is important for a toy that’s going to be handled.
There are downsides to using ABS, though. For starters, it’s pretty expensive to manufacture compared to other thermoplastics. Another factor that I think is driving this move is the ever-growing demand in other industries like electronics. Things like the keys on a keyboard, if not the whole keyboard itself, are often made out of ABS for the same reason that LEGO are.
It will be interesting to see how the new blocks hold up compared to the old ones.
Edited 2018-09-02 19:17 UTC
I hope you’re right. But my gut feeling is that the market demands (for ultra durable products, w/ disregard for environmental footprint, recycling, etc) has shifted. I doubt that Lego sees hard demand in replacing ABS with a “green” material with similar durability.
http://www.osnews.com/thread?661856