CP5670 Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 This sounds like the usual Greenpeace nonsense. That being said, I'm not sure what the "long term contract" with Shell is about, as I haven't seen any Shell Lego stuff in a long time. There were a lot of Shell sets in the 1980s and another wave around 2000, but I can't think of anything since then. Octan seems to have driven Shell out of business in Lego City.
Fabulandlover Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 While I understand that Greenpeace wants toy companies to be greener, but to be honest: I think Lego is one of the most 'recycled' toys in the world. Lego stuff always get's a new owner with garage sales or otherwise on the secondhand market. I don't see that with other plastic toys. Or other plastic stuff really.
legoman19892 Posted July 3, 2014 Author Posted July 3, 2014 This sounds like the usual Greenpeace nonsense. That being said, I'm not sure what the "long term contract" with Shell is about, as I haven't seen any Shell Lego stuff in a long time. There were a lot of Shell sets in the 1980s and another wave around 2000, but I can't think of anything since then. Octan seems to have driven Shell out of business in Lego City. They entered a new contract n 2011. They are currently doing promos at Shell gas stations around the globe.
Bricknblue Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 I haven't seen a LEGO Shell set in the USA in probably 10 years now, if not longer.
Superkalle Posted July 3, 2014 Posted July 3, 2014 Where does electricy come from? Mostly coal powered plants. Not very nice to the enviroment Yeah, if you live in Denmark you're right Seriously though, it all depends on where you live in the world. In Sweden, the electricity in general comes from 45% Water power, 45% Nuclear and 10% Wind etc (rough figures). But the point is that it would be easy for TLG to just say their vehicles are for example electric and that the energy comes from a Renewable source, and who could then argue with that? Maybe this is a bit off topic, but there are a lot of cool vehicles out there that run on alternative fuels. Like the BMW i3 or this hot Harley Davidson
Ardelon Posted July 4, 2014 Posted July 4, 2014 LEGO vehicles run on Hand of God. My suspicion is that Greenpeace in in the pay of Lord Business, who wants to eliminate Shell and solidify his Octan monopoly. A storm in a chamber pot, as we say in my country.
Tech Artist Posted July 5, 2014 Posted July 5, 2014 This whole thing is just another tasteless tactict by an organization that wants to assert itself on to the world however it has to(PETA is the same way). Using Lego like this just shows how far they are willing to go.
Superkalle Posted July 5, 2014 Posted July 5, 2014 LEGO vehicles run on Hand of God. Or the "hand of the Creator"
Alasdair Ryan Posted July 5, 2014 Posted July 5, 2014 LEGO vehicles run on Hand of God. Or the "hand of the Creator" If your Lego creation is using power functions then you could call yourself a driver/operator.
Wodanis Posted July 5, 2014 Posted July 5, 2014 (edited) As someone who supports the environment I disagree with Greenpeace's current tactics and message. Clearly Greenpeace is bullying the Lego Group due to two reasons; it is now a very popular toy and they think that doing so is the weak link in the chain. If Greenpeace is so concerned about the environment why not target Shell directly? It is because their argument is weak and border line conspiracy theory. They would get no where with Shell. They should get with the times and stop picking on pointless issues and start concentrating their efforts on the actual problems. I really dislike how people are trying to use Lego as a pretext for a political message. It's a toy, yes made out of plastic, most of the goods we use are. Greenpeace should mind themselves and gain some credibility. Edited July 5, 2014 by Wodanis
-Horizon- Posted July 5, 2014 Posted July 5, 2014 (edited) My suspicion is that Greenpeace in in the pay of Lord Business, who wants to eliminate Shell and solidify his Octan monopoly. Though Octan is better. Edited July 5, 2014 by lego3364
Sir Walter Maugham Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 Ugh. I saw this thread a few days ago, and though: "Well, it's complete idiocy, but at least it won't get much media attention, right?" But upon Googling "Lego" today I see that articles about this show up near the top. These halfwits remind me a lot of PETA. Also... Um... I think that... err... Well, I was going to type more, but I agree 100% with Wodanis and couldn't have said it better. I defer to his post.
EvilTwin Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 Greenpeace have not exactly covered themselves in glory on this one but some of the comments on this thread are ridiculous. Greenpeace a terrorist organisation? Seriously? Epic sense of perspective failure. And, why is it that when a topic such as this is raised, some people feel the need to get out their scattergun and blast all the other people or organisations that they have a personal dislike for? What have PETA and the ongoing discussion about female minifigs have to do with this? Nothing is the answer. EvilTwin
Faefrost Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 Greenpeace have not exactly covered themselves in glory on this one but some of the comments on this thread are ridiculous. Greenpeace a terrorist organisation? Seriously? Epic sense of perspective failure. And, why is it that when a topic such as this is raised, some people feel the need to get out their scattergun and blast all the other people or organisations that they have a personal dislike for? What have PETA and the ongoing discussion about female minifigs have to do with this? Nothing is the answer. EvilTwin Actually yeah, a good number of national governments do consider Greenpeace a terrorist organization for some of the tactics used by them over the years. At a minimum some of it qualified as piracy.
EvilTwin Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 Hello Faefrost Actually yeah, a good number of national governments do consider Greenpeace a terrorist organization for some of the tactics used by them over the years. 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.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_organisations Of course the other possibility is that you just made that up. But that is too horrific to contemplate
Faefrost Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 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 You mean aside from the obvious views of at a minimum the then French government back in the 80's? Or the US government almost from the groups founding? (Greenpeace was founded by a group of US Vietnam era draft dodgers, which already put them on the US governments not so nice list. Who then set out to "forcibly disrupt" US and western Nuclear testing at the height of the Cold War. This tended to not make them a lot of friends in some circles.) For more current views, India declared them a threat to National Security two or three weeks ago.
Lyichir Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 Greenpeace is pretty deplorable in a lot of ways and Lego should NOT tolerate them using Lego products to support their agenda, but I do think that the question of whether Lego should continue creating Shell-branded products might be worth consideration. For the most part, Shell-branded Lego products aren't sold because the brand itself is popular with kids, but rather so that Lego can maintain a working relationship with the company and get its products into Shell gas station convenience stores and similar venues. I'm certainly not privy to how many new customers are gained through this, so I can't judge what exactly Lego would have to lose by cutting ties with Shell (and what they'd have to gain in PR if a massive environmental disaster muddied Shell's name the way the Deepwater Horizon spill did to BP in the U.S.). The issue is that for the most part, Shell HASN'T earned that kind of reputation among the general public. They have done their share of environmental damage, but for the most part it's been through accidents far from the public eye—not the same as BP's poor handling of a massive leak that threatened a huge part of a highly populated coastline. Sadly, the general public doesn't care enough about sea life or Alaskan wilderness to make a fuss over a company that doesn't directly harm them (and provides a much-needed service to a world still highly dependent on petroleum products, to boot). So while I can see the benefit of Lego someday cutting ties with Shell, at the moment Lego probably still has more to lose by doing so than they have to gain.
Vindicare Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 Well, I just had a small argument with Greenpeace on their blog. And I actually won. (scroll to the bottom of the page to find the argument) High five! Way to put them in their place with actual facts. This is a lot like that Turkish group who attacked TLG for last years 9516 Jabbas Palace...
EvilTwin Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 You mean aside from the obvious views of at a minimum the then French government back in the 80's? Yeah, great example, not. I remember that incident. The French government had the Greenpeace ship bombed while it was docked in New Zealand, killing a press photographer. The French government were the terrorists in that incident- launching an attack on a civilian vessel while it was in another country's waters. It was a major diplomatic disaster for the French and they paid out millions to the New Zealand government, the family of the murdered photographer and Greenpeace. For more current views, India declared them a threat to National Security two or three weeks ago. Well, no they didn't really, but India is on a mission to crack down on any anti-nuclear or environmental group as they want to grow their own nuclear weapons programme so they can carry on their sabre-rattling contest with Pakistan, and destroy their country's environment unimpeded in the quest for mining uranium, amongst other things. We shouldn't really look to India as the guardian of the world's morals. So basically, neither France nor India claim that Greenpeace is a terrorist organisation as you stated previously. Or the US government almost from the groups founding? (Greenpeace was founded by a group of US Vietnam era draft dodgers, Except it wasn't- the main founder Jim Bohlen served in the US Navy in world war 2. OK I'm bored now. There is clearly no point in trying to have a reasoned discussion about this if you can't be bothered to get basic facts straight. I'm going back to play with my Lego. EvilTwin
1974 Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 Ask the russians Anyway, all that stuff (LEGO/oil) is made from dead dinosaurs (yes, I know it's not, don't go all smart on me) but we cannot live without it, at least not right now. Sometime in the future we have electric cars powered by hyperdrives and brickstoys made out of unobtanium Plenty of _other_ fora to discuss political matters. If it actually matters, sigh
williejm Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Okay, so I might not be the most objective commentator here, but yes, we absolutely should hold up a company on it's ethics. That includes who it gets into deals with. I'm not suggesting Lego ever aimed to greenwash Shell, but Shell do get that positive association out of the relationship. We don't have any Exxon branded Lego products any more (at least not since the Exxon Valdez spill) but it would be nice to think that we didn't need a (feel free to check out some of their recent arctic mishaps) for Lego to see sense on this.
1974 Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Well, the owner of Octan was trying to kraggle up the entire universe! That's a wee bit worse than a bunch of seals with some oily spots Don't see TLG cutting ties with Octan anytime soon Greenpeace owns loads of vehicles, boats etc that are powered by dead dinosaours. Buildings are probably heated with that stuff too. And the electricity they consume and and ... How about they started in their own backyard?
williejm Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Greenpeace owns loads of vehicles, boats etc that are powered by dead dinosaours. Buildings are probably heated with that stuff too. And the electricity they consume and and ... How about they started in their own backyard? How about they already do? But the Arctic is all of our backyards collectively.
1974 Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Then they should swim up there instead of using this oil eating monster :
Recommended Posts