Should LEGO cut ties with Shell?

[ummester]

Guess I fail at life. Shell Australia already went there.

https://www.flickr.c...157643629374944

Holy crude!!

Look at the size of that thing :)

You could still put it up on ideas - just say you are using the Shell model for inspiration and currently working on your own instructions and part list - but the goal of the project is for everyone to have the opportunity to build their very own Shell FLNG :D

Re this discussion, I was thinking on it. It kind of doesn't matter whether Greenpeace has hit below the belt or not, not now - they have created the association with Shell and LEGO in the public eye. Wide spread public knowledge of a project like the FLNG model pictured would create upset among the sheeple. It would be more politically prudent for LEGO to make an announcement that it will no longer create packaged models for children with Shell, or any other oil company, as part of the design. This will make the sheeple think LEGO is more awesome, regardless of the fact that LEGO is made from petroleum.

Edited July 22, 2014 by ummester

[Phoxtane]

We're stuck with oil for a while. Consider how many devices run on fossil fuels; here in Wyoming our main resources are land, natural gas, coal, and I think cattle. And while that's opened up many opportunities for the state via taxes on utilizing these resources, it won't last.

The problem is that even over 20 years changing from fossil fuels to renewables would change *everything*. I don't think Greenpeace can solve that. If you ask me, nuclear power is the best intermediate fuel source we have, but who wants that in their country? Especially after the Fukushima disaster...

Forgive the rambling. Greenpeace just isn't big enough to force a change on a worldwide scale of immense proportions that a shift from oil would require. I think it would be easier to start if car manufacturers kept getting pushed for higher and higher fuel economy until it is actually easier to develop a hybrid or an EV. Then, oil could be saved for things like plastics and jet fuel and whatnot - thus maintaining our favorite plastic toy! I did find an article a few months ago that said Lego wanted to move from plastics to renewable resins within the next 10-15 years. I'll have to find that link again later.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Phoxtane

[ShaydDeGrai]

(snip…) I don't think Greenpeace can solve that. (snip…)

This little aside really touches upon the heart of my issue with the organization in general. In the forty-some-odd years that I've been aware of Greenpeace' existence, I've never known them to actually solve a problem, any problem, of global importance. They highlight issues. They assign blame (sometimes arbitrarily or flat out incorrectly). They've deferred or altered the landscape of problems. They polarize communities that might otherwise be working together to find mutually beneficial compromises. But they don't actually contribute anything of innate value to the quest for a solution.

Traditionally, they latch on to one small aspect of one small symptom, taken entirely out of context, and blow it entirely out of proportion. Not only do they not address the root cause, the tactics they employ make it harder for people who are actually trying to solve the issue to be taken seriously, get funding, be heard, etc.

If they were "championing" medical causes, their cure for skin diseases would be to protest the color red until everyone with a rash would be too frightened to be seen in public.

They pick quick and easy battles that further their own existence rather than committing to long-term systemic efforts that the support the causes they espouse. It's easier to react than to plan. It's easier to attack an individual than a culture. It's easier to complain than to fix. It's easier to recognize a symptom than to understand a system. They want to see themselves as noble and relevant, embracing a suffer hero fantasy where they're the champion for the planet, but they don't want to do real work to effect real change because real work is hard and most lasting change does't happen in the tiny glare of a spotlight.

I share many of the goals Greenpeace espouses and would love to see end end to fossil fuel dependence in my lifetime, but strategically and tactically, I think they are a liability toward actually achieving those ends.

[Faefrost]

This little aside really touches upon the heart of my issue with the organization in general. In the forty-some-odd years that I've been aware of Greenpeace' existence, I've never known them to actually solve a problem, any problem, of global importance. They highlight issues. They assign blame (sometimes arbitrarily or flat out incorrectly). They've deferred or altered the landscape of problems. They polarize communities that might otherwise be working together to find mutually beneficial compromises. But they don't actually contribute anything of innate value to the quest for a solution.

Traditionally, they latch on to one small aspect of one small symptom, taken entirely out of context, and blow it entirely out of proportion. Not only do they not address the root cause, the tactics they employ make it harder for people who are actually trying to solve the issue to be taken seriously, get funding, be heard, etc.

If they were "championing" medical causes, their cure for skin diseases would be to protest the color red until everyone with a rash would be too frightened to be seen in public.

They pick quick and easy battles that further their own existence rather than committing to long-term systemic efforts that the support the causes they espouse. It's easier to react than to plan. It's easier to attack an individual than a culture. It's easier to complain than to fix. It's easier to recognize a symptom than to understand a system. They want to see themselves as noble and relevant, embracing a suffer hero fantasy where they're the champion for the planet, but they don't want to do real work to effect real change because real work is hard and most lasting change does't happen in the tiny glare of a spotlight.

I share many of the goals Greenpeace espouses and would love to see end end to fossil fuel dependence in my lifetime, but strategically and tactically, I think they are a liability toward actually achieving those ends.

Pretty much. And once again they have no shades of grey. No middle ground. No "more efficient use of better technologies". And absolutely no idea of the worldwide political consequences of their crusades.

Case in point. The downing of the Malaysian airliner this week. Not something that you would blame on Greenpeace, but there is a clear unintended impact of their actions that led directly to it. And one that really should worry our European friends more than a bit. Greenpeace has been staging a decades long campaign of attacking and shaming Western and particularly European Energy companies out of the public space. Completely oblivious to the simple basic and core fact that regardless of Greenpeace's beliefs the people do still need energy to make it through the winter. So Energy providors such as Shell and BP are pulling back. New domestic European energy projects are lobbied against or blocked. Refineries, facilities etc. NIMBY ("Not In My Back Yard") rules the day. So at the end of the day all of Europe is dependent on Russia to make it through the Winter without freezing to death, or to keep the lights on. (remember GP's initial cause was nukes, so they are bad and worse than oil). So now we today find ourselves where Europe's political will is now totally thwarted because of their dependence on Russian Energy. They cannot or are hesitant to act to prevent or end a war on their doorstep because they have lobbied away their self reliance today in the name of the distant theoretical tomorrow. Rather than adapting, evolving and increasing efficiency.

In the end, when looking at "good causes" and "good ideas" remember these basic associations

Environment = Economics, they are joined at the hip

Economics = Energy

Energy = Civilization

A civilization cannot go cold turkey from its dominant energy source. Attempts to do so without transitioning organically to a new lead to a breakdown in civil order and war. This is the root cause of most wars. (The American Civil War and WW2 particularly in the Pacific being the textbook examples).

Edited July 23, 2014 by Faefrost

[Moebius118]

I am liking the general consensus of the last few posts here on the topic of the energy complex and smart environmentalism.

This is one swell community that demonstrates it makes the additional effort to stay well informed to observe the ever changing realities of this complex world.

And certainly able to understand topics beyond a basic good versus evil perspective.

If only the general population knew better

I certainly believe it is true that LEGO is not only positively correlated with personal creative development but also with intelligence in general as well. I feel at home here.

[Moebius118]

You'd figure if Greenpeace really wanted to sell environmental injustice they'd probably bring this up.

http://www.bbc.com/n...gazine-28367198

Kind of demonstrates they are not after true environmentalism anymore but instead the publicity and the money that comes with it.

Greenpeace today is more of a "charity" corporation than anything. Their product is a feelgood message. Like PETA or the Humane Society.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Moebius118

[LEGO Historian]

Maybe someone should send Greenpeace an image showing the long roots between TLG and Shell....

The 373 Shell Oil Refinery Set of 1977....

[Boxerlego]

This little aside really touches upon the heart of my issue with the organization in general. In the forty-some-odd years that I've been aware of Greenpeace' existence, I've never known them to actually solve a problem, any problem, of global importance. They highlight issues. They assign blame (sometimes arbitrarily or flat out incorrectly). They've deferred or altered the landscape of problems. They polarize communities that might otherwise be working together to find mutually beneficial compromises. But they don't actually contribute anything of innate value to the quest for a solution.

Traditionally, they latch on to one small aspect of one small symptom, taken entirely out of context, and blow it entirely out of proportion. Not only do they not address the root cause, the tactics they employ make it harder for people who are actually trying to solve the issue to be taken seriously, get funding, be heard, etc.

I agree with all that and I'm going to add to that, My question on this is, What does environment stand to gain out of all this? All I see is a video praying upon the emotional impulses of everyone to sign a petition telling Lego to end deals with Shell doesn't really do anything for the environment or does it, But I do think it is more a complex problem then it appears on the surface because of what Greenpeace does is so extensive that its easy to overlook the problem.

I share many of the goals Greenpeace espouses and would love to see end end to fossil fuel dependence in my lifetime, but strategically and tactically, I think they are a liability toward actually achieving those ends.

Ending fossils fuel dependency would be a major mistake if it was removed completely. A good idea would be the phasing out fossils fuels and start replacing them with renewable fuels environmental friendly alternatives that can be made locally would be great for certain applications like personal transportation and other personal uses. Having a renewable source of energy is the goal and that is why I view the magnet as the best form of energy dependency because if a magnet loses its magnetic field, not much has to be done to restore its magnetic field back into the magnet.

[Dewey Cheatum 1011 Western]

um no, but does it even matter?

my dad had the shell oil refinery, its some where in his atic now....

[MAB]

Greenpeace used their guerilla tactics to take out the UK customer services yesterday.

https://secure.greenpeace.org.uk/page/s/phone-lego

[Faefrost]

Greenpeace used their guerilla tactics to take out the UK customer services yesterday.

https://secure.greenpeace.org.uk/page/s/phone-lego

You will actively champion our cause... Or else! Yeah real classy approach there.

[antp]

I really think that Lego should have replied "our last action with Shell was in 2011, there is nothing active", and let the thing calm down, even if they were planning in future actions, instead of replying explicitly that they will keep the relationship :/

[MAB]

That is incorrect though. They have had a fairly major worldwide promotion with Shell throughout 2012-13, possibly this year too in some countries. For sets like this and the racers:

[Heppeng]

Having a renewable source of energy is the goal and that is why I view the magnet as the best form of energy dependency because if a magnet loses its magnetic field, not much has to be done to restore its magnetic field back into the magnet.

Erm, a magnet is not a source of energy - I hope you have not been taken in by any of those phoney perpetual motion machines!!

[jodawill]

So, I'm curious; have the mods had to delete quite a bit of Greenpeace spam on the forum lately?

I've been seeing this crap pop up on all kinds of Lego websites and Facebook pages. I report them as spam whenever I can.

It makes me upset that people are using my favorite toy as a source of controversy. Regardless of whether Shell is in the right or wrong. Lego is all about making fun toys for kids and kid-like adults to have fun with. It's not their place to take a stance on any political issues, and, as we should expect, they have not.

I just saw people on Facebook talking about how the Arctic theme is teaching impressionable young kids the wrong lessons about drilling for oil in the arctic. The arctic theme doesn't have anything to do with oil! I know these people will never shut up, but hopefully they'll fling their crap in another direction soon.

[ummester]

jodawill - LEGO is obviously my favourite toy also. But I think it is kind of biased to think that nothing about LEGO is political.

[williejm]

... And in fact Lego /not/ making their Arctic play sets about oil drilling (though they have drills) is a studiously 'political' business move.

[legoman19892]

... And in fact Lego /not/ making their Arctic play sets about oil drilling (though they have drills) is a studiously 'political' business move.

They made a logging set, and I see no one being upset about that. Maybe drilling set is in the future... (I seriously doubt it. There is little play value in it)

This Happened

Edited August 2, 2014 by legoman19892

[CrazyDalton777]

The LEGO company should make a set with 5 Russian police officers arresting a Greenpeace guy and maybe change the artic ship so its stuck in the ice for a few weeks. TLG needs to stand against the annoyance that is Greenpeace. I might make a stop motion against Greenpeace in LEGO.

[antp]

That is incorrect though. They have had a fairly major worldwide promotion with Shell throughout 2012-13, possibly this year too in some countries. For sets like this and the racers:

Indeed, my bad. I thought these sets were in 2011, it seemed to me it has been already several years.

Edited August 2, 2014 by antp

[AyliffeMakit]

Greenpeace just released another campaign video, and this one just confuses me.

Can we just ignore them now, because they're just fighting a losing battle now.

Just give up, Greenpeace, you've already lost.

[Sam892]

I don't want to crap all over Greenpeace's dreams but most of those animals would rip people to shreds. There's no way you could ride a polar bear like that, it would rip your face off. Plus unless that girl has a jet pack, that penguin sure won't fly.

[ummester]

Ok, I misinterpreted the last Greenpeace advert, thinking the emphasis was on a popular toy being petroleum based and not a marketing deal with an oil company.

Can someone explain what the message in this recent add is to me? If the LEGO artic melts LEGO minifigs won't be able to ride LEGO polar bears? I don't get it? Why don't Greenpeace just state their claims in the ads? Seriously, marketing people these days, including the ones that work for Greenpeace, seem kind of tapped to me.

Why not have some words - kids can still read, well, perhaps not as well as they were once taught but most still can. Why doesn't Greenpeace just have some straight up text describing their issue -

Kids, LEGO is a nice toy but its made out of petrol. Also, the LEGO company is in bed with an oil giant that is mining a limited resource from an area of the planet that is already under threat due to climate change. Think about this when you play with your LEGO - it may indirectly impact coming generations of polar bears. If you like polar bears and LEGO, write to LEGO and say you want them to speed up research on new plastic and end ties with shell. If enough children do this, I'm sure LEGO will listen because LEGO likes to make money from your parents :D

Ok, well perhaps a little less cynical - but I am sure if Greenpeace was direct with parents and children, now that it has some attention, it would make more sense than that advert.

Edited August 6, 2014 by ummester

[Ardelon]

What a strange video. At least the last one was very well done, IMO, whatever the message. Hopefully, the Greenpeace folks will develop their kids imaginations by buying them lots of the new Arctic sets!

[CrazyDalton777]

I watched the video on YouTube and as you would expect there were comments like "stop picking on an innocent toy". Greenpeace reply was something like "Our campaign is not against LEGO, its against Shell". If thats the case, why bring LEGO into it?