Lego Ends Shell Partnership Under Greenpeace Pressure

jones_supa writes Since 1960s, we have been seeing the oil company Shell logo being featured in some Lego sets, and Legos being distributed at petrol stations in 26 countries. This marketing partnership is coming to an end, after coming under sustained pressure from Greenpeace. The environmental campaign, protesting about the oil giant's plans to drill in the Arctic, came with a YouTube video that depicted pristine Arctic, built from 120 kg of Lego, being covered in oil. CEO of Lego, Jørgen Vig Knudstorp, wants to leave the dispute between Greenpeace and Shell, and the toy company is getting out of the way.

Comments

Pixie Dust

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Legos are made out of pixie dust, not oil.

Re:Pixie Dust

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait till someone tells GreenPeace that their boat needs oil to run.

Re:Pixie Dust

[camperdave]

Wait till someone tells GreenPeace that their boat needs oil to run.

Well, they can run it on whale oil instead.

Re:Pixie Dust

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Because Legos are made out of pixie dust, not oil.

Thanks for your insight AC. Because anyone opposed to drilling for oil in the artic of course, must be opposed to use of all oil products, produced anywhere in the world for any reason.

Re:Pixie Dust

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like a whiney fanboy.......

Re:Pixie Dust

[mrchaotica]

You joke, but their newest ship actually has sails!

From Wikipedia:

The ship is also designed to be one of the "greenest" ships afloat, and to showcase this quality, it runs primarily using wind power, with a 55 m mast system which carries 1255 sq meters of sail and is backed up by a "state-of-the-art hybrid". On board the ship can store up to 59 cubic meters of greywater and blackwater, avoiding the need for disposal at sea. All materials, from the paintwork to the insulation, have been chosen with a view to sustainability, and each component has been supplied with transparent ethical sourcing.

(It still uses diesel engines for maneuvering in port, of course -- I'm honestly surprised they don't run the engine on biodiesel. Maybe it's a logistical issue?)

Re:Pixie Dust

[ihtoit]

any idea how much yield acreage is involved in producing just one gallon of biodiesel?

Here's a clue: soybeans yield 127 gallons per yield acre, but that's not what's used because soybeans grow too slowly. Oilseed yields about a quarter the amount of raw oil (pre refinement) but it grows five times faster. If you stop looking at it there, oilseed looks like a good deal. BUT, then you come to refining it into biodiesel where your net yield drops to about 8% of what you'd get with soy.

127 gallons is about ten tanks in a small family car. How many eleven gallon tanks are rolling about in the United States? Several tens of MILLIONS? A total conversion to biodiesel would require every square foot of land area on the planet given over for oilseed production.

Re:Pixie Dust

[Anonymous Coward]

You joke, but their newest ship actually has sails!

In Greece we have many -Greek or visiting foreigner- luxurious yacht ships with "sails" that most of the time -not only when maneuvering in port but in the open sea also- use their diesel engines since it's seriously impractical otherwise - the Greek God of winds Aeolus is a serious troll...

Re:Pixie Dust

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like someone who hasn't yet been introduced to logical fallacies.

Re:Pixie Dust

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, he sounded like he had a set of balls in his mouth as he said it.

I know! That's quite an accomplishment, give that you can't actually "hear" what people type, but that just goes to show how screamingly gay this guy is!

Re:Pixie Dust

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that biodiesel can be made from just about any oil source, including animal fat. So even a slaughter house can be a good reliable source. If you want a good seed crop to use, hemp would be it. It's called a weed for a reason.

Re:Pixie Dust

[voss]

Maybe greenpeace has enough good sense not to target one of the most popular toys in the world
when there are much easier polluter targets like shell

Re:Pixie Dust

[ihtoit]

tallow, suet and similar animal fats/derivatives already have uses which saturate supply (candles, soap, lubricants, paper additives, food). You want to divert that to feed your car? As hemp goes, that'll never happen as long as there are trees to supply plant fibre for the paper industry.

Re:Pixie Dust

[Urkki]

Because Legos are made out of pixie dust, not oil.

While production of oil has its own huge environmental problems, at least Lego bricks themselves are very stable, so they are good for storing carbon and keeping it off the atmosphere and oceans. And if they were made from, say, metal instead of plastic, the environmental impact of production wouldn't be any less, I bet.

Re:Pixie Dust

[dave420]

Lego are actively researching alternative materials from which to make their blocks, so your criticism is merely illustrating your lack of knowledge of the subject, and not a well-thought-out attack on Lego.

Re:Pixie Dust

[jandersen]

People shouldn't let their prejudices against Greenpeace, 'tree-huggers', 'hippies', climate change or whatever blind them to the fact that:

1. Big, polluting corporations need to be challenged. The oil-industry is not really your friend, and I doubt the changes we have seen in pollution levels since the 50es would have happened without somebody putting serious pressure on them.

2. Whether you like Greenpeace or not, their example shows us that it is possible for ordinary people to make a difference, if they are able to work together. Is that not something worth knowing?

Re:Pixie Dust

[DrXym]

Biodiesel can be made by recycling vegetable oil from fryers. It has to be filtered and blended with alcohol. Presumably Greenpeace could use that if they wished although I expect pragmatism and the reality of operating a boat out of many ports means they have to take what's available.

Re:Pixie Dust

[DrXym]

Perhaps these luxury yacht owners like getting from A to B in the fastest time and the sails are just an emergency precaution in case the engine packs in.

It looks like Greenpeace has different priorities - the sails mean they can turn off their engines to save fuel, extend their operational range and it naturally fits with their image. Looks like a really cool boat.

Re:Pixie Dust

[stiggle]

Generally its the delivery crew who use the sails to get the boat to where the rich guy wants to sail from. Often the crew are given a budget, for all expenses including fuel, and so anything they save on that means they have more spending money for more vital supplies like beer, beer and more beer :-)

These crews move the yachts around the world as "the rich guy" wants spring in the Caribbean, summer in the Med, fall/autumn in the Indian Ocean, winter around Australia. So you move the yacht to meet the guy and his family/friends for the holiday onboard at specific times.

You use the diesel engine when you're likely to miss the departure/arrival dates.
Its a fun life but badly paid, but you get to spend your time on a luxury yacht.

Re:Pixie Dust

[Anonymous Coward]

Legos?

Re:Pixie Dust

[Anonymous Coward]

Having experienced both engine failures and various rig failures over the years on a sailboat I can assure you that if your engine fails, you'll need help anyway to get to port. Maneuvering with sails into ports is, let's say, difficult.

Re:Pixie Dust

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but who wants to go to Japan to refuel?

Re:Pixie Dust

[JWSmythe]

So you have heard of Greenpeace.

Re:Pixie Dust

[Anonymous Coward]

Big, polluting corporations need to be challenged.

Why only the big polluting corporations and not the many, many small polluting individuals and small business that together cause a pollution that dwarfs that caused by a few corporations?

The oil-industry is not really your friend

I do not need them to be my friend. I need oil products, they produce them. I am pretty sure you use oil product too, directly or indirectly.

and I doubt the changes we have seen in pollution levels since the 50es would have happened without somebody putting serious pressure on them.

Those changes are due to new technology and legislation that applies to everyone, not just (large) oil companies.

Whether you like Greenpeace or not, their example shows us that it is possible for ordinary people to make a difference, if they are able to work together. Is that not something worth knowing?

I think most people would also have known that without an annoying and hypocritical organisation that names well-known problems but does not offer solutions and frequently engages in antisocial and/or illegal behaviour to promote their viewpoint. In fact, I would argue that oil companies are better examples of people accomplishing something by working together.

Re:Pixie Dust

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't change the fact that Lego has been using oil products all these years since their initial switch from wood. Good for them that they are researching alternatives, but it doesn't change the past.

Re:Pixie Dust

[Anonymous Coward]

While production of oil has its own huge environmental problems, at least Lego bricks themselves are very stable, so they are good for storing carbon and keeping it off the atmosphere and oceans.

So they are not biodegradable. Shame on LEGO!

Re:Pixie Dust

[flyneye]

Nah, just tow them out in a rowboat. The Russians will pick them up when G.P. starts flingin poo at them.

Re:Pixie Dust

[flyneye]

I suspect some other motive. I mean, really, who could give a shit what Greenpeace thinks? They're a fucking joke!
I think something went sour between Legos and Shell, so Legos is just blaming Peengrease for benefit of the press.
Greenpeace never did anything of any real consequence except add comedy to news programs.

Re:Pixie Dust

[carnivore302]

Yes, but not the way greenpeace does it. They have been going at it like a bunch of terrorists and the end result is that for many people (definitely including myself) any organisation targeted by greenpeace is getting more, not less, sympathy.

Re:Pixie Dust

[drinkypoo]

(It still uses diesel engines for maneuvering in port, of course -- I'm honestly surprised they don't run the engine on biodiesel. Maybe it's a logistical issue?)

Provided that your seals (which may well be flare fittings, no seals!) and lines and pumps can all handle bio, which for anything modern is not exactly a foregone conclusion but doesn't really cost you any extra if you shop around, you can run any diesel without half-assed fuel quality sensors on any proportion biodiesel. Sadly, many modern diesels do have those (as opposed to none, or a good one) but I would be fairly surprised if they didn't spec to be able to run it.

Re:Pixie Dust

[Anonymous Coward]

I am activly researching ways to stop murdering people.

Re:Pixie Dust

[mrchaotica]

Yep. For example, my old VW runs on biodiesel just fine, and all I had to do was replace the fuel injector return lines with Viton ones. (I might have to rebuild my fuel pump with Viton seals too, eventually.)

Re:Pixie Dust

[jellomizer]

Greenpeace isn't about helping the environment but making them feel good.
They go after high profile target, not high impact. So they get on the news and people say see how good they are.
 

Re:Pixie Dust

[delt0r]

That would be a great solution, if there was like only 3 boats and 10 cars on the whole planet.

Re:Pixie Dust

[phrostie]

If only they did Solar and Electric. http://electroprop.com/

Re:Pixie Dust

[Trailer Trash]

Lego are actively researching alternative materials from which to make their blocks, so your criticism is merely illustrating your lack of knowledge of the subject, and not a well-thought-out attack on Lego.

Unless I missed it, the "attack" was on Greenpeace who cluelessly badgered Lego to quit licensing the Shell logo for use in their products which are *made of oil*.

Re:Pixie Dust

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, screw that huge frozen wasteland full of oil, let's keep our dependency on the middle east, that's working out great!

Re:Pixie Dust

[drinkypoo]

Biodiesel can be made by recycling vegetable oil from fryers. It has to be filtered and blended with alcohol.

This will never scale. However, there is a lot of animal fat being thrown away. You can use it as a feedstock for making green diesel, which is what you call it when you use a fractional distillation cracking process virtually identical to the way petroleum is refined. In fact, you can make green diesel out of pretty much any combination of fats. Tyson Foods has a pilot plant making biodiesel with some of the chicken fat which they'd been paying to throw away, I believe that they're the world's largest producer of waste animal fat.

If you have to come up with something that's not just being thrown away, you grow algae. It can be grown on water which is dirty and/or salty, in pretty much any climate where the water doesn't freeze (though more insolation generally means more production, within certain limits.)

Re:Pixie Dust

[tompaulco]

Greenpeace is like any other religion. Guilt with different holidays.
One could form another organization that pollutes 10% less than Greenpeace and then start protesting Greenpeace.

Re:Pixie Dust

[Anonymous Coward]

In 20-30 years Greenpeace will be joke because of playing the green card where energy markets would haved changed for the greener...

Re:Pixie Dust

[Anonymous Coward]

prejudices against Greenpeace,

"prejudice", my ass. Greenpeace is marketing outfit masquerading as an environmental group.

Re:Pixie Dust

[Archangel Michael]

1) Start with yourself. Do you drive? Stop, completely, using any Petrol Products to get anywhere. If you're unwilling to do so, why should I be willing?

2) Ordinary people DO not make a difference. Exceptional people make a difference. And by Exceptional, I mean either the best or worst (the exceptions). Ordinary people follow extraordinary ones, that is what makes them ordinary.

Re:Pixie Dust

[Anonymous Coward]

Biodiesel can be made by recycling vegetable oil from fryers.

That's not recycling. Recycling would be cleaning it and using it in fryers again. That waste oil was already being used to make other products. Nothing is improved by diverting it and burning it instead.

Re:Pixie Dust

[houghi]

Greenpeace. The company that is against everything but gives nio real alternatives.
They were heavily against atomic energy in Germany. That worked out well, right?

Re:Pixie Dust

[OhSoLaMeow]

Well, they can run it on whale oil instead.

Whale oil beef hooked!

Re:Pixie Dust

[Anonymous Coward]

You yanks are working on it

Re:Pixie Dust

[turgid]

Greenpeace should use a PWR to power their ships.

One fuel load lasts 30 years, there's plenty waste heat to keep the crew warm, plenty of spare power to generate electricity, and all the waste products are contained within the fuel cladding, so no pollution! And no pesky carbon dioxide, oxides of nitrogen or acid rain...

To be even greener, they could have their reactor loaded with MOX fuel i.e. reprocessed (used) uranium mixed with plutonium, thus helping to reduce nuclear waste from old reactors.

I'm sure Rolls Royce Nuclear Engineering could do them such a great deal.

Re:Pixie Dust

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously don't know how much fried food Americans eat.

Re:Pixie Dust

[jandersen]

Aww, how sweet - my original post got modded down as 'Troll'! - simply for suggesting that people should be reasonable and level headed, and not let the fact that an unpopular organization like Greenpeace is mentioned, confuse their judgement.

So, to your questions:

1: Yes, I drive - why not? I am not the one claiming that everything done by oil companies is by definition "EVIL!!!!" - I just say, they are not our friends, even if they try to sell that image to us. They have resisted any movement towards producing more efficient car engines, sustainbale energy etc - in fact, anything that might affect their bottom -line. It is the logical thing for them to; they only exist to generate profit for their shareholders. Popular pressure has been among the things that have persuaded them to modify their actions. If you had read and understood what I wrote originally, you would have realised that I don't say we must all stop driving cars. But it makes very good sense to me at least, that we should try to get away from our dependency on fossil fuels as soon as possible. I am willing to give up some of my luxuries to get there.

2: Extraordinary people are just ordinary people who made a decision to no longer just following the beaten path and simply do as they are told. It isn't easy, of course - if it were, then it wouldn't be extraordinary. But everybody can do it, it just requires courage. Not the idiotic 'courage' to drink yourself legless and play chicken across a busy motorway, but the real courage to open up your mind and risk having to confront your own dishonesty, and probably having to leave behind all the old fallacies that you used to believe in. As an American you ought to be in a better position to understand this than us tired, old Europeans; it's only been a century and a bit since your nation was established by ordinary people, who had no other choice than becoming extraordinary.

No, ordinary DO make a difference, if they dare to stand up against those in power, for what they really believe in.

Re:Pixie Dust

[AmiMoJo]

Well, yeah, actually. It's working out really well for Germany, and they are only 1/3rd the way through the transition.

Masturbating hard

[Anonymous Coward]

At the thought of rich white male bawbag capitalists getting their knickers in a twist.

Oh but however will we get even wealthier if people start seeing our shit for what it is?! There are only so many useful idiot Internet Libertarians to fight our battles :'(((.

So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"?

[mi]

Will the new collections feature "Greenpeace" logo instead? Simply ending a decades-long relationship with a planet-killing KKKorporation is not enough. The healing may have begun, but they must somehow atone for the past misdeeds. Buying "green credits" is one way, giving "Greenpeace" free promotion is another...

Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"?

[Anonymous Coward]

greenpeace isn't all good either they're often misguided and destructive.

having shell logos on lego gas stations hardly seems that evil, if you are building a lego town you need a lego gas station, might as well be someones gas station

Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Save the planet, kill yourself

http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/catalog/stpky.html

Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"?

[TapeCutter]

For me, Greenpeace lost all credibility in the 1980's when one by one the founding scientist left in disgust, the last one left in the early 90's when Greenpeace were using a mountain of pseudo-science to attack the use of chlorine in drinking water (arguably the most effective public health measure of the 20th century). Basically the leadership was taken over by political types and they lost their scientific roots. However I am grateful for the fact they put an end to nuking pacific islands in my neighbourhood, and wish them the best of luck in their efforts to kill the coal industry before it kills us.

Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"?

[Anonymous Coward]

What gets me is their opposition to GMO crops. I actually work in the field of crop improvement, and the stuff Greenpeace says and does put them right up there with anti-vaxxers in my opinion. They will protest biofortified or insect resistant crops in developing countries (just look at the Bt brinjal on Golden Rice controversies, both non-corporate by the way), then pat themselves in the back when the research gets blocked/destroyed, meanwhile farmers go back to spraying shitloads of pesticides and clearing more land to make up for the lost yields and children suffer malnutrition. They're just a bunch of scientifically illiterate book burning thugs using environmentalism to cover their naturalistic superstitions.

Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"?

[JaredOfEuropa]

Don't forget Brent Spar: when they occupied the platform and took some measurements, it turned out Shell was actually right, so they fudged the numbers rather than admit their mistake. Greenpeace is not about the environment any more, even though many of its individual members and employees may still be. This often happens to such organisations: at some point it's no longer about the founders' goals, but about membership, money, and influence. Greenpeace is no exception: today they are a marketing firm with themselves as sole customer.

I am sure they will offer up some excuse about Shell greenwashing its image, or brainwashing our kids about the blessings of fossil fuels, but the stark truth is that this does nothing for the environment. This announcement comes in time for GP to further their real goals: they have been out of the news for a bit and they needed a win and some publicity. Well played.

Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"?

[thegarbz]

Simply ending a decades-long relationship with a planet-killing KKKorporation is not enough.

Really? Shell is a planet-killing KKKorporation? Last I remember they were just a company providing people the products they demand. Like me who bought their stuff every week for the past 10 years. There's lots of things killing the planet, but it sure as heck isn't corporations. /Takes another sip of coffee made from beans shipped around the world in large boats.

Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"?

[Anonymous Coward]

So make it a Tesla supercharger station? You can even force kids to nag their parents to buy them a set of new electric Lego cars.

Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"?

[AmiMoJo]

Note that Greenpeace did apologise for their mistake over the content of Brent Spar. The measurement was made incorrectly and they owned up to it. However, the objection was never solely due to the amount of oil remaining in the tanks.

It's come to something when people have to try to re-write history to make them look bad.

Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but at that stage enormous amounts of money had already been wasted. They would have owned up to it if they had repaid damages.

Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they protesting transgenics? If so, then your claims of being scientifically illiterate kind of apply to yourself.

Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"?

[Anonymous Coward]

They owned up to it AFTER the campaign was already over and AFTER the Brent Spar was salvaged. It cost them nothing to say "oops" at that time, and they only did it because they were getting smeared in the scientific press for playing fast and loose with the facts. Had it not come out that they lied, they'd have never admitted the mistakes.

Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of people oppose GMO crops, like for instance most of Europe. There is no need for them, the wisdom of using them is in serious question, and the ethics of making developing countries reliant on commercial GM seeds are extremely problematic. Golden rice is a fucking joke. You can give people vitamin A at almost zero cost already, and you don't risk overdosing entire populations with it by inserting it into their staple fucking food. The whole thing is just a GM industry troll, like when oil companies pretend to care for the environment.

Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"?

[escetic7659]

Greenpeace does not oppose GMO crops. Greenpeace has concerns about the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops and calls for more precautionary research and monitoring of GMO's before widespread adoption. It might be helpful to search out their position papers on these things. A quick google gave me this, for example: http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-u...

Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"?

[Reziac]

Outfits like Greenpeace and PETA don't want to save the Earth, nor do they love animals. They want to destroy humanity, and they hate people.

Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Greenpeace does not oppose GMO crops

They destroy research and lie about lifesaving GMOs. What do you call the destruction of scientific research? There's a reason I referred to the as book burning thugs. These people actually think destroying basic research is a good thing.

Greenpeace has concerns about the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops

No they don't. Thousands of varieties of crops co-exist just fine with the proper seed saving techniques. A transgene does not change that. To give an example in some GMO crops, yellow flesh is dominant over red flesh in papaya, and yellow kernels are dominant over white in corn, yet there is still white corn and red papaya. Why is it then that these varieties can co-exist? Proper seed saving techniques. The transgenes operate on the exact same principles, it's just that no one makes a fuss until genetic engineering is involved and Greenpeace relies on you not understanding the basics principles and understanding the background context of seed saving to spread that excuse. They are lying to you.

calls for more precautionary research and monitoring of GMO's before widespread adoption.

The precautionary principle is idiocy. It says that unless you can prove something will not happen, you do nothing. Imagine if I tried to ban vaccines or wifi on the same principles, demanding that someone prove they will not, through a currently unknown mechanism, cause autism in X+1 years, demanding that you prove a negative. How foolish would it be to say that? Why does that suddenly make sense once GMOs are involved? This precautionary principle excuse is the agricultural equivalent of Russell's teapot. I suggest you read Carl Sagan's Dragon in my Garage analogy to understand why the precautionary principle is completely irrational. GMOs are extensively studied. A rational risk assessment would say there is nothing wrong with using them.

It might be helpful to search out their position papers on these things

Okay. Here they say, quote: "We continue to work with governments to get rid of genetic engineering once and for all." Here they say: "Greenpeace has been an advocate for keeping Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) out of our food supply and encouraging consumers to only buy foods that are GMO-free." They use lots of fearmongering imagery. That's not anti-GMO? The hell it isn't. Greenpeace is one of the biggest anti-GMO organizations out there, they've got no science to back them, and their work has helped hold my field back by at least a decade and a half, as well as contributed to hunger, malnutrition, environmental degradation, and climate change.

WTF is Legos?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is Legos? The plural of LEGO is LEGO.

Re:WTF is Legos?

[anchovy_chekov]

No.. it's "Lego bricks". Lego is the company, Lego bricks are the product. Lego themselves tried to clarify the situation, with a notice on their website (since removed):

Please always refer to our products as “LEGO bricks or toys” and not “LEGOS.” By doing so, you will be helping to protect and preserve a brand of which we are very proud, and that stands for quality the world over”

Re:WTF is Legos?

[Smonson78]

I came here to say the same thing. It's surprising how angry it makes me to hear idiots fart all over this simple grammatical concept. I want to just let it go... but I can't.

Re:WTF is Legos?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Most definitely legos

Re:WTF is Legos?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you're so mad and can't let it go because you have too many legos shoved up your ass. Just a possibility....

Re:WTF is Legos?

[Anonymous Coward]

Using LEGO as a mass noun conflicts with ordinary English usage, and the company itself doesn't want you to use it that way, so what reasons could you possibly have?
If you're not worried about trademark dilution, say you play with legos, like the rest of us do.

Re:WTF is Legos?

[JonathanR]

Only when the farmer finishes collecting all the straws in his field.

Re:WTF is Legos?

[TapeCutter]

say you play with legos, like the rest of us do

Must be an American thing, here in Oz your average John-o and Steve-o play with their leg-o, great for keeping them occupied while dad nicks down to the bottle-o.

Re:WTF is Legos?

[Anonymous Coward]

For some reason, that is the term used for Lego bricks on Slashdot. I've never heard or read it anywhere else.

Re:WTF is Legos?

[goulo]

Sure, just like there are not 2 Fords in the parking lot, but 2 Ford automobiles, and not 3 Pepsis on the table, but 3 Pepsi drinks, and not 4 Dells in the marketing department, but 4 Dell computers.

Speakers, not corporate lawyers, determine language use, even if corporations wish it were otherwise.

Re:WTF is Legos?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's Danish. In English, it's legos

Re:WTF is Legos?

[Trailer Trash]

Sure, just like there are not 2 Fords in the parking lot, but 2 Ford automobiles, and not 3 Pepsis on the table, but 3 Pepsi drinks, and not 4 Dells in the marketing department, but 4 Dell computers.

Speakers, not corporate lawyers, determine language use, even if corporations wish it were otherwise.

True, but they have a deeper worry here. They don't want their trademark to become a generic (and thus subject to being lost) so they have to make sure it's used properly at all times. While they can't change the way people talk they can have some influence over how folks write.

Plenty of trademarks have become genericized, Kleenex is a great example. Here's a good list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

Making that list is a mixed blessing. It means that you've owned a market to the point that people equate any product in the market to your own. On the other hand, you can lose control of such a trademark.

Companies like LEGO don't want that to happen.

Re:WTF is Legos?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously slashdot, now we're arguing semantics over LEGOs? Jesus Christ, this is just sad.

Re:WTF is Legos?

[goulo]

Sure, I know why companies want to control the use of language. But in the end, speakers, not corporate lawyers, determine language use. And most speakers don't really feel a strong obligation to protect the trademark of some multimillion dollar company. There aren't usually outraged comments when someone says kleenex or xerox or google or any of zillions of other trademarks "inappropriately", so why the outrage about using "lego" to refer to the brick instead of the company that makes the brick? It seems oddly inconsistent.

Re:WTF is Legos?

[Richy_T]

And has a nice bowl of Ramens for dinner.

They backed Greenpeace, actually.

[McFortner]

How can they be "getting out of the way"? There are only two choices, a) stick with Shell and snub Greenpeace, or b) dump Shell and please Greenpeace. There is no middle ground where they can please both.

Re:They backed Greenpeace, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

They are going to do what all European companies would do.
Publicly they will snub Shell.
But they will still need Shell or some other OIL company to get their plastic.

Re:They backed Greenpeace, actually.

[camperdave]

False dichotomy. They could snub both. Dump the Shell pieces and release a whaling set.

Re:They backed Greenpeace, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't pick Greenpeace. They picked removing a hate campaign against them.

I find both the campaign and the result rather disturbing. They state they are against arctic oil and targets Shell. However while Shell is kind of unharmed from this (in the big picture), Lego might have taken a serious blow to sales and they have nothing to say about oil drillings at all. Legally Lego can sue Greenpeace for lost profits, but surely that would cause even more bad publicity.

Don't get me wrong. I do care about the environment a lot. However this campaign does absolutely nothing for the environment whatsoever. All it does is hurting one of the few toy makers, who insist on using non-toxic plastic. Lego did make this contract with Shell in the first place to ensure stable delivery of high quality non-toxic plastic. Lego wouldn't have had this problem if they just bought the cheapest (and toxic) plastic off the marked like most toy makers.

Also I wonder why Greenpeace cares so much about oil rigs, which might be build in the future and not about those which have been north of Alaska for years.

Re:They backed Greenpeace, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

Kinda what I was thinking. They canceled the partnership because of Greenpeace. That is pretty much the exact opposite of "choosing no one".

And while there may be no middle ground where both companies can be pleased, there is a third option. Continue with your current agreement with Shell, but start no new agreements. Keep the status quo, in otherwords.

Re:They backed Greenpeace, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just dump all the LEGO bricks into the ocean!

Re:They backed Greenpeace, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

Legally Lego can sue Greenpeace for lost profits

Legally, they can sue you or anyone else for lost profits.

Re:They backed Greenpeace, actually.

[kolbe]

They did that once already in the UK back in 1997... Still washing up to this day

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...

Re:They backed Greenpeace, actually.

[DrXym]

Well they could dip a few seabirds in crude oil and then clean them up again.

Re:They backed Greenpeace, actually.

[Attila Dimedici]

And the worst part about it is that Shell employees probably buy more Legos than everyone who even knew that Greenpeace was running a campaign against Lego over this.

THIS JUST IN

[confused one]

This just in: LEGO are made from refined petroleum products. OMFG NO. The horror.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be one of those black and white geektards. Even water is poisonous if you drink too much of it. If the petroleum industry were reduced to pumping 1000x the total of all legos ever each year it would still be a gynormous improvement in pollution levels.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[Anonymous Coward]

How in the world can they oppose arctic drilling while using plastic products? The hypocrites!

Re:THIS JUST IN

[Anonymous Coward]

If Greenpeace hippies stopped using gasoline powered vehicles then they would have a credibility. Funny how the strongest of liberal hippies would never give up modern conveniences.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the people who are trying to change the world should deliberately hobble themselves compared to the billion dollar corprations who are fighting them because if a handful of hippies stop using gasoline then that will totally fix the problem, no need to change the rest of society.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[zippthorne]

If they want people to stop doing something, they should demonstrate that you can still get other things done without doing the thing they want people to stop doing.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[Anonymous Coward]

They're trying to raise the prices on competing plastic toys.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[Anonymous Coward]

Greenpeace should practice what they preach! And teach the rest of us how to follow their example. Because right now, I have no idea how to do basic things without consume fossil fuels.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[mybadluck22]

They want to prevent arctic drilling, not general vehicle use. They're not saying people should never use oil.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[rtb61]

Gees, I just thought it was a problem when you burned it or used it disposable products that collect in the environment. So no apparently oil used in long lasting kept through generations Lego is the problem. I heard it was especially bad as carpet mines, I never knew you and your moderators had thought, carbon chain products could be dangerous even when you 'DID NOT FUCKING BURN IT'.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[Anonymous Coward]

This just in: LEGO are made from refined petroleum products. OMFG NO. The horror.

The point is that lego has a marketing alliance with a company that has a plan for the arctic that greenpeace thinks is unethical. And they have their marketing logos on kids toys.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[Euler]

Yes, exactly. The most successful way to convince people is leading by example. Ghandi's success wasn't from conscripting insurgents, he didn't lobby the British Parliament in hopes of winning politically or through the legal system. i.e. he didn't force his way or ask for permission. He simply demonstrated a method of resistance that people could follow and lived it every day at great sacrifice.

I give a lot of respect to people who try simple living, reducing carbon footprint, installing solar, etc. At least they are experimenting, innovating, and sacrificing creature comforts to show what is possible. They will discover what works and what doesn't. I have no patience for the self-righteous who can throw money at telling us we are wrong to assuage their guilt, stop by Starbucks driving a Lexus SUV on their way home to a 3000 sq. foot home. Al Gore can chide us all he wants, I'm not going to listen unless he actually gives up his carbon footprint rather than buying offsets.

I'm all for reducing environmental impact and saving animals, but we need to find ways to do it that everyone can afford.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[I'm New Around Here]

I have no idea what you just said, but I will defend unto death your right to mangle sentences that way.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[Anonymous Coward]

> Ghandi's success wasn't from conscripting insurgents

Neither did Ghandi opt-out of modern society to make a point. You've cherry-picked a case where "leading by example" did not cause him to essentially silence himself.

> I'm all for reducing environmental impact and saving animals, but we need to find ways to do it that everyone can afford.

So... Why aren't you giving up cars? Whenever some people are take action there is always some asshole who comes along and tells them "you aren't doing it right." That's just cover for, "I don't like your cause but I'm not man enough to tell you it is wrong, so I'm going to attack you from another direction."

Re:THIS JUST IN

[Anonymous Coward]

If they want people to stop doing something, they should demonstrate that you can still get other things done without doing the thing they want people to stop doing.

Should people who are advocating for the legalization of assisted suicide kill themselves then? Because when the entire society is set up to work one way and you think society needs to change the best way for you to convince others is to start over from scratch yourself. There are trillions of dollars invested in the oil infrastructure but you think people working on a shoe-string budget should basically disarm themselves in order to effect change.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[Zynder]

You owe me a new keyboard! Preferably one made of Legos! You've won the Internet today. I'm outta here!

Re:THIS JUST IN

[khallow]

You've cherry-picked a case where "leading by example" did not cause him to essentially silence himself.

"Cherry-picked"? I have to agree with the original poster. Lead by example. And when, due to the deep flaws in the belief system, that behavior causes you to silence yourself, it's a net win for everyone else.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[Anonymous Coward]

>> , "I don't like your cause but I'm not man enough to tell you it is wrong, so I'm going to attack you from another direction."
> that behavior causes you to silence yourself, it's a net win for everyone else.

Hey look, exactly as predicted. You don't give a shit about "leading by example" you just don't like their cause and are reaching for any reason to shit on them.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[Anonymous Coward]

They are not saying it, but they are thinking it. At least, the crazed activists are. The leaders behind it all are too busy rolling in money and laughing to really think of anything but siphoning more money to themselves from gullible fools :)

Re:THIS JUST IN

[Anonymous Coward]

"Cherry-picked"? I have to agree with the original poster. Lead by example.

You are right.
Occupy Wallstreet should not use corporate products like cellphones or computers to coordinate.
Proponents of gay marriage should just get gay married already.
People who protest NSA spying should just avoid all internet communications that could be recorded.
Proponents of assisted suicide should lead by example and kill themselves.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[thegarbz]

They want to prevent arctic drilling, not general vehicle use. They're not saying people should never use oil.

And that is their fundamental hypocrisy.

Drilling oil isn't endangering the environment anymore than any other manufacturing or primary resource industry. What kills the environment is burning the oil.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[AmiMoJo]

While I agree with your sentiment I would point out that one of the major goals of reducing pollution and carbon footprint is to live a better life, without sacrificing health and the environment we live in. If you have to give up comfort you are doing it wrong.

For example, a naturally cooled building that uses things like smart blinds, well planed air flow (as simple as having windows positioned to allow cool air to flow through the building) and more appropriate materials will not only keep you cool but also reduce the amount you spend on air conditioning and do away with "air con chill". Even a smart air conditioner that knows when the room is occupied and directs air flow away from people (fairly standard on Japanese models) improves your quality of life and generates less CO2.

LED lighting gives you better light and reduces the amount of time you spend changing bulbs. Electric cars cost less to fuel, need less maintenance and improve your immediate environment by not spewing particulate matter all over it. Using less oil means your country is less likely to start/join wars to protect its supply. Solar PV isn't the absolute best investment in terms of return, but at least that return is guaranteed and there are other side benefits from having it.

It's not about giving up our modern way of life, it's about improving it.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[khallow]

Occupy Wallstreet should not use corporate products like cellphones or computers to coordinate.

What makes something a "corporate product"? And if Occupy Wallstreet really is about not using corporate products, then sure they shouldn't use them.

Proponents of gay marriage should just get gay married already.

I guess you haven't been paying attention. Same sex marriage has been around for a while. They are practicing what they preach. For example, I attended one such in the early 90s.

People who protest NSA spying should just avoid all internet communications that could be recorded.

No, the correct analogy is that the NSA protesters shouldn't engage in mass spying on the rest of the world. Though I can't figure out how that restriction on their behavior keeps them from spreading the word.

Proponents of assisted suicide should lead by example and kill themselves.

The usual people who advocate assisted suicide for ending suffering from end of life pain do practice what they preach. They aren't usually at a point where assisted suicide is warranted. The rather odious voluntary human extinctionists on the other hand do not.

Most of your examples indicate you haven't thought about this.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[khallow]

Hey look, exactly as predicted. You don't give a shit about "leading by example" you just don't like their cause and are reaching for any reason to shit on them.

And they gave me a really good reason to "shit" on them - glaring hypocrisy. My view is that climate alarmism advocacy (the bit about climate change being so bad that human civilization will be threatened) is just another status signaling gimmick like having a flashy car or wearing a tie.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[gl4ss]

I'm pretty sure most greenpeace hucksters would say that people should stop using oil - and then drive away on a two stroke.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[drinkypoo]

At least it's a long-lasting use. That's only a little crazy. Burning it just to move excessively heavy conveyances down the road at ludicrous speeds and turning it into pollution is insane. Oil is too valuable to burn. If we burn it all up, we'll have to make Lego out of inferior bioplastics

Re:THIS JUST IN

[Anonymous Coward]

> No, the correct analogy is that the NSA protesters shouldn't

Lol, look at you! Deciding that my parody of your irrational claims is irrational.

> The usual people who advocate assisted suicide for ending suffering from end of life pain do practice what they preach.
> They aren't usually at a point where assisted suicide is warranted.

So... The people who you don't like that want to change the world must start living in the changed world today, not in the future when they've actually achieved their goals. But the people who you do like, those people can wait until the future when the conditions are right.

> Most of your examples indicate you haven't thought about this.

Yes, precisely! You are so close to realizing that for yourself it isn't about being logical or anything else intellectually rigorous, it is purely about you hating them and latching on to any random argument that pops into your head. All you are doing is stamping your foot in anger like a toddler.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[Anonymous Coward]

> My view is that climate alarmism advocacy (the bit about climate change being so bad that human civilization will be threatened

If human civilization weren't at risk it wouldn't be a problem. There were plenty of people just like you back in the 60s when the EPA started going after polluters. Trying to pretend that the risks to the health and well being of millions of americans weren't actually at risk. You've got some weird mood affiliation going on there, that's for sure.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[Anonymous Coward]

> LED lighting gives you better light

That's not really true. Even the most expensive, professional artist grade LED lighting does not match the same quality of light you get from an incandescent light-bulb. In general it is good enough, but it is definitely not better.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[Khashishi]

Eh, drilling is pretty damaging in of itself.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[cyberchondriac]

Well, ultimately, yes, they are. Tacitly for now, more explicitly in the future.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[cyberchondriac]

If they want people to stop doing something, they should demonstrate that you can still get other things done without doing the thing they want people to stop doing.

Should people who are advocating for the legalization of assisted suicide kill themselves then?

Wow.. just, massive logic fail. That's not even a comparison. Advocating for the right to make your own choice regarding your life is nothing like being forced to kill yourself. I guess here we see some insight into the twisted perceptions of greenpeace whackos.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[Anonymous Coward]

Is turning petrolium into LEGOs a form of carbon sequestration? Surely it's better for the environment that burning it.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[khallow]

If human civilization weren't at risk it wouldn't be a problem.

Exactly.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[khallow]

Deciding that my parody of your irrational claims is irrational.

There's another word for this, "noise". If you could have made a real, credible rebuttal, you'd have done so. It's only when you have nothing to say about a subject, but you have say it anyway, that we get the "parody".

The people who you don't like that want to change the world must start living in the changed world today, not in the future when they've actually achieved their goals.

Yes.

But the people who you do like, those people can wait until the future when the conditions are right.

Conditions are "right", right now. I have to be inconsistent in some way first for your comment to be relevant.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[khallow]

You are so close to realizing that for yourself it isn't about being logical or anything else intellectually rigorous, it is purely about you hating them and latching on to any random argument that pops into your head. All you are doing is stamping your foot in anger like a toddler.

And another sign that this is just noise: amateur pop psychology - or what we in the amateur pop psychology circlejerk call "psychological projection".

Re:THIS JUST IN

[thegarbz]

So is building a house, or going to take a poo in a toilet. The point is drilling oil is a tiny drop of proverbial piss in the ocean that is global destruction caused by our species obsession with oil.

We have done far more damage refining oil, and shipping oil than we ever will drilling it.
We have done far more damage burning it in our cars, lamps, and power plants than we ever did refining it and shipping it.

The buck stops somewhere, and that place is the car seat, both yours and mine.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[Euler]

>> Ghandi's success wasn't from conscripting insurgents

>Neither did Ghandi opt-out of modern society to make a point. You've cherry-picked a case where "leading by example" did not cause him to essentially silence himself.

A low-cost video camera and a computer at the local library is all you really need these days to be notable and show what you have been doing. If you have good ideas, people will follow.

>> I'm all for reducing environmental impact and saving animals, but we need to find ways to do it that everyone can afford.

> So... Why aren't you giving up cars? Whenever some people are take action there is always some asshole who comes along and tells them "you aren't doing it right." That's just cover for, "I don't like your cause but I'm not man enough to tell you it is wrong, so I'm going to attack you from another direction."

I'm just a follower. I'd rather follow people who demonstrate something workable rather than something too idealistic to actually work.

Re:THIS JUST IN

[smellotron]

Ghandi's success wasn't from conscripting insurgents

A man like Gandhi doesn't need conscripts.

Another corporation falls...

[MatthiasF]

...to religious bullying.

Re:Another corporation falls...

[stepho-wrs]

Religious? When did Greenpeace become religious?

Re: Another corporation falls...

[Anonymous Coward]

When you operate on dogma instead of well reasoned logical positions, what distinction exists between one cult and another?

Re:Another corporation falls...

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

You might want to look up the purpose of the PR department. The corporation doesn't care, it has no feelings to hurt. Shareholders demand to err on the side of caution.

I would much prefer the citizens bully the corporations than the other way around!

Of course the best solution would be the government to step in and say "no advertising logos in any childrens toys", which is ultimately best for the children. The movie, tv and videogame industry all use fake products to tell their stories all the time. No reason why toys should have real corporate logos in them. Pure mind control of the youth and should be stopped.

Re:Another corporation falls...

[TheRaven64]

Mid '80s, when all of the scientists left?

Re:Another corporation falls...

[Talderas]

Of course the best solution would be the government to step in and say "no advertising logos in any childrens toys", which is ultimately best for the children. The movie, tv and videogame industry all use fake products to tell their stories all the time. No reason why toys should have real corporate logos in them. Pure mind control of the youth and should be stopped.

Think of the children!

Re:Another corporation falls...

[drinkypoo]

Think of the children!

While this canard is often trotted out to justify all manner of ridiculousness, not thinking of the children when making decisions only guarantees an undefined future.

Sooooo...

[jpellino]

Tesla Supercharger stations from now on?

Re:Sooooo...

[Anonymous Coward]

who would care? the percentage of teslas on the road compared to every other vehicle type is, well, next to nothing.

ESSO

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

That was what they had on special Lego blocks, when I was a boy...

I think yanks called 'er Exxon, by then.

Re:ESSO

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW, what you call Esso is an American company. It's Esso, as in S.O., or Standard Oil.

Re:ESSO

[ihtoit]

newp, Shell is Exxon-Mobil, ESSO is Standard Oil (from "S.O.")

Re:ESSO

[physicsprof]

That's simply not true. Esso is an Exxon-Mobil brand. See http://corporate.exxonmobil.co... Shell refers to Royal Dutch Shell, an entirely different company...

Re:ESSO

[ihtoit]

my bad

Re:ESSO

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Prolly true. But we had Esso in UK and on continent (Netherlands? Hard to recall) back in the day.

Re:ESSO

[The Grim Reefer]

Prolly true. But we had Esso in UK and on continent (Netherlands? Hard to recall) back in the day.

We had Esso in the US as well. Though I doubt most people on /. are old enough to remember them.

Re:ESSO

[Anonymous Coward]

too far, I think the shortlisted bidders are Lukoil and Rosneft

Re:ESSO

[cyberchondriac]

This. Exxon used to be called Esso, I remember the gas station downtown as a kid, and the big sign.. and the old coke machine too.

Re:ESSO

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

It was Exxon, in the early 70's in the 'States. Before that? I remember "Standard" stations. Might have been regional.

Mobil had a Pegasus! That's cool when your 5.

Re:ESSO

[The Grim Reefer]

Esso was around in the North East until '72-'73. My father worked at one on the PA turnpike during the summers when he was in college in the early 1960's. When Standard Oil was broken up in the early 1900's many of the companies had rights to the Esso name within their own state. Some didn't object to others using the name within their state as well.

I think the southern states had to re-brand in the mid to late 1960's to Enco

I remember the Mobil Pegasus well. I think it was pretty cool at any age. But that was the 1970's for you. We thought airbrushing naked women riding dragons on cars, and especially vans, was cool then too.

The Exxon tiger was around back then also.

Re:ESSO

[naris]

That simple IS true. Esso is an Exxon-Mobil brand, which is a direct descendant of Standard Oil. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil)

Re:ESSO

[naris]

Strike that, Indeed Esso is not Shell as parent indicates, as it is part of the Standard Oil derivative that is Exxon-Mobil.

Re:ESSO

[mitzoe]

Remember sniglets by Rich Hall? One was "essoasso": someone who cuts through a gas station to avoid a stoplight. Didn't make sense to me but my Dad explained Esso used to be an oil/gas station company. So though Esso is before my time, that's how I remember them.

Re:ESSO

[The Grim Reefer]

Wasn't that on Not Necessarily the News? That show was funny as hell.

Re:ESSO

[RockDoctor]

They're almost all variants and fragments of Standard Oil - "Esso" = S.O.= Standard Oil ; Mobil descends from SO-New York ; Chevron from SO-California ; Marathon from SO's Ohio branch.

Shell is one of the small number of oil companies that has never been part of the SO family tree ; BP another (though it has brought up several baby-SOs..

Just Like Intel

[Anonymous Coward]

LEGO isn't just "getting out the way" they are specifically cutting ties with Shell because of political pressure. In this case I agree with their decision, with Intel (and their dropping of Gamastura) I disagreed. But regardless of what I think, these companies need to own up to the implications of their decisions.

Once you are already involved there is simply no choice available to you that does not take a side. Thus the only option is to take the side that is in line with your previous PR on the subject.

But isn't plastic ....

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not a scientist, but isn't it rather hard to get out of the way of greenpeace's problem with oil when your product is made from petroleum?

Re:But isn't plastic ....

[Anonymous Coward]

The product is MADE from petroleum but Greenpeace's problem is Shell predominantly digging up petroleum to BURN, with all the attendant consequences.
What happens when we encounter the great plastic shortage in 30 yrs or so, that is the real problem!

F*ck ya.. way to grow a set..

[Anonymous Coward]

Righton Lego,,

congrats on stepping up and not stepping aside for profit..

Massive copyright violation on that video?

[Sebby]

I'm pretty sure nobody at LEGO or the producers of the movie signed off on any of that!

Re:Massive copyright violation on that video?

[plover]

None of it was awesome.

As a former Shell RDC shareowner

[WillAffleckUW]

As a former owner of Royal Dutch Shell shares, I'm not that surprised.

The sooner you talk about the real threats to climate change, and to the Arctic in particular, which are, in order, China use of coal, China use of oil, and Canada (Alberta) use of tar sands, the better. All of the growth since 2000 has been those. India and the US, the 2nd and 3rd contributors (2014 UN data), have not grown their total use of any of those (coal, oil, tar sands).

Focus on the grasping giant first. The others are manageable.

Re:As a former Shell RDC shareowner

[Immerman]

>Focus on the grasping giant first. The others are entrenched.

Fixed that for you. Even if we stopped all increases in fossil fuel consumption we'd still have a major problem on our hands, but it's a lot easier to convince the new guy that he shouldn't make the same mistakes we have than it is to alter the existing status quo.

Of course where China and other developing nations are concerned there's also the non-insubstantial problem that we're essentially telling them "We got rich burning cheap fuel and screwing up the world, and we're not going to slow down, but don't YOU do the same thing or we'll all be super-screwed." I mean sure China has recently taken the crown as the worlds largest consumer of fossil fuels, but they also have by far the largest population, and their per-capita fuel consumption puts them WAY down the list.

Re:As a former Shell RDC shareowner

[AmiMoJo]

There is a better way to encourage China to clean up, which the EU has been using. Much of China's economy is based on exporting goods to the west. If the demand is for efficient goods that are made in a responsible way then China will meet that demand.

Take the EU RoHS regulation. Now China doesn't use certain substances in manufacturing any more. Taxes are starting to include the amount of pollution generated during manufacture, so China has an incentive to reduce it as much as possible. There is also demand for renewable energy products, and that's one of the reasons why China now has more wind energy than anywhere else.

Thee up-coming countries are not dumb. They can see that pollution is already a major problem that costs them money. Fortunately the west has already spent a lot of cash developing cleaner ways of doing things, which they can now make use of too. After all, a lot of the tech we invented is made there anyway.

Fuck Greenpeace

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

they are as bad as PETA. Lego are children's toys, leave your goddamn petty politics out of them.

Re:Fuck Greenpeace

[Harlequin80]

This. 100 times this.

If you have a bone to pick with an organisation target that organisation. Going for non related entities because they make a softer target is wrong. The end does not justify the means. Where I work we have had death threats directed at us because some of our clients are in the mining and oil & gas space. There is nothing that can justify that type of action.

Re:Fuck Greenpeace

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. I used to be mildly leaning towards agreement with many of Greenpeace's goals. But after seeing them act like dicks for decades, now I want the whales to be hunted to extinction, I want pristine wild areas to be drilled for oil, and I wouldn't mind seeing every active member of Greenpeace put into a pit with a bear so they can feel Nature's tender embrace first-hand.

Re:Fuck Greenpeace

[Anonymous Coward]

> Going for non related entities because they make a softer target is wrong.

You appear to be laboring under the false belief that a company that has a promotional relationship with another company is 'non-related.' Shell is an oil company, they were paying lego to run a promotional campaign for them. That's about as related as they could get without pumping the oil themselves.

Re:Fuck Greenpeace

[Harlequin80]

No I absolutely see them as non related. A related organisation, you could argue, would be Schlumberger who do the drilling for Shell on a number of their projects. Or Sinopec which they have a joint venture with in the Arrow CSG fields. If Shell runs an ad campaign in a news paper does that make the news paper a related organisation?

Seriously how are you modded Informative? I assume that every advertising company is a related entity then? Google must be hell in bed with all those big nasty companies then.

Is Slashdot related to Microsoft because I get Mircosoft ads here? No.

Is Greenpeace related to the Oil & Gas companies that manufacture the fuels for their vehicles related? No.

Re:Fuck Greenpeace

[Anonymous Coward]

> Is Slashdot related to Microsoft because I get Mircosoft ads here? No.

Which is exactly why all those websites have no problem letting ad networks run ads for porn on them. Because there is no implicit endorsement at all.

> Seriously how are you modded Informative?

Because your world view is completely out of sync with reality. But I'm not surprised. You are the one who equated death threats with a protest video, because that's totally the same thing.

Re:Fuck Greenpeace

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! And bring back lead toys for children. Won't somebody think of the children?!

Re:Fuck Greenpeace

[Anonymous Coward]

That's about as related as they could get without pumping the oil themselves.

A related organisation would be Schlumberger who do the drilling for Shell on a number of their projects

Wooooosh!

I think you are the personification of Upton Sinclair's line that, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

Re:Fuck Greenpeace

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

I am no greenpeace fan, but a corporation putting a logo on a child's toy in order to influence their future purchasing decisions though brain washing, is kind of asking for whatever the fuck they get, don't you think?

Re:Fuck Greenpeace

[radtea]

If you have a bone to pick with an organisation target that organisation. Going for non related entities because they make a softer target is wrong. The end does not justify the means. Where I work we have had death threats directed at us because some of our clients are in the mining and oil & gas space. There is nothing that can justify that type of action.

Greenpeace and other anti-science groups like the Republican Party all take this stone-age "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and "the friend of my enemy is my enemy" approach to human relations.

Roy Baumeister, in this truly excellent book Evil discusses idealism as a cause of evil, and Greenpeace are a pretty good representation of the logic he describes: if you believe yourself to be purely and ideally good, then anyone opposing you and anyone who helps them in any way must be purely evil. And what lies, threats and violence aren't justified in the name of fighting pure evil?

Baumeister uses actual cases (and lots of them) to show how false-to-fact this kind of thinking always is, and how much moral thinking is actually about delusions of evil rather than evil as it is done. Anyone even mildly interested in making the world actually better, rather than just feeling good about themselves while helping to make things worse, would do well to read this book. It does more for the study of good and evil than three thousand years of fact-free philosophical imaginings.

Re:Fuck Greenpeace

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, didn't a bunch of Republicans stop their kids from going to school because a certain Dumbo'esc character would be giving them a speech? The president's wife tries to get kids to eat vegetables (instead of the mush marketing people call food) and it's called brainwashing?

Yes, having kids toys with an _oil_ company's logo on the side is just free speech. No, it doesn't mean the people at Greenpeace aren't allowed to protest it.

Re:Fuck Greenpeace

[Anonymous Coward]

"trying to improve the world" vs. "coporate marketing". Yea I think the latter is totally better suited for children's toys.

Re:Fuck Greenpeace

[Anonymous Coward]

The real Lego/Microsoft analogy is that if Microsoft were paying Slashdot for promotional articles on Microsoft products then it would be the same as Lego getting payed for Shell toys.

Re:Fuck Greenpeace

[AmiMoJo]

Lego are big on sustainability and protecting the environment: http://aboutus.lego.com/en-gb/...

Greenpeace is pointing out that their stated goals and values are incompatible with the actions of Shell, a company they associate with. Lego have accepted this and decided to do something about it.

Right target, reasonable argument based on Lego's stated position and goals, reasonable outcome.

Re:Fuck Greenpeace

[allcoolnameswheretak]

So it seems we have the following actors:
Shell: Lawful Evil, Lord of the Dark Resource
Greenpeace: Chaotic Good, Sea Ranger
LEGO: Lawful Neutral, Merchant

And what you're saying is:
Good > Evil
But!
Lawful > Chaotic

So it follows that:

2x Lawful - 1x Evil > 1x Good - 1x Chaotic
= 2x Lawful - 1x Good > 1x Evil - 1x Chaotic

Meaning
Lawful > (Good + Evil - Chaotic) / 2
Good Good - Chaotic - 2x Lawful

So for your assumption to be true, assuming a neutral moral stance of Good == Evil, it would have to be that:

Law = Moral - Chaos / 2
Moral = Law + Chaos * 2
Chaos = 2x (Law + Moral)

Which doesn't make any sense at all, so I strongly believe you have no freaking idea what the hell you are talking about.

Re:Fuck Greenpeace

[ynoref]

Agreed. I am so tired of these people.

I'm tempted to make a "Leave Britney Alone" youtube video for Legos, and maybe a LetGoMyLego video...

Legos...they're for everyone...they last forever...

Re:Fuck Greenpeace

[drinkypoo]

Fuck Greenpeace they are as bad as PETA. Lego are children's toys, leave your goddamn petty politics out of them.

Fuck Lego they are as bad as Shell. Lego are children's toys, leave your goddamn brainwashing advertising out of them.

Now more SRSLY, I own a crapload of Lego. I don't think Fuck Lego. (Ow!) But I do think that putting Shell advertising on Lego blocks is a form of brainwashing, just like back when gas stations used to give away toy cars festooned with logo stickers. Get the kids identifying with the brand, programmed to worship the logo, before they're even vaguely capable of understanding the ramifications. If Lego had told Greenpeace to fuck off, then I would say "Fuck Lego" because that would be bullshit. Children don't need to be advertised to by world-raping corporations on their creative toys.

Re:Fuck Greenpeace

[drinkypoo]

Greenpeace and other anti-science groups

Greenpeace is not at all anti-science. They are more than willing to use it in order to point out just how badly we are fucking ourselves. Are you actually this ignorant, or are you simply attempting to impugn their character in order to attack them, as part of a strategy of legitimizing your shit behavior?

Re:Fuck Greenpeace

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong. I for one had a bunch of Shell Legos as a kid. I still have them as an adult. I do not get gas at Shell unless it one of those times, when on a long road trip and the only gas station is a Shell in the middle of nowhere. I can also say that my friends and family that had Shell Lego as a kid do not get gas at Shell stations.

Let the few that thing they are right rule the world. And anyone that has a view that does not line with them are in the wrong.

Re:Fuck Greenpeace

[turp182]

Your last sentence is quite ironic (I have little to no idea what you were talking about), but I thoroughly enjoyed your post.

Keep it up, whatever it is (I believe "it" = framing various parties as D&D entities and then, somehow, performing mathematical calculations based on the words describing moral direction, resulting in nonsensical results?).

"Sea Ranger" was my favorite part.

Re:Fuck Greenpeace

[Anonymous Coward]

The next time I visit my parents, I'll pull my Legos out of storage and build an arctic drilling set.

Re:Fuck Greenpeace

[Anonymous Coward]

NO...!

Next steps

[arielCo]

• * No little plastic cows, because global warming.
• * No jet airplanes, because they pollute so much.
• * Nothing related to Japan, because whaling.
• * No circus sets because poor animals.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

Re:Next steps

[Irate Engineer]

Gosh, I guess we should just sit around and bang rocks together and grunt...until someone from the rock protection lobby sends a cease and desist letter for banging rocks. Or until the chimpanzees claim infringement on their "entertainment systems" patents.

Re:Next steps

[Anonymous Coward]

I do get the idea, but none of those is a commercial brand, like Shell.

Lego isn't removing gas stations from its cities, it's just removing advertising for a specific company. Which is a good thing regardless of what that company happens to sell.

Re:Next steps

[plover]

Gosh, I guess we should just sit around and bang rocks together and grunt...until someone from the rock protection lobby sends a cease and desist letter for banging rocks.

Perhaps if we banged the rocks together after carefully placing the lawyers' heads between said rocks? Kuh! Kuh! Kuh!

Re:Next steps

[Anonymous Coward]

So should they also discontinue all the tie-ins with Star Wars, Batman, etc.?

Re:Next steps

[Oligonicella]

How good of you to decide for everyone.

Re:Next steps

[Anonymous Coward]

> How good of you to decide for everyone.

Lego decided for everybody. If they thought sticking up for Shell was the right thing to do, then they would have done it. Nobody put a gun to their head.

Re:Next steps

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like good news... then lego can go back to being about building things with bricks, using your imagination.

Re:Next steps

[Nkwe]

• * No little plastic cows, because global warming.
• * No jet airplanes, because they pollute so much.
• * Nothing related to Japan, because whaling.
• * No circus sets because poor animals.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

Good, but not for the reasons listed. I always thought Legos were better before all the "special" bricks and items. "Better" as in better for the imagination. Some of the sets these days are almost entirely custom pieces that are not useful for building things other than the picture on the box.

Get your special pieces off my lawn.

Re:Next steps

[Richard_at_work]

Depends how far you want to go back - there were special bricks when I had the castle range back in the early 1980's, and that wasn't the first special range either.

Re:Next steps

[PseudoCoder]

Bingo. De-industrialization has been the goal of the Marxist movement since it became a movement. If you read Marx you'll see that he essentially advocates for an egalitarian agrarian society, because it is the only logical conclusion to the idea of ensuring equal distribution of the means of production. Once Dude A (by way of technological advance) has a better way of producing something than Dude B, you can no longer ensure "equality". In the Communist Manifesto he even laments the discovery of America because it created economic opportunities. How "progressive".

That's why the Eco movement are increasingly Marxist in ideology. I've heard them referred to as the watermelon movement; green on the outside, red on the inside.

Re:Next steps

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Yes Lego was very bad with that during the later parts of the 90's and 2000's and they lost a lot of customers because of it. That said they learned and have gotten a lot better about the special pieces of late. While some of the detail pieces they now have are very detailed and special purpose (looking at you lego frogs and your ilk) there are other pieces that have been been added that are very generic, especially in the studs not on top category. Lego has done a good job in recent years of making more generic parts but using them in interesting ways. Also they have been more willing to use pieces from other themes in other ones so there is a lot more Technic parts in sets that would have never seen them previously.

A great example of this is the recently released Lego Ghostbusters Ecto-1 there are only a few pieces that didn't exist when I was younger (the wheels, slanted grates, some studs not not top ones, and a few others I can't remember) but even at that most of it is made from very generic pieces. It is mostly the reuse of things like pneumatic hose, whips, light saber handles, roof tiles, etc in interesting ways that makes the set. If you would prefer there is this little guy which is also similar in that it has some pieces that didn't exist when I was little but is made from very generic pieces that probably should have been out when I was younger. It does however seem that the style of building has changed a lot from when I was a kid. Now when building vehicles there are a lot fewer bricks used and instead lots of plates and tiles which were fairly rare when I was younger. Or are you implying that if it isn't composed of bricks that are entirely made with right angles it isn't a proper lego set?

Re:Next steps

[arielCo]

I mostly agree with that - my big issue with today's Lego (and I think yours) is rather the single-purpose pieces. I liked Legoland's antenna dishes that you could mate in several different ways, and the minifig's hands which had another "standard" dimension that also included stick antennae, etc etc. (don't get me started with Technic). Many of today's sets are just toys that you can disassemble and put back together.

Back on topic, I meant the theme on the box, which is even more visible than Shell's tiny logo on a brick so I wouldn't be surprised if they go after gas-station kits (though I suspect anti-corporatism played a significant part here).

Re:Next steps

[rahvin112]

Marx wrote many papers (three major ones I'm aware of) over a number of years all on the same thing with each subsequent paper being a revision of the original idea. People LOVE to talk about the first one, but not really any of the subsequent ones.

Re:Next steps

[PseudoCoder]

I'm sure Lenin, Stalin, et al were working with the latest revs.

That worked so well with Intel and Gamasutra

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, pulling a marketing relationship with a group clearly is the best way to stay out of an argument. I mean, no one read into Intel dropping ads from Gamasutra as anything other than Intel not wanting to be involved with Gamergate! Intel certainly didn't have to then issue a press release stating that they're "not misogynists" afterwards! (Not that I understand what that has to do with Gamergate at all, but I guess if you disagree with an article written by a woman, you're defined to be a misogynist.)

Anyway, I suspect that this effort by LEGO not to get involved in Greenpeace's campaign against oil companies to go exactly as well for them as Intel's attempt to stay out of Gamergate went for them.

Re:That worked so well with Intel and Gamasutra

[phantomfive]

Yes, pulling a marketing relationship with a group clearly is the best way to stay out of an argument

The advantage of withdrawing support is that only zealots care either way. There are relatively few zealots to get offended, and because most people can understand what it means to try to avoid an argument.

Re:That worked so well with Intel and Gamasutra

[jmac_the_man]

The advantage of withdrawing support is that only zealots care either way. There are relatively few zealots to get offended, and because most people can understand what it means to try to avoid an argument.

Shell is paying for product placement. That isn't zealotry. Hell, Shell's agreement didn't even specify that ALL Lego gas stations/fueling equipment is Shell branded. (The vast majority of Lego gas/fuel branding is from the fictional company Octan.)

The zealots are all on the other side. Lego didn't "stay out of an argument," like you and the Slashdot summary claim. Lego caved to threats from outside zealots. I'm not calling for a boycott of Lego, or even necessarily saying that it's a bad business decision. But let's not kid ourselves about what's going on here.

Re:That worked so well with Intel and Gamasutra

[phantomfive]

The zealots are all on the other side.

It's very zealous of you to say that.

Re:That worked so well with Intel and Gamasutra

[jmac_the_man]

The zealots are all on the other side.

It's very zealous of you to say that.

It's zealous of you to pick that sentence out of context, dick. Not everyone is equally correct in this scenario, for reasons I explained in the part of the post that you didn't quote.

Re:That worked so well with Intel and Gamasutra

[Anonymous Coward]

> It's zealous of you to pick that sentence out of context, dick.

The context doesn't change the meaning. Your goal in using the word zealous is to defend the status quo by denigrating the people who think the status quo needs to be changed. That's basically name-calling and is an intellectually bankrupt argument. If you want to argue that it is a matter of degree, then there are whole lot more extreme actions than making a protest video and posting it youtube. The day you see greenpeace beheading shell employees and posting that video to youtube is the day you can honestly use the word zealous to describe them.

Re:That worked so well with Intel and Gamasutra

[jmac_the_man]

The context doesn't change the meaning. Your goal in using the word zealous is to defend the status quo by denigrating the people who think the status quo needs to be changed. That's basically name-calling and is an intellectually bankrupt argument.

First off, I'm not the one who originally described Greenpeace supporters as "zealots." phantomfive, the poster to whom I replied, essentially made the argument that Lego had to choose between supporting one of the two groups (either Shell by continuing the advertising contract, or Greenpeace by not continuing it), and that the only people who would care either way were the zealotsin support of Greenpeace or the zealots in support of Shell.

phantom's argument is intellectually bankrupt because it fails to differentiate between "pro-Shell zealots" and "just against Greenpeace harassing people." I'm not saying that Lego did the wrong thing by terminating the contract because Greenpeace threatened them. However, that doesn't make it right for Greenpeace to be harassing them. Greenpeace is 100% in the wrong here, and you, phantom, and Slashdot shouldn't be pretending otherwise.

If you want to argue that it is a matter of degree, then there are whole lot more extreme actions than making a protest video and posting it youtube. The day you see greenpeace beheading shell employees and posting that video to youtube is the day you can honestly use the word zealous to describe them

I have no idea what you're babbling about here. Let me say for the record that although Greenpeace may be a bunch of crazy leftists, they're not as crazy, bloodthirsty, or prone to behead their enemies as the Reign of Terror-era French leftists. Happy now?

Re:That worked so well with Intel and Gamasutra

[phantomfive]

It's zealous of you to pick that sentence out of context, dick. Not everyone is equally correct in this scenario

It's not about who's right, it's about how you approach the issue. You apparently are upset because Shell is not paying money to the side you support.

Re:That worked so well with Intel and Gamasutra

[jmac_the_man]

Well, the side I support stopped putting Shell's logo in their products, so Shell should probably stop paying.

There's a difference between "I support Shell" and "I oppose dopey pressure tactics." Shell's 87 octane gas burns in my car the same as anyone else's 87 octane, and that's pretty much my relationship with Shell. (A pro-Shell zealot would praise the quality of the fuel additives that make Shell gas burn cleaner than Exxon or Texaco or whoever.) However, it is wrong for dopey environmental activists to SCARE CHILDREN in an attempt to keep business partners away from Shell. Slashdot should not be pretending that Greenpeace is in the right here, and neither should you.

Re:That worked so well with Intel and Gamasutra

[phantomfive]

You're not a pro-shell zealot, you're an anti-greenpeace zealot. You want Shell to be on your side. I would have thought that would be obvious rom the conversation thus far.

Greedy charlatans

[Anonymous Coward]

Greenpeace has strayed so far from their roots. They are nothing but a bunch of greedy charlatans now.

Heckler's Veto.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pussies.

President Business agrees

[kellymcdonald78]

Just means Octan has an energy monopoly for all those LEGO cars, trucks and planes now

Re:President Business agrees

[NJRoadfan]

I have a circa 1986 gas station (6378) and a circa 1988 race track (6395) with the logo, but shortly thereafter they went to the fictional Octan (looks like 1992 going by set listings). Besides ending distribution of sets at Shell locations, this isn't going to effect much else.

You know what LEGO needs to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Provide print at home sticker collections including every major oil company's logo.

Or y'know one of you guys could. Not sure if there are any standardized Avery (or whoever) printable sticker sheets, but if so, make some template pages that match up to them with all the logos on them for kids to sticker on their LEGO bricks. It'd be a hilarious way to stick it to Greenpeace, especially if lego keeps selling those same kits minus the logo :)

/. just as bad as Greenpeace

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you all are bitching about Greenpeace. You sound just like Greenpeace. Get a fucking hobby.

Re:/. just as bad as Greenpeace

[Anonymous Coward]

Bitching bout Greenpeace is my hobby, you insensitive clod!

So, will they now be promoting

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect huge grants to greenpeace from russia.

It's unclear who gets to drill the arctic oil. Americans will half operation if greenpeace chains themselves to the drilling equipment. Russia will drop the fuckers to the sea or throw them to jail if they do the same.

In related news

[huckamania]

LEGO Brick collectors are now hoarding all Shell branded bricks. Prices for said bricks are now sky rocketing as collectibles.

Exploding Ship Set

[huckamania]

With French commandos in civilian clothes

Re:Exploding Ship Set

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you recognize a French government employee near a Greenpeace vessel? He wears a frog suit and carries a magnetic mine with him at all times. Lego set of the scenario would be as awesome as USS Cole or World Trade Center sets in these ADHD times, as part of a war on terror-education program for your head-spinning child.

Re:Exploding Ship Set

[Anonymous Coward]

"We have orders not to fire on anybody but Greenpeace."

-- Homer Simpson

Re:Exploding Ship Set

[Anonymous Coward]

With French commandos in civilian clothes

No assembly required. Just fill your bathtub and dump the Legos in.

Fuck Greenpeace

[Anonymous Coward]

True. But in addition LEGO should not put corporate logos (other than their own) on childrens toys.

Not even from the same country

[Anonymous Coward]

Lego is headquartered in Billund, Denmark, and the oil company is Royal Dutch Shell. Different companies coming from different countries. The only benefit to Lego is the availability of Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) from Shell to make plastic bricks (and I don't know if Lego gets that much of a deal on product).

greenpeace

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh I hate green peace so much.
They are a bunch of basically evil people who want to impose their own opinions on everyone. I detest them.

Lego and politics

[rapiddescent]

Lego got pissed off at the UK treasury who had used Lego minifigures as part of the UK campaign against Scotland's independence from the UK, see Scottish independence: Lego dropped from Treasury Buzzfeed

Lego, at the time, said they were politically neutral and would not allow their brand to be associated with any political stance.

What the hell Greenpeace?

[sabbede]

Why drag Lego into it? Why the hell are you being such a bag of d-cks?

Your assumptions are stupid

[drinkypoo]

A total conversion to biodiesel would require every square foot of land area on the planet given over for oilseed production.

A total conversion to biodiesel would require only a small percentage of our available desert land given over for algae production. We can use seawater pumped inland with thermal solar. The land in which we are interested is low-lying and predominantly unused. The process produces not only biofuel feedstock with high oil content, but also fertilizer and salt. It requires only minimal initial outlay and utilizes technolgies proven by the USDoE (i.e. "with our tax dollars) in the 1980s.

In other words, everything you said which was not a lie was irrelevant.

Re:Your assumptions are stupid

[delt0r]

If what you say was true, we would already be doing it. But its not. It is easy to claim massive mega projects like this would work and be "no problem". Reality is not like that.

Re:Your assumptions are stupid

[drinkypoo]

If what you say was true, we would already be doing it.

[citation needed]

It is easy to claim massive mega projects like this would work and be "no problem".

I didn't say "no problem". By putting those words in quotes, you imply that I did, which makes you a liar.

Re:Your assumptions are stupid

[gmhowell]

If what you say was true, we would already be doing it.

[citation needed]

Done.

Re:Your assumptions are stupid

[drinkypoo]

Done.

You are hilarious. You're completely ignoring the ability to use legal frameworks to prevent others from making a profit, because it's inconvenient for your world view.

Re:Your assumptions are stupid

[gmhowell]

Boy, talk about stupid assumptions...

Re:Your assumptions are stupid

[mattack2]

Solar is already possible, wind is already possible, electric cars already exist... etc..

Just because they're not the majority of energy production/usage today doesn't mean it's not possible to use a lot more of them in the future.

(BTW, I'm probably far more "right wing" than you are in many areas.)

Greenpeace...

[Anonymous Coward]

...eco-terrorist whiners...

Fuck Greenpeace

[goulo]

Setting aside the question of whether Greenpeace's tactics are right or wrong, there shouldn't be Shell logos in Lego blocks.

Lego are children's toys, leave your goddamn advertisements and product placements out of them.

Wtf is my tongue supposed to do here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one hung up on the Lego CEO's name? Seriously, wtf is this madness? "Jørgen Vig Knudstorp"?

Dammit!

[LduN]

Damned you greenpeace... this is why no-one likes you

Time to target those who contribute to Greenpeace?

[FatherOfONe]

I try to be a normal guy, but these special interest groups that keep terrorising companies needs to stop. Perhaps it is time to start the same to those that give any money to Greenpeace. I wonder how they would like it if say their lifeblood (cash) was suddenly under constant attack, and they had to focus on defending that as opposed to doing the work they want to do. They say they have 2.9 million people who give them money. Perhaps it is time to show the top donors... well how about all their donor and then companies can start to decide if they want to employee people like that.

Crazy world.

 

Re:Time to target those who contribute to Greenpea

[drinkypoo]

Perhaps it is time to show the top donors... well how about all their donor

People give money to Greenpeace because they know "all about them".

and then companies can start to decide if they want to employee people like that.

Not too big on freedom of speech, eh?

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

[Anonymous Coward]

As it happens, I just rewatched "Gandhi" this morning. Quite possibly the greatest movie of all time. Anyway, I think he's earned a correct spelling.

Re:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

[Euler]

good point

Print your own company labels

[Anonymous Coward]

That video is a nice, well-produced piece of propaganda. It's a shame that Lego management is willing to help limit what concepts kids should be allowed to think about. Just thinking of the kids, of course, with no alterior motive.

Regardless, a workaround would be to print little company labels that can be affixed to your kids' toys. Not only Shell logos, but include some Gazprom or Sinopec logos, as well. Give your kids a variety and let them choose what occupations and nationalities should be represented.

Whale meat, tastes like bacon?

[TiggertheMad]

This is a great idea, it makes the whole engine room smell *DELICIOUS*.

Greenpeace, the assholes of conservation.

[TiggertheMad]

This campaign seems to me to pointless and idiotic. I saw the propaganda video that Greenpeace produced, with is heavy handed at best, and I am at a total loss over what they hoped to achieve. Ok, so they bullied a toy company into dropping a partnership with an oil company, but to what end? Now Lego models will never have oil company logos in the sticker sheets?

Greenpeace, you have truly won a landmark victory here....

So, will they now be promoting

[Anonymous Coward]

o.O Americans are the ones directing the fake wrath of groanpeace. Why would they chain themselves to the murrican drilling equipment when they are funded by the same murricans?

On the other hand groanpeace always seems to find other companies at fault for environmental damage. They do get oh-so-shocked when they get treated like the criminals they are though. Its awfully cute.

I have to say I was seriously hoping that their silly little expedition into russian territory would end up with their ship getting sunk. Then again russians aren't that dumb, they just confiscated it instead. (Why waste something when you can just take it away?)

First, GP needs to support "Nuclear 2.0"

[ivi]

Frankly, I think GreenPeace is BROKEN...

Can anyone tell me how much LESS CO2 will be emitted into our atmosphere, ie, due to GP's pressuring Lego to stop with these marketing tasks?!?

So, what should GreenPeace be doing INSTEAD, in our opinion...?

Well, here are some ideas, off the top of my head:

1. call for enegy-intensive Fusion R&D to STOP, ie, UNTIL all of its energy needs are met with zero-emission "Nuclear 2.0" energy (ie, from Molten Salt Reactor (MSRs), preferably Energy from Thorium from Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs)

2. Openly DEBATE whether or not an Anti-Nuclear policy (by environmental groups) still makes any sense, ie, in light of proven FEATURE of "Nuclear 2.0" ...ie, the new / old Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) technologies, which seem to already be in the pipeline.

(See YouTube video "Nuclear in Alberta..." on Dr David Le Blanc's company's expectation that smaller, transportable MSRs will
be both Approved (for use in Canada) & Operational (at least providing process heat... WITHIN 6 - 8 YEARS).

Old nukes need replacements, we know MSRs are the safer alternative nuke designs & a growing number of knowledgeable people are already supporting work to help bring "Nuclear 2.0" into existence & practical use.

Oil-rich Norway has created a Thorium Research Lab.

China & India have committed to constructing prototype "Nuclear 2.0" reactors.

Taiwan seems to be aiming for a [Thorium-based] heat engine.

PS If "Nuclear 2.0" ISN'T (for you) the way to go forward, what is & why? Thanks.

Poe's Law (promoting "Greenpeace"?)

[mi]

Wow, I don't often explicitly admit to being sarcastic, but this particular post had attracted so much sincere hate from both responders and moderators, that I had to come clean... I would've thought, the term "KKKorporation" was a give-away, but no...

But then, of course, I have no proof, all of the hatred observed is really sincere either. Oh, well...

GLAD to hear it !

[iq145]

That'll cost them big bucks too, as suggested by... http://www.newser.com/story/19...