Slashdot Mirror


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.

27 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. Pixie Dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Pixie Dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    2. Re:Pixie Dust by camperdave · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      Well, they can run it on whale oil instead.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:Pixie Dust by Urkki · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:Pixie Dust by dave420 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Pixie Dust by jandersen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    6. Re:Pixie Dust by stiggle · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    7. Re:Pixie Dust by carnivore302 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Please login to access my lawn
    8. Re:Pixie Dust by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
       

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    9. Re:Pixie Dust by jandersen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  2. They backed Greenpeace, actually. by McFortner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
    1. Re:They backed Greenpeace, actually. by camperdave · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  3. Another corporation falls... by MatthiasF · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...to religious bullying.

  4. Re:WTF is Legos? by anchovy_chekov · · Score: 4, Informative
    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”

  5. Fuck Greenpeace by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    1. Re:Fuck Greenpeace by Harlequin80 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Fuck Greenpeace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      > 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.

  6. Next steps by arielCo · · Score: 4, Insightful
    • * 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.

    --
    This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
  7. Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  8. Re:THIS JUST IN by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  9. Re:THIS JUST IN by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  10. President Business agrees by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  11. Re:ESSO by physicsprof · · Score: 5, Informative

    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...

  12. Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"? by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  13. Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  14. Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  15. Re:WTF is Legos? by goulo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.