[ars]

Why? What difference does it make? We don't have a shortage of atoms.

From your reply and others I can see why they did this. People actually believe it makes a difference.

The environment is doomed. I'm sorry, but if people can't even tell the difference between something that helps the environment, and something that makes no difference, then I don't see how we'll ever make things better.

[matthewmacleod]

That’s not a very convincing response.

It’s like pointing out that electric vehicles are still dependent on fossil fuel power networks for their energy. It’s true, but misses the point that one of the requirements in transitioning to a sustainable economy is decoupling energy production methods from consumption methods. Fossil fuel as the input to a car is bad; fossil fuel as the input to a power plant, that produces electricity that is the input to a car is not perfect, but it is better. Similarly, plastics sourced from biological sources are better.

[ars]

> Similarly, plastics sourced from biological sources are better.

What makes them better? Seriously. What is better about cycling them through a plant first?

You need hydrogen and carbon to make that plastic. You can get them from anywhere, it makes no difference whatsoever if a plant hold them for a while first.

It's energy that matters.

[kaybe]

Waste is important too, in this case notably the gaseous one.

[bllguo]

This is just absurdly overdramatic and frankly, insufferable. Why do you expect the general public and media reporters to know offhand about polymer chemistry? Why does their lack of this knowledge doom the environment?

You had a chance to amicably and clearly educate others about the misleading connotations of the term "bioplastic" and instead you launched into some kind of weird tirade. This is why society needs better science communicators.

[ars]

Weird tirade? It might be tirade, but it's not weird. I'm just tired of people claiming "I'm green", while actually being worse for the environment.

> Why does their lack of this knowledge doom the environment?

Because people change their behavior based on what they find out. So it looks like legos are now "better" for the environment, because the plastic touched a plant.

But not only does it not make a difference, it's actually worse for the environment.

It reminds me of when BMW used hydropower to make electricity to each ovens for carbon fiber manufacturing.

https://www.alternative-energies.net/bmw-produces-carbon-fib...

Guess what? That's worse for the environment! Electricity is a very inefficient way to heat things. Save that electricity for where it's needed and heat your ovens with natural gas.

Instead someone else is making electricity with natural gas, and the total environmental impact is higher. But then of course BMW doesn't get to falsely claim "we're green".

> Why do you expect the general public and media reporters to know offhand about polymer chemistry?

I expect the reporter to ask a chemist. Go check and see if Lego's claim holds any water.

[gus_massa]

> Why do you expect the [...] media reporters to know offhand about polymer chemistry?

I don't expect that all media reporters have a Ph.D. in chemistry, but it would be nice that they check the information with an expert instead of just copy&paste whatever PR the company sends to them.

After all, there should be a difference between a serious newspaper with real journalist and a random dude with a blog...