From a chemistry point of view it makes no difference.

There are many types of polyethylene. This particular type used by Lego apparently can be recycled more easily than other types of polyethylene for reasons not explained in the post. As for why it matters whether the plant is living or dead, there is a vast order of magnitude difference in the energy extraction cost from living plants vs finding, drilling, refining, processing, and transporting dead plants. Oil extraction is expensive and the various processes required to extract and use it come with significant environmental externalities.

You can make polyethylene from air. Are we calling it atmo-plastic now?

Citation needed. As 1/3 of the most common polyethylene molecule is carbon, and 2/3 is hydrogen, you would need some very special air to make polyethylene.

Someone already though it: "Exclusive: Pioneering scientists turn fresh air into petrol in massive boost in fight against energy crisis" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/exclusive-pio... [spoiler alert: they use electricity too]

Better make all of it into Lego and then bury it into a landfill when it breaks, if it can be done on renewable energy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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...

They'd do better simply going back to that. Though I'm not sure how cellulose is for longevity.

It's no good for longevity. They've all changed colour and deformed a bit in various ways.

It makes no difference. What matters is the ENERGY. Not the atoms.

We have absolutely no shortage of atoms, we have an unlimited supply of those.

What matter is the energy inherent in the oil. And I see absolutely nothing in this press release about where the energy comes from.

Or is this just the "well, if all power isn't green it's just so futile" argument in a fetching hat?

Pretty much yes. As long as you have a source of energy we have effectively unlimited supplies.

I said it to you in another post: It's the energy that matters, not where the atoms happened to last sit.

The problem here is that prior processes in this field needed alot more input energy and they have relied on conventional power input. They actually had worse footprints despite "producing plastic from thin air".

Meanwhile, it looks like Lego-the-company is pretty heavily involved in the development of sustainable energy sources to use and to offset their own power usage[0].

[0] - https://www.lego.com/en-us/aboutus/news-room/2017/may/100-pe...

Don't get me wrong--of course greenwashing is a thing that exists. But so does unwarranted cynicism.

Creating plastics from non petroleum sources is of course a great process, but it wasnt developed by Lego. Others arent using it because they produce actually a bigger footrpint with this "sustainable" process".

If I dont miss anything, Lego adapted to that process before there was a positive impact or even before a non negative impact is a realistic prediction.

It's energy that matters, but this press release doesn't mention that at all (and I bet it's because this new process uses more, not less, energy).

If they save energy because the plant puts the atoms in the right configuration, that would be something. Are they? I doubt it, because if they were they would have said it.

Using more energy in a way that can be ramped into more sustainable sources (if it currently is not sustainably sourced--but, again, Lego seems to be at the least offsetting their energy use in toto) with fewer externalities is not the same thing. There are functional curves to look at here with more variables than what the raw count of joules that the process itself uses.

You can get it from anywhere.

Getting it from a plant changes absolutely nothing.

Here's the part you are missing:

Do you know why, if it's so easy to get, they most commonly source it as a petrochemical?

It's not because oil is an especially great source, it's because when you do so you save energy. Because that oil has energy, and you can use it while making your product.

To source your atoms elsewhere, then burn oil to gain energy needed to modify your product is backwards in environmental friendliness. You are adding another layer of inefficiency to oil usage.

> There are functional curves to look at here with more variables than what the raw count of joules that the process itself uses.

That's what they want you to think "look we are making environmental progress". It's not so. Sourcing carbohydrates is easy. Energy is hard, and they've made no progress there.

Now I've heard people argue that in the end the energy cost to transform the plant into this bio-stuff negates the benefits from growing the material versus digging it out of the earth but I don't know enough about the subject to know who's right and who's wrong.