Could be the product of lunchtime chats about the world, their place in it, etc... many people in the company may have contributed with marketing making a move.

In most companies these policies have come from the CEO down largely because there has been significant demand coming from (a) employees, (b) consumers and (c) shareholders.

I don't see any real easy numbers, but it seems a pound of beef is probably in the ballpark of 20 pounds of CO₂, so 1 million tons translates into 50,000 tons of beef, or a few days of US consumption (which is above 1 pound/week per person).

So giving up Legos entirely is like getting everyone in the US to eat chicken 5 times a year.

This is just like the table water ban.

"Meaningful change is hard, let's max out virtue signaling points instead."

Imagine the competitive advantage Lego will have once they develop this new source of material.

You've heard of Moore's Law, ya? Like Einstein said, the most powerful force in the world is compound interest. Same thing.

So unless Lego's output costs cut in half with a reduction in co2 production, there won't be anything like a moores law effect.

Uh huh. No progress, no innovation.

So this is irrelevant too:

Metcalfe's Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law

"costs cut in half"

Uh huh. We'll never have carbon taxes either.

The problem is that everything is about perception and there's no followthrough to our myopic/distracted news media.

This probably ties more into the ongoing devolution of journalism into "reportage".