LEGO GROUP Seeks To Reduce Carbon Footprint By Changing its Formula

Bubba

Lord know if TLG didn't go zero carbon it wouldn't be the end of the world but there is pressure from all fronts to do this.  Does anyone know where TLG is at with their effort to stop using ABS because of the fact its petroleum based? The below article is about 2.5 years old and when it was written TLG had already been working on this for some time. I can understand the corporate and activist group pressure for TLG to move away from ABS but I'm hoping their desire to maintain a quality product and the value of brand recognition will ensure they don't move away from ABS until the have a replacement that is %100 as effective and acceptable. While in the past I would not have thought twice that they would in the last year the pressure by a number of sources to be carbon free has made many do some very stupid things. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/31/business/energy-environment/lego-plastic-denmark-environment-toys.html#commentsContainer

Astrobricks

What stupid things, dare I ask?

Bubba

Astrobricks said:

What stupid things, dare I ask?

I order to keep this forum focused on LEGO only I'm not going to cite specifics not related to LEGO but in the last 1-2 years corporations have been acting rash, doing things that are counter to the businesses own monetary interest and acting anti-customer. My hope is TLG won't fall into that pattern. I'm not opposed to them making a change but I am concerned that they'd feel pressured to accept a lower quality/standard in order to appease the madness of the mob. 

Astrobricks

Bubba said:

Astrobricks said:

What stupid things, dare I ask?

I order to keep this forum focused on LEGO only I'm not going to cite specifics not related to LEGO but in the last 1-2 years corporations have been acting rash, doing things that are counter to the businesses own monetary interest and acting anti-customer. My hope is TLG won't fall into that pattern. I'm not opposed to them making a change but I am concerned that they'd feel pressured to accept a lower quality/standard in order to appease the madness of the mob. 

From the NYT article, it certainly seems that they are not willing to accept lower quality. Any speculation as to whether they really do or not seems pointless at the moment.

oldtodd33

Astrobricks said:

What stupid things, dare I ask?

   Not to start a contentious argument but solar and wind power would be the major mistakes. 

madforLEGO

oldtodd33 said:

Astrobricks said:

What stupid things, dare I ask?

   Not to start a contentious argument but solar and wind power would be the major mistakes. 

Why? I have no problems with people making statements, but back up your claims please. There are no contentious 'arguments' if people back up those kind of statements with additional information. Why? Because of what happened in Texas, where failure of solar and wind power plants only accounted for about 20% of the total lost power?

My bigger concern is quality and cost. Is LEGO going to use this as an excuse to raise prices, and are we going to see a dip in quality like we have for the past 10+ years (even though LEGO most times seems to say no drop in quality has existed)?

Yellowcastle

Let’s not stray too far here.

Unrelatedly, my LEGO City moved to 100% Wind Power last Fall (at 20% Off) and we can’t imagine going back (Non-Returnable). :o)

oldtodd33

Without being too long winded, there are several "green" problems with wind and solar, without even mentioning the problems with Texas. Both solar and wind have to have batteries which need to be replaced every few years, each battery consumes a 55 gallon drum of oil to make and then must be disposed of properly. Windmill blades wear out every 15 years and are made of non-recyclable fiberglass. What to do with them? The wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. Snow covered solar panels produce nothing. I laughed at the irony of using petroleum products to de-ice the windmill blades. If you want the cheapest in the long run, most dependable energy, nuclear is the only way to go. Unfortunately, it gets a bad rap from Chernobyl but is the most dependable source. Just ask the U.S. Navy, they have been pushing subs and aircraft carriers around the world for decades with literally no severe incidents. If you want to invest in something promising, we could put more money into nuclear fusion. We could take the money from the space program that basically is a complete waste and put it there instead.

madforLEGO

oldtodd33 said:

Without being too long winded, there are several "green" problems with wind and solar, without even mentioning the problems with Texas. Both solar and wind have to have batteries which need to be replaced every few years, each battery consumes a 55 gallon drum of oil to make and then must be disposed of properly. Windmill blades wear out every 15 years and are made of non-recyclable fiberglass. What to do with them? The wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. Snow covered solar panels produce nothing. I laughed at the irony of using petroleum products to de-ice the windmill blades. If you want the cheapest in the long run, most dependable energy, nuclear is the only way to go. Unfortunately, it gets a bad rap from Chernobyl but is the most dependable source. Just ask the U.S. Navy, they have been pushing subs and aircraft carriers around the world for decades with literally no severe incidents. If you want to invest in something promising, we could put more money into nuclear fusion. We could take the money from the space program that basically is a complete waste and put it there instead.

Thanks for the response. Nuclear Fusion is the holy grail of energy production. If that can be found then you resolve all energy problems on the planet. However, no one is (or should be) saying to rely solely on Solar or Wind energy production, but if they reduce the amount of petroleum or coal being burned/consumed, its still a 'win', is it not? I think what too many people think these days is everything has to be a 'zero sum' decision or result. Its about mitigation first, elimination next. If you can at least reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere its a 'win'. As for fission, sure the Navy uses it with no issues (that we are told of) but 9 times out of 10 if something goes wrong they are in the middle of the ocean. Nuke plants are typically near metropolitan areas. Chernobyl, 3 mile island, and Fukushima all show the nuclear industry is fraught with issues if something goes wrong. The other elephant in the room with nuke is where do you put the waste? Yeah, you have places like Yucca mountain, but you have to consider the half life of this kind of waste. 

The bigger issue overall that i see is energy storage and transmission distance limits. If you could find a good way to effectively transmit energy over very very long distances with little waste then you could have a wealth of solar panels in Death Valley and transmit that energy wherever, for example.

oldtodd33

madforLEGO said:

oldtodd33 said:

Without being too long winded, there are several "green" problems with wind and solar, without even mentioning the problems with Texas. Both solar and wind have to have batteries which need to be replaced every few years, each battery consumes a 55 gallon drum of oil to make and then must be disposed of properly. Windmill blades wear out every 15 years and are made of non-recyclable fiberglass. What to do with them? The wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. Snow covered solar panels produce nothing. I laughed at the irony of using petroleum products to de-ice the windmill blades. If you want the cheapest in the long run, most dependable energy, nuclear is the only way to go. Unfortunately, it gets a bad rap from Chernobyl but is the most dependable source. Just ask the U.S. Navy, they have been pushing subs and aircraft carriers around the world for decades with literally no severe incidents. If you want to invest in something promising, we could put more money into nuclear fusion. We could take the money from the space program that basically is a complete waste and put it there instead.

Thanks for the response. Nuclear Fusion is the holy grail of energy production. If that can be found then you resolve all energy problems on the planet. However, no one is (or should be) saying to rely solely on Solar or Wind energy production, but if they reduce the amount of petroleum or coal being burned/consumed, its still a 'win', is it not? I think what too many people think these days is everything has to be a 'zero sum' decision or result. Its about mitigation first, elimination next. If you can at least reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere its a 'win'. As for fission, sure the Navy uses it with no issues (that we are told of) but 9 times out of 10 if something goes wrong they are in the middle of the ocean. Nuke plants are typically near metropolitan areas. Chernobyl, 3 mile island, and Fukushima all show the nuclear industry is fraught with issues if something goes wrong. The other elephant in the room with nuke is where do you put the waste? Yeah, you have places like Yucca mountain, but you have to consider the half life of this kind of waste. 

The bigger issue overall that i see is energy storage and transmission distance limits. If you could find a good way to effectively transmit energy over very very long distances with little waste then you could have a wealth of solar panels in Death Valley and transmit that energy wherever, for example.

   I agree that taking some production of electricity and using solar and wind is fine but right now the state of Colorado is moving to ONLY solar and wind by 2035. That is dangerous and stupid in my opinion. Nuclear plants can be built far away enough from metro areas to be completely safe and that's the way we should go. 

benbacardi

I'd like you to find a place here in the UK far enough from metro areas for a nuclear power plant to be "completely safe" … !

oldtodd33

^ France seems to be able to. Matter of fact, I've heard that Germany will now be buying most of their power from France. Maybe the U.K. will have to also. 

madforLEGO

oldtodd33 said:

madforLEGO said:

oldtodd33 said:

Without being too long winded, there are several "green" problems with wind and solar, without even mentioning the problems with Texas. Both solar and wind have to have batteries which need to be replaced every few years, each battery consumes a 55 gallon drum of oil to make and then must be disposed of properly. Windmill blades wear out every 15 years and are made of non-recyclable fiberglass. What to do with them? The wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. Snow covered solar panels produce nothing. I laughed at the irony of using petroleum products to de-ice the windmill blades. If you want the cheapest in the long run, most dependable energy, nuclear is the only way to go. Unfortunately, it gets a bad rap from Chernobyl but is the most dependable source. Just ask the U.S. Navy, they have been pushing subs and aircraft carriers around the world for decades with literally no severe incidents. If you want to invest in something promising, we could put more money into nuclear fusion. We could take the money from the space program that basically is a complete waste and put it there instead.

Thanks for the response. Nuclear Fusion is the holy grail of energy production. If that can be found then you resolve all energy problems on the planet. However, no one is (or should be) saying to rely solely on Solar or Wind energy production, but if they reduce the amount of petroleum or coal being burned/consumed, its still a 'win', is it not? I think what too many people think these days is everything has to be a 'zero sum' decision or result. Its about mitigation first, elimination next. If you can at least reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere its a 'win'. As for fission, sure the Navy uses it with no issues (that we are told of) but 9 times out of 10 if something goes wrong they are in the middle of the ocean. Nuke plants are typically near metropolitan areas. Chernobyl, 3 mile island, and Fukushima all show the nuclear industry is fraught with issues if something goes wrong. The other elephant in the room with nuke is where do you put the waste? Yeah, you have places like Yucca mountain, but you have to consider the half life of this kind of waste. 

The bigger issue overall that i see is energy storage and transmission distance limits. If you could find a good way to effectively transmit energy over very very long distances with little waste then you could have a wealth of solar panels in Death Valley and transmit that energy wherever, for example.

   I agree that taking some production of electricity and using solar and wind is fine but right now the state of Colorado is moving to ONLY solar and wind by 2035. That is dangerous and stupid in my opinion. Nuclear plants can be built far away enough from metro areas to be completely safe and that's the way we should go. 

I see your point, but if a nuke plant goes off, the damage is far reaching (see the amount of radiation that floated over most of eastern Europe when Chernobyl went off) and will render some areas uninhabitable for many generations (including many areas that were once inhabited). Heck, they have been talking about how the surrounding forests of Chernobyl are tinder boxes and one spark will start a file that will once again make radiation airborne across Europe. If three mile island goes badly wrong in '79 (considering where it was located) then this is likely a very different discussion (and it could have, from what I have seen in documentaries). Not saying we do not need nuclear power (especially if we want to move off of coal as we need a consistent large energy creator), but it should not be the primary solution either. Even what Bill Gates has been backing, these sodium reactors, have their problems. I guess people have forgotten, or never heard of, the experiments with Sodium reactors in Santa Susana California back in the 50's and 60's where one melted down in 59 because the coolant holes got blocked off and that was near a major metropolitan area and irradiated thousands over time. Sure Nuke plants typically function well. However, it just takes one to have sloppy engineering, or sloppy management, and you have a major problem on your hands.

CCC

It is not a fact that ABS is petroleum based. It is a polymer made from smaller monomer molecules. Currently most ABS is synthesised from monomers that are mainly sourced from oil. However,  these monomers can also be derived from biomass, the problem is the energy consumption needed and so their cost. Especially styrene. However, once those monomers are made, then bioABS is no different to oilABS. The source of a (pure) molecule has no affect on its properties.

Of course you have to also ignore deforestation and water diversion and usage to allow for all the crops necessary, often neglected when thinking about the environment. 

It is also interesting that plastic bags were developed in Scandinavia because of worries about deforestation for raw resources for paper bags. And for thick reusable and recyclable plastic bags, they were probably right.

Blockwork_Orange

I always thought that hydro-electric has been greatly underutilized in many areas.  It can be a relatively clean, low environmental option if the you focus on smaller systems and avoid the huge mega project dams.  At one time, almost every small community had a dam to power a flour mill, sawmill or other similar industry being powered by water.  Putting small generating stations in these locations could supply their local areas with most of their power requirements.

benbacardi

oldtodd33 said:

^ France seems to be able to.

France is significantly bigger than the UK with roughly the same population.

catwrangler

And it can still be a problem to build a plant well out of the way of your own population if it's a source of concern for people just over the border - say in Geneva. The distances involved can be quite large too - Geneva is about 70km away from the Bugey reactor, but would have to be evacuated if anything major went wrong. Earthquake and flood risk are a factor there as well, and of course there are now more places at risk of flood, due to rising sea levels, than might have been the case decades ago when some plants were built. 

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/bugey-risk_geneva-lodge-fresh-complaint-against-french-nuclear-plant/44631998

Istokg

catwrangler said:

And it can still be a problem to build a plant well out of the way of your own population if it's a source of concern for people just over the border - say in Geneva. The distances involved can be quite large too - Geneva is about 70km away from the Bugey reactor, but would have to be evacuated if anything major went wrong. Earthquake and flood risk are a factor there as well, and of course there are now more places at risk of flood, due to rising sea levels, than might have been the case decades ago when some plants were built. 

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/bugey-risk_geneva-lodge-fresh-complaint-against-french-nuclear-plant/44631998

Interesting to see how well France keeps its' Nuclear Power Plants some distance from "French" population centers... ;-)

Istokg

But getting back on topic... any changes in plastic that TLG makes for LEGO elements will hopefully not decrease the shelf life of the LEGO parts.  Would be a pity if LEGO left for the grandkids turns into unusable plastic.  Museums around the world are already dealing with a serious problem of old (non-ABS) plastic artwork that has been degenerating and making the artwork a mess.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/science/plastics-preservation-getty.html

Bubba

Istokg said:

But getting back on topic... any changes in plastic that TLG makes for LEGO elements will hopefully not decrease the shelf life of the LEGO parts.  Would be a pity if LEGO left for the grandkids turns into unusable plastic.  Museums around the world are already dealing with a serious problem of old (non-ABS) plastic artwork that has been degenerating and making the artwork a mess.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/science/plastics-preservation-getty.html

The dozen or so posts after my initial one is why I didn't want to cite specifics. I never said anything about Power or energy and yet the conversation took on a life of its own and became about those 2 things. 

The article is almost 3 years old and so while TLG may have ben adamant then about quality it doesn't mean they haven't changed their stance since. The world has gotten a lot crazier since that article and I wouldn't put it past a previously well recognized company with positive brand recognition to risk that in order to appease a small but very loud minority and thus act in an anti-customer fashion. Disney has done this with its Star Wars IP which it paid a handsome price for. 

I've not been following TLG like I imagine most of you have but in the last 2 weeks I've come across a number of brittle/bad elements that break/crack with the slightest effort as I've been disassembling a number of set my kids have out grown. This has me concerned about the quality over all as its not just the brown and reddish brown that between 2012 and 2016 were identified as being potentially bad.  TLG has without hesitation replaced any of these when I reported them but when I found that article saying they were seeking to move away from ABC it raised some red flags. 

Maybe some day they will find the means/tech by which to do this and still produce something on par with what they have been, I just hope they don't bend the knee to external pressure to do it before they do find the right formula.  The mob doesn't care about your brand or what damage may be done only if you are doing as the mob dictates. 

Astrobricks

To be honest, you kind of brought it on yourself by using terms like crazy, madness of the mob, and “small very loud minority”.

Bubba

Astrobricks said:

To be honest, you kind of brought it on yourself by using terms like crazy, madness of the mob, and “small very loud minority”.

No I didn't. I gave a very non-specific reason (ie did not cite specific examples so as to not start a fight with some activist) for why I was asking a question about product quality from a company with a long history of being devoted to product quality, something Disney used to also do but has since bent the knee to the madness of the mob and in so destroyed billions of value in its Star Wars IP alone. 

CCC

So which mob/activists are saying that LEGO should not be made from oil sourced plastic? LEGO is trying to be ahead of the game here, looking at alternative sources and in some cases alternative plastics before such changes are necessary, whether due to legislation, costs or expiring resources.

autolycus

Bubba said:
something Disney used to also do but has since bent the knee to the madness of the mob and in so destroyed billions of value in its Star Wars IP alone. 

Oh boy... speaking of madness of mob activism... Methinks you should look into the mirror if you really think this sentence as a whole makes sense.

Bubba

autolycus said:

Bubba said:
something Disney used to also do but has since bent the knee to the madness of the mob and in so destroyed billions of value in its Star Wars IP alone. 

Oh boy... speaking of madness of mob activism... Methinks you should look into the mirror if you really think this sentence as a whole makes sense.

What?
1) I have no company or IP that I can reduce the value of by acting in an anti-customer fashion so No, looing into a mirror makes no sense.

2) Regardless of what your stance is with how Disney has handled the Star Wars IP if you can't see that the brand has lost value over the last few years, since Disney took control then your just not paying attention or in denial. 

Bubba

CCC said:

So which mob/activists are saying that LEGO should not be made from oil sourced plastic? LEGO is trying to be ahead of the game here, looking at alternative sources and in some cases alternative plastics before such changes are necessary, whether due to legislation, costs or expiring resources.

I never said any mob/activists where after TLG to do anything. Its TLG themselves in that article that are the source for the desire to move away from oil based products. I said other companies with equally valuable Brands had done this, made bad monetary decision because of mob like pressure and so I was concerned that TLG might fall pressure to the same. 

CCC

Bubba said:

Lord know if TLG didn't go zero carbon it wouldn't be the end of the world but there is pressure from all fronts to do this.

The first sentence of this thread.

Bubba

CCC said:

Bubba said:

Lord know if TLG didn't go zero carbon it wouldn't be the end of the world but there is pressure from all fronts to do this.

The first sentence of this thread.

"pressure from all fronts" is not synonymous with "mobs/activists" but I will give you one specific example ESG; Environmental Social Governance.  ESG is running amok in the corporate world placing pressure on businesses to do things that if left to their own devices might not do. How can ESG do this?

SCENARIO1: All the major lending institutions have adopted ESG and base lending rates on a companies adherence to ESG, it's ESG score. If the company wants to acquire a loan at a reasonable rate it must have an acceptable ESG score. ESG is not some idea from a dystopian novel or movie, its very real. 

WesterBricks

I’m not going to take a public stance on anything in this thread, but I have to say I admire that Bubba jumped on and continued the conversation after two full years as if no time had passed at all.

samiam391

Bubba said:

CCC said:

Bubba said:

Lord know if TLG didn't go zero carbon it wouldn't be the end of the world but there is pressure from all fronts to do this.

The first sentence of this thread.

"pressure from all fronts" is not synonymous with "mobs/activists" but I will give you one specific example ESG; Environmental Social Governance.  ESG is running amok in the corporate world placing pressure on businesses to do things that if left to their own devices might not do. How can ESG do this?

SCENARIO1: All the major lending institutions have adopted ESG and base lending rates on a companies adherence to ESG, it's ESG score. If the company wants to acquire a loan at a reasonable rate it must have an acceptable ESG score. ESG is not some idea from a dystopian novel or movie, its very real. 

A retort two years in the making. 

Can't wait for SCENARIO2 in 2025.

Brickchap

@Bubba I agree with you. Lego pieces aren't the quality they used to be. They are quite brittle, while transparent pieces are now almost always scratched when they arrive 'new' (or are very soon scratched). This is due to the move to 'sustainable' plastics.

I have no problem moving away from ABS and so forth, but going 'green' shouldn't reduce the quality of Lego bricks. And I also agree there is green extremism of people who think the world should go green (and I agree the world should go green) but refuse to actually discuss or research how that should happen. They just demand BAN ABS, BAN CARS, BAN GAS, BAN COAL, BAN OIL, BAN EVERYTHING!! (They don't even consider for example the amount of mining and environmental degradation required to make their laptop or Iphone they are using to troll people)

Often my own response is "I agree, we should phase out 'X', but what are we going to replace it with?" The crazy vocal mob as you rightly call it never has an answer to this. So Lego has phased out ABS, but are these plant based plastics a good alternative? No. Not currently. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use them at all, but more research and development is needed.

560Heliport

Lego has not phased out ABS. The softer parts, for example foliage pieces, are made of polyethylene, and some of that- maybe even all?- is from plant-based sources. But the "regular" hard plastic is still ABS.

Aside from Reddish Brown, Dark Brown, and New Dark Red pieces from the known "brittle" years, I think 2008-2016, I have not had any problems with pieces breaking. I buy more than a hundred sets a year, and I build all of them.

daewoo

I have no issues with TLG looking to source their raw materials from non-petroleum sources as that will leave more for me to burn in my car. :P 

drdavewatford

Brickchap said:

Lego pieces aren't the quality they used to be. They are quite brittle, while transparent pieces are now almost always scratched when they arrive 'new' (or are very soon scratched). This is due to the move to 'sustainable' plastics.

Brittleness and scratched transparent elements are not "due to the move to 'sustainable' plastics". Such elements are made out of ABS.

Brickchap said:

So Lego has phased out ABS. 

Not sure where you got this idea from - the vast majority of LEGO elements are still made out of ABS.

Brickchap

@drdavewatford Apologies but that was my understanding. After all, Lego pieces definitely aren't as good quality now (even my non-Lego fan mother who never grew up with Lego noted the difference without me even saying anything). Transparent pieces are now sort of hazy and as I said very easily scratched.

Bubba

560Heliport said:

Lego has not phased out ABS. The softer parts, for example foliage pieces, are made of polyethylene, and some of that- maybe even all?- is from plant-based sources. But the "regular" hard plastic is still ABS.

Aside from Reddish Brown, Dark Brown, and New Dark Red pieces from the known "brittle" years, I think 2008-2016, I have not had any problems with pieces breaking. I buy more than a hundred sets a year, and I build all of them.

QQ: Do you know if they phased out those colors period so you can't get broken elements replaced or did they just correct the issue but kept the colors? I have several sets with eth brown and reddish brown parts and it seems like as if the chance of breaking is 50-50 when I'm taking the set apart. 

Bubba

Brickchap said:

@Bubba I agree with you. Lego pieces aren't the quality they used to be. They are quite brittle, while transparent pieces are now almost always scratched when they arrive 'new' (or are very soon scratched). This is due to the move to 'sustainable' plastics.

I have no problem moving away from ABS and so forth, but going 'green' shouldn't reduce the quality of Lego bricks. And I also agree there is green extremism of people who think the world should go green (and I agree the world should go green) but refuse to actually discuss or research how that should happen. They just demand BAN ABS, BAN CARS, BAN GAS, BAN COAL, BAN OIL, BAN EVERYTHING!! (They don't even consider for example the amount of mining and environmental degradation required to make their laptop or Iphone they are using to troll people)

Often my own response is "I agree, we should phase out 'X', but what are we going to replace it with?" The crazy vocal mob as you rightly call it never has an answer to this. So Lego has phased out ABS, but are these plant based plastics a good alternative? No. Not currently. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use them at all, but more research and development is needed.

As long as LEGO continues to offer free replacements for broken pieces I'm OK but yes they should not sacrifice quality. Speaking of doing something just to do it without thinking about teh repercussions, in teh US last I read/heard was that the state of California is requiring all cars to be GREEN by 2030 and just this past year they had at one point told customers to limit their electricity se to over use on the grid. Hopefully someone level headed will stop that before 2030 b/c there's no way they'll have the infrastructure to accommodate that. 

Bubba

samiam391 said:

Bubba said:

CCC said:

Bubba said:

Lord know if TLG didn't go zero carbon it wouldn't be the end of the world but there is pressure from all fronts to do this.

The first sentence of this thread.

"pressure from all fronts" is not synonymous with "mobs/activists" but I will give you one specific example ESG; Environmental Social Governance.  ESG is running amok in the corporate world placing pressure on businesses to do things that if left to their own devices might not do. How can ESG do this?

SCENARIO1: All the major lending institutions have adopted ESG and base lending rates on a companies adherence to ESG, it's ESG score. If the company wants to acquire a loan at a reasonable rate it must have an acceptable ESG score. ESG is not some idea from a dystopian novel or movie, its very real. 

A retort two years in the making. 

Can't wait for SCENARIO2 in 2025.

2 years because had someone like me tried to share information on ESG it most likely would be met with "That's Conspiracy theory" b/c it was not widely known about.  

drdavewatford

Brickchap said:

@drdavewatford Apologies but that was my understanding.

No worries, but good to be clear on this as misinformation travels fast! 

There are certainly some genuine quality concerns, but these don't appear to be sustainability-related.