A recent Wall Street Journal article on Lego’s quest to reduce their carbon footprint made me wonder whether we have not gone over the edge.
Read the article here and then consider my premise.
The idea here is certainly noble in seeming intent. After all, if your business consumes a non-renewable commodity, it seems reasonable to be concerned about that over time. And, when it is a large part of your business cost, worrying about how the price volatility in that commodity is certainly also an important business concern. Fair enough … I think we all agree.
But, to then think of this in your carbon footprint is a reach. These bricks do not emit carbon. They are essentially sequestered carbon. Thank you for making them so well that they will outlive our families. Carbon footprint was thought of about the emitted carbon dioxide. Yes, the manufacture of anything has a carbon footprint, but that is not what this article is about.
So, we need to correct editorial misrepresentations like this. Maybe this was the mistake of an editor at the Wall Street Journal who wanted to give credit to Lego for an environmental concern. Maybe this was the mistake of Lego to try to take environmental credit for something that really is mostly about business acumen.
In any event, it is an illustration of how we all are fed nonsense about what people are doing to supposedly help our environmental footprint when we are truly ignoring the more fundamental options.