Lego is great. I'd still play with them today.
It'd be even better for lego to be good for the environment. It might even make a little kid think about it for a bit.
I don't really see any issues . . .
And so far I haven't seen a con answer either. So I don't know the opposing argument.
If Lego is looking for alternative sources for plastic, they will help make the world a better place. If successful, they would help make the world less dependant on oil, which most people can agree is a good thing. Also, they would help fight pollution if they come up with a method that decays faster and has less of an effect on the environment.
Yes, I support Lego's initiative to find alternative sources for plastic. Research shows that we are producing non-biodegradable plastics at an unsustainable rate and that the nation's landfills are overfilled as it is. By finding alternative sources for plastic for these popular toys, the Lego corporation will be able to make a significant contribution to waste reduction.
The health risks of plastic are significantly amplified in children, whose immune and organ systems are developing and are more vulnerable. The evidence of health risks from certain plastics is increasingly appearing in established, peer-reviewed scientific journals. Of the thousands of chemical additives added to plastics - and which manufacturers are not required to disclose - one type commonly added to plastics are "plasticizers," which are softening agents making it easier for the polymer chains to move and be flexible.
It would be a logical method for them to find a way of reducing our environmental footprint. Around three-quarters of Lego's carbon footprint comes from the extraction and refinement of oil used in its toys. So even though the company has other environmental projects it wouldn't be able to make a real progress without looking at plastic itself.