I sure hope this does not mean a reduction in quality, one of Legos big benefits has been the longevity, lego pieces from the 70s are still in my family's rotation. Reuse should always come before recycle.
ABS is neat when it comes down to sustain the teething to split apart stubborn assemblies. Sold a crate of my ol'lego for 20.- and I'm happy thinking of these kids building new dreams with them.
If anything, what surprises me is that if there is a product where reuse reigns supreme, that's Legos. A brick has to take a lot of abuse before it gets discarded.
This sounds like a mistake. I gifted my 1000s of lego bricks from the 70s and early 80s to my nephew. I don't see why it needs to be renewable; they will be fine in another 50 years. Unless it is the same quality, but I highly doubt that.
I dont understand why something that's recycled, renewable and sustainable can cost more than something that's not.<p>The price is a proxy for materials and energy required to produce the product. You can say that eventually we'll run out of [resource] but as we do the price goes up making alternatives more attractive. The sustainability part is one of the most powerful signals captured by price.<p>So when someone is trying to sell me something that costs more but is somehow more sustainable, I immediately call bs.