Lego says its billion-dollar factory in Vietnam will make toys without pumping out harmful emissions
BINH DUONG, Vietnam (AP) — Lego opened a $1 billion factory in Vietnam on Wednesday that it says will make toys without adding planet-warming gas to the atmosphere by relying entirely on clean energy.
The factory in the industrial area of Binh Duong, close to Ho Chi Minh City, is the first in Vietnam that aims to run entirely on clean energy. Lego says it will do that by early 2026.
It's the Danish company's sixth worldwide and its second in Asia. It will use high-tech equipment to produce colorful Lego bricks for Southeast Asia's growing markets.
'We just want to make sure that the planet that the children inherit when they grow up needs to be a planet that is still there. That is functional,' Lego CEO Niels Christiansen told The Associated Press.
The factory is an important factor in Lego's quest to stop adding greenhouse gases by 2050. It has a shorter-term target of reducing emissions by 37% by 2032. The privately held group makes its bricks out of oil-based plastic and says it has invested more than $1.2 billion in a search for more sustainable alternatives. But those efforts have not always been successful.
Fast-industrializing Vietnam also aims to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, so it needs more of its factories to use clean energy. The country hopes the plant's 12,400 solar panels and energy storage system will help set a precedent for more sustainable manufacturing.
Locating the Lego factories in regions they supply has also helped insulate them from the tariffs ordered by U.S. President Donald Trump, Christiansen said. 'Right now, I am probably more observant of what does this mean to growth in the world? Do we see consumer sentiment changing in parts of the world or not, and what would that potentially mean?' he said.
The blocks are made from differently colored plastic grains that are melted at high temperatures and then fed into metal molds. The highly-automated factory uses robots for making the bricks to a tenth of a hair's width precision and then packaging them. It eventually will employ thousands of mostly skilled workers to operate these machines. Some of them have already begun work after being trained in in Lego's factory in eastern China.
Manufacturing makes up a fifth of Vietnam's GDP and consumes half the energy it uses. There are plans to phase out its coal power plants by 2040.
The Lego factory, which spans 62 soccer fields, sets the 'blueprint' for making large, power-guzzling factories sustainable while remaining profitable, said Mimi Vu, a founder of the consultancy Raise Partners in Ho Chi Minh City. 'Sometimes it takes a big company, like Lego, to take those risks. To show that we can do it … And we can be profitable,' she said.
The factory will benefit from a new 2024 rule known as a direct power purchase agreement or DPPA, which allows big foreign companies to buy clean energy directly from solar and wind power producers and to meet their clean energy requirements.
The factory will be linked to an adjacent energy center where electricity can be stored in large batteries.
'So even if the sun is only shining during the day, we store the energy and can use it all over. That will cover by far the majority of the consumption of the factory,' added Christiansen,
The remaining 10%-20% of the factory's energy needs will be met through agreements with other clean energy producers.
'Lego and Vietnam, we are having the same aspirations. We both want to be green, to play our part in the climate. And I think this with the solar and battery and DPPA, it is showcasing that it can be done,' Jesper Hassellund Mikkelsen, Senior Vice President Asia Operations at the LEGO Group told The AP.
The company will also open a distribution center in Vietnam's southern Dong Nai province to help serve markets in Australia and other Asian countries where it sees an opportunity for growth.
The five buildings in the factory meet high energy efficiency standards. Lego also has planted 50,000 trees – twice the number of the trees it cut to clear land for the factory. It's the first Lego factory to replace single-use plastic bags with paper bags for packaging.
Lego's founder, Ole Kirk Kristiansen, started the company as a wooden toy maker before patenting the iconic plastic bricks in 1958. It is still is seeking a way to make its plastic bricks more environmentally friendly.
Christiansen said Lego bricks last decades and could be reused, though the ultimately ambition is to make them out of more renewable materials. He said that a third of the materials used in Lego bricks made last year were from renewable and recycled sources. But that's more expensive than plastic made out of fossil fuels.
'It's not inexpensive at this point in time, but we believe if we ... lean into that, we help create a supply chain for the type of plastic materials that are not based on fossil fuel,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
WIRED
15 minutes ago
- WIRED
The ‘Long-Term Danger' of Trump Sending Troops to the LA Protests
Jun 10, 2025 12:24 PM President Trump's deployment of more than 700 Marines to Los Angeles—following ICE raids and mass protests—has ignited a fierce national debate over state sovereignty and civil-military boundaries. LAPD officers and National Guard soldiers stand on patrol as demonstrators protest outside a jail in downtown Los Angeles following two days of clashes with police during a series of immigration raids on June 8, 2025. Photograph:As hundreds of United States Marines deploy in Los Angeles under presidential orders to protect federal property amid growing protests over immigration enforcement, constitutional scholars and civil rights attorneys warn of long-term implications for American democracy and civil-military relations. President Donald Trump revealed Monday that he had ordered the deployment of more than 700 activity-duty Marines out of Camp Pendleton—an extraordinary use of military force in response to civil unrest. The move, widely condemned by his critics, follows Trump's federalization of the National Guard. Some 3,800 guardsmen have since been deployed in California against the objections of its government, spurring debate among legal observers over the limits of the president's power to send troops into American streets. Trump ordered the deployments in response to thousands of Angelenos who took to the streets on Friday in protests. LA residents responded after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents carried out sweeping raids of local businesses, arresting, among others, dozens of day laborers who were vying for work outside a local Home Depot. Larger demonstrations soon formed and remained largely peaceful until residents were engaged by police with riot shields and crowd control weapons. Over the weekend, the clashes between police and protesters escalated across many neighborhoods with large immigrant populations. Numerous buildings were vandalized with anti-ICE messages, and several Waymo autonomous vehicles were set ablaze. Videos captured by protest attendees show police firing upon demonstrators with rubber bullets and other crowd control agents, including waves of asphyxiating CS gas. Members of the press shared images online showing injuries they incurred from the police assault. In widely shared footage, a Los Angeles police officer appears to intentionally target an Australian reporter, Lauren Tomasi, shooting her from feet away with a rubber bullet as she delivers a monologue into a camera. On Monday, CNN correspondent Jason Carroll was arrested live on air. California governor Gavin Newsom condemned Trump's troop deployment in posts on social media, calling the president's actions an 'unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' His attorney general, Rob Bonata, has filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming the order violated the state's sovereignty, infringing on Newsom's authority as the California National Guard's commander in chief. In response to a request for comment, the Department of Defense referred WIRED to a US Northern Command press release detailing the deployment of Marines and National Guardsmen. Federal troops in the United States are ordinarily barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities. This rule, known as 'posse comitatus,' may be suspended, however, by a sitting president in cases of civil unrest or outright rebellion. This exception—permitted under the Insurrection Act—allows the president to deploy troops when circumstances make it 'impracticable' for state authorities to enforce federal law by 'ordinary' means. While these powers are most often invoked at the request of a state government, the president may also invoke the act when a state chooses to ignore the constitutional rights of its inhabitants—as happened multiple times in the mid-20th century, when southern states refused to desegregate schools after the Supreme Court's landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. President Trump, however, has so far not invoked the Insurrection Act, relying instead on a theory of 'inherent authority' advanced by the US Justice Department in 1971 during the height of the anti–Vietnam War protests. This interpretation of presidential power finds that troops may be deployed in an effort to 'protect federal property and functions.' Notably—unlike the Insurrection Act—this does not permit troops to engage in activities that are generally the purview of civilian law enforcement agencies. Trump also invoked statutory power granted to him by Congress under Title 10 of the US Code, which enabled him to federalize elements of California's National Guard. These activations typically occur when guardsmen are needed to support overseas military operations, as happened routinely this century during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Domestically, however, guardsmen are not usually federalized without the agreement of a state's governor—unless the Insurrection Act has been invoked. Legal experts interviewed by WIRED offered a range of opinions on the president's authority to deploy active-duty military troops or federalize the National Guard. While most believe it is likely within Trump's power to ignore Newsom's express objections, doing so without an invocation of the Insurrection Act, they say, is a decision fraught with legal complexities that carries serious implications, from altering—perhaps permanently—the fundamental relationship between Americans, states, and the federal government, to disturbing the delicate balance between civilian governance and military power. Liza Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, underscores the 'unprecedented' nature of Trump's approach. 'He's trying to basically exercise the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it,' she says. A key issue for Goitein is that the memorandum signed by Trump last week federalizing the National Guard makes no mention of Los Angeles or California. Rather, it states that the guardsmen are being mobilized to address protests that are both 'occurring' and 'likely to occur.' In essence, the memo 'authorizes the deployment of federal troops anywhere in the country,' Goitein says, 'including places where there are no protests yet. We're talking about preemptive deployment.' Goitein argues that the administration's justifications could undermine both judicial accountability and civil‑military boundaries. Under the Insurrection Act, federal troops can take on the responsibilities of local and state police. But without it, their authority should be quite limited. Neither the guardsmen nor the Marines, for instance, should engage with protesters acting peacefully, according to Goitein. 'He says they're there to protect federal property,' she says. 'But it looks a lot like quelling civil unrest.' Anthony Kuhn, a 28-year US Army veteran and managing partner at Tully Rinckey, believes, meanwhile, that there is really 'no question' that Trump would be justified in declaring a 'violent rebellion' underway in California, empowering him to ignore Newsom's objections. The images and video of protesters hurling rocks and other items at police and lighting cars on fire all serve as evidence toward that conclusion. 'I know people in California, the governor, the mayor, are trying to frame it as a protest. But at this point,' says Kuhn, 'it's a violent rebellion. You can draw your own conclusions from the pictures and videos floating around.' Kuhn argues that the intentions of the protesters, the politics fueling the demonstrations, don't matter. 'They're attacking federal facilities. They're destroying federal property. So in an attempt to restore the peace, the president has the authority under Title 10 to deploy troops. It's pretty straightforward.' In contrast, Rutgers University professor Bruce Afran says deploying military forces against Americans is 'completely unconstitutional' in the absence of a true state of domestic insurrection. 'There was an attack on ICE's offices, the doorways, there was some graffiti, there were images of protesters breaking into a guardhouse, which was empty,' he says. 'But even if it went to the point of setting a car on fire, that's not a domestic insurrection. That's a protest that is engaged in some illegality. And we have civil means to punish it without the armed forces.' Afran argues that meddling with the expectations of civilians, who naturally anticipate interacting with police but not armed soldiers, can fundamentally alter the relationship between citizens and their government, even blurring the line between democracy and authoritarianism. 'The long-term danger is that we come to accept the role of the army in regulating civilian protest instead of allowing local law enforcement to do the job,' he says. 'And once we accept that new paradigm—to use a kind of BS word—the relationship between the citizen and the government is altered forever.' 'Violent rioters in Los Angeles, enabled by Democrat governor Gavin Newsom, have attacked American law enforcement, set cars on fire, and fueled lawless chaos," Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, tells WIRED. "President Trump rightfully stepped in to protect federal law enforcement officers. When Democrat leaders refuse to protect American citizens, President Trump will always step in.' As the orders to mobilize federal troops have come down, some users on social media have urged service members to consider the orders unlawful and refuse to obey—a move that legal experts say would be very difficult to pull off. David Coombs, a lecturer in criminal procedure and military law at the University of Buffalo and a veteran of the US Army's Judge Advocate General's Corps, says it's hypothetically possible that troops could question whether Trump has the authority to mobilize state guardsmen over the objection of a state governor. 'I think ultimately the answer to that will be yes,' he says. 'But it is a gray area. When you look at the chain of command, it envisions the governor controlling all of these individuals.' Separately, says Coombs, when troops are ordered to mobilize, they could—again, hypothetically—refuse to engage in activities that are beyond the scope of the president's orders, such as carrying out immigration raids or making arrests. 'All they can do in this case, under Title 10 status, is protect the safety of federal personnel and property. If you go beyond that, then it violates the Posse Comitatus Act.' Federal troops, for instance, would need civilian police to step in. At the point, authorities want peaceful protesters to disperse. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that, in a letter on Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem requested that military troops be directed to detain alleged 'lawbreakers' during protests 'or arrest them,' which legal experts almost universally agree would be illegal under ordinary circumstances. The letter was addressed to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and accused the anti-ICE protesters of being 'violent, insurrectionist mobs' aiming to 'protect invaders and military aged males belonging to identified foreign terrorist organizations.' Khun, who warns there's a big difference between philosophizing over what constitutes an unlawful order and disobeying commands, dismisses the idea that troops, in the heat of the moment, will have an option. 'It's not going to be litigated in the middle of an actual deployment,' he says. 'There's no immediate relief, no immediate way to prove that an order is unlawful.' Khun says that were he deployed into a similar situation, 'me and my junior soldiers would not respond to a nonviolent or peaceful protest.' Asked what protesters should expect, should they engage with federal troops trained for combat overseas, Kuhn says the Marines will hold their ground more firmly than police, who are often forced to retreat as mobs approach. In addition to being armed with the same crowd control weapons, Marines are extensively trained in close-quarters combat. 'I would expect a defensive response,' he says, 'but not lethal force.' Additional reporting by Alexa O'Brien.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Syngenta group expects minimal impact from U.S tariffs in 2025, executive says
CAMPINAS, Brazil (Reuters) -Agrochemicals company Syngenta Group expects a minimal impact from tariffs imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump on its business in 2025, Steven Hawkins, global president of Syngenta's crop protection business, said on Tuesday. While the company is growing and investing in its portfolio of biological products, these are not a substitute for synthetic crop protections, Hawkins told journalists on the sidelines of Syngenta's One Agro event in Brazil's Campinas, a city in the state of Sao Paulo.
Hamilton Spectator
23 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
An immigrant Wisconsin man falsely accused of threatening Trump can be released on bond
CHICAGO (AP) — An immigrant man who was falsely accused of threatening to assassinate President Donald Trump can be released from a Wisconsin prison on bond, an immigration judge determined Tuesday. Ramón Morales Reyes was accused of a writing a letter threatening Trump in a blistering social media post by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The post includes Morales Reyes' photo and an excerpt from the letter he purportedly wrote in English. But the claims quickly fell apart as Wisconsin authorities determined that Reyes, who doesn't speak English well or write in the language, was framed. The immigrant from Mexico was a victim in a violent 2023 attack where his bike was stolen. According to authorities, the alleged attacker, Demetric D. Scott , forged the letter to try to clear his case. Morales Reyes was set to be a witness in Scott's July trial for armed robbery and aggravated battery. Judge Carla Espinoza set Morales Reyes bond at $7,500 during a brief hearing at immigration court in Chicago. 'The defendant does not present a danger to the community,' she said. Morales Reyes, 54, appeared virtually from Dodge Detention Center in Juneau, about 70 miles (113 kilometers) north of Milwaukee. He could be released this week if the federal government does not appeal. An attorney for the federal government did not speak at the hearing. In a statement Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security said it would 'continue to fight for the arrest, detention, and removal' of immigrants without legal status but did not respond to a question about whether government attorneys would appeal Morales Reyes' bond. Morales Reyes, a married father of three U.S. citizen children, works as a dishwasher in Milwaukee. He was arrested by immigration agents last month after dropping a child off at school. He immigrated from Mexico in the 1980s and doesn't have legal permission to be in the U.S. This year, he applied for a U visa, which is for people in the country illegally who are victims of serious crimes. Getting such a visa can take years. Homeland Security issued a statement to reporters last week saying that although Morales Reyes was no longer considered a threat to Trump, federal attorneys would still pursue an immigration case. The government alleges that Morales Reyes reentered the U.S. times numerous times without a visa. However, Noem's social media post blaming Morales Reyes for an assassination attempt, which was circulated by Trump supporters, remains online. Cain Oulahan, an attorney for Morales Reyes, said his client is a crime victim and blasted the misinformation. 'We'd like to hear an official public correction and that someone else is responsible,' he said. Ahead of Tuesday's hearing, Morales Reyes daughter spoke to reporters, saying her father is hardworking and always focused on putting food on the table and keeping a roof over the family's heads. She said he also loved to take his children to parks or for walks and planned frequent cookouts. 'My dad is a not a threat to anyone. He is a good man who got caught up in a terrible situation,' said Anna Morales. 'Now that the truth has been proven, I ask from the bottom of my heart he gets the justice he deserves. We need him more than words can explain.' Scott, who is in the Milwaukee County Jail, is due in court Tuesday on the newer charges related to the letter, including felony witness intimidation and identity theft. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
