Nintendo dead last in Greenpeace 'Guide to Greener Electronics'
Also anchoring the rear, Microsoft has scored a pathetic 2.7/10 for delaying its plans to eliminate harmful chemicals from its production process to 2011 and maintaining a subpar recycling program. And Sony? Well PlayStation faithful, there is finally something to cheer about: Sony ranks #3 in the Greenpeace guide with a promising 7.3/10, backed by a strong US recycling campaign. It may be the biggest, blackest behemoth on your shelf, but in the games industry, appearances can be deceptive.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
AirIntake @ Nov 27th 2007 11:45AM
Yeah, Greenpeace is probably a good unbiased judge right? Why don't they go assault some whalers instead.
Brad Lee @ Nov 27th 2007 11:46AM
Why would Greenpeace have it in against Nintendo?
Jerk Face @ Nov 27th 2007 12:02PM
Assault whalers, LOL. Well said. Fuck greenpeace!
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Nov 27th 2007 12:05PM
Wasn't greenpeace created to make the Sierra Club look more mainstream?
I mean, nobody took the Sierra Club seriously because their ideas where too "out there". So this guy started up Greenpeace with completely psychotic environmental ideas to make Sierra Clubs ideas seem less wacky by comparison.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Nov 27th 2007 1:23PM
Why'd I get voted down for that. Its the damn truth. Look it up.
Though I may be thinking of a different, but equally influential organization.
AirIntake @ Nov 27th 2007 1:25PM
Yeah, I don't know why you got voted down for that. Greenpeace is the PETA for the environment.
Shagittarius @ Nov 27th 2007 1:39PM
Dude the first Assault Whalers kicked ass I can't wait for Assault Whalers 2 - Whale Harder.
required @ Nov 27th 2007 1:52PM
I would love for those that say that they despise Greenpeace to articulate their hate, preferably in list format.
I personally admire Greenpeace and do not understand where the hate for them comes from.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Nov 27th 2007 2:18PM
Ah, it was "EarthFirst" created to make Greenpeace and Sierra Club look more reasonable.
required, it does not suprise me to find you siding with Greenpeace, when they're the source of some of the most boneheaded "solutions" to a wide variety of imagined "problems". They don't think things through logically, just like you.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Nov 27th 2007 2:28PM
Required: here's a list of things to hate about the environmental extremists (like greenpeace)
http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues.cfm?msid=34&page=3
Best part: it was written by one of the founding members of greenpeace.
upz @ Nov 27th 2007 2:35PM
Crono, the fact that some of GreenPeace's solutions are outlandish or impractical does not necessitate that their criteria on what's good or bad for the environment is wrong. You're just sore whenever anyone says anything negative about Nintendo.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Nov 27th 2007 2:51PM
No, i'm just sore when greenpeace says anything. Same with Peta.
required @ Nov 27th 2007 3:23PM
crono, as google points out Patrick Moore (aka greenspirit) is the #1 spokesperson for the B.C. Timber Industry, see:
http://www.fanweb.org/patrick-moore/
Now do you mind making your own list of why you hate greenpeace?
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Nov 27th 2007 3:48PM
Nope, because his works just as well. He's what we'd call a reasonable environmentalist who realizes that we can't all go back to the stone age just because we impact the planet.
The timber industry isn't bad. Your house is made of timber they cut down. What was bad about the timber industry is clear cutting forests and not preserving parts of old growth forests. That doesn't mean we can survive without the timber industry, or that the timber industry should continue is destructive practices. What it DOES mean is that environmentalists who truly want to help the planet need to work together with local and national governments, as well as big industries to change their practices to a more earth friendly one.
If you expect people to never chop down a tree again, you belong right in the middle of the environmental extremists who are more a part of the problem than any solution.
likedonduan @ Nov 27th 2007 10:14PM
@Crono: PETA loves Nintendo. Remember Super Chicks Bros!
Questworld @ Nov 27th 2007 10:19PM
Well I think what they do is important. We really do need companies to figure out not only the processes to making a product but also figure out processes for collection, disposal, recycling, etc. People seem to go gadget gaga with some constantly upgrading computers, buying game consoles (i.e. we need to have consoles that really last as oppose to depending on warranties for faulty designs), replacing cellphones, etc. You’d be a fool to plug your ears just because you could care less about such organizations.
Fernando Rocker @ Nov 27th 2007 11:46AM
I guess is hard to find negative press for Nintendo.
Noshino @ Nov 27th 2007 11:51AM
no its not? dude, I didn't even know that Motorola was one of the worst mobile manufacturers when it came to contamination, hence why I love my Nokia and SE mobiles
borland502 (SDF - Macross Ring) @ Nov 27th 2007 1:30PM
Mostly, this is a PR embarrassment intended to get them to change. In my opinion, that's no bad thing. It'll have scant effect on sales, so all you NDF fellas can relax.
The SDF should be pleased, but it means jack squat for sales. So limit the bragging m'kay? The problem with going all green or targeting such matters is that people rarely focus on the greatest threats. If Nintendo disappeared tomorrow, little would improve.
Negativecool @ Nov 27th 2007 11:46AM
So, when considering a purchase of the PS3 you have to consider which green you value more...Money, or trees.
(money)
9600baud @ Nov 27th 2007 11:47AM
this != news
Poisoned Al @ Nov 27th 2007 12:38PM
Any old shit flung at the PS3 is of course.
Zahada @ Nov 27th 2007 3:17PM
if (Nintendo > the environment)
greenpeace complains
else
greenpeace complains
gonk @ Nov 27th 2007 11:49AM
and i thought japan had agreed to the kyoto treaty
or are nintendo's emissions below those levels and greenpeace is still being a bitch?
FidliousWong @ Nov 27th 2007 11:58AM
Aren't majority of the components in Nintendo products produced in China though? Assemply could be done in Japan but cheap parts offer a discount irresistable to any company. And unless people are willing to start buying iPod Nanos for $600 and PS2s for $300 again, unethical manufacturing processes will remain the norm.
Oh well. I get cheap electronics because some shmoe in China gets $50 a month working 60 hours a week building my DVD player. As much as I feel for him, I feel for my wallet more. And frankly, I don't think the economy could withstand the instant blow of cheap electronics suddenly not becoming cheap. I mean, milk, eggs, and other dairy products have doubled their price due to ethonals demand in gasoline. Imagine that impacting other consumer goods. People complain about all the chinese toys being recalled right now but do they really want $45 Barbie Dolls, $120 Elmo Dolls, and $25 6" GI Joe's?
gonk @ Nov 27th 2007 12:27PM
100 years ago people used to make their own toys, carving them out of wood and whatnot
sheppy2.0 @ Nov 27th 2007 1:17PM
Yeah, but nowadays parents can't even be bothered with checking a rating. You think that same work ethic applies today? Face it, work ethic in this country is as dead as Reid Godshaw's PS3... and acting career.
http://us.vdc.imdb.com/name/nm1463597/photogallery
Remember kids, faulty claims of Sony warranty issues do not a decent "comeback" make.
GRANTED @ Nov 27th 2007 2:31PM
Actually almost no one is following the pledges made at Kyoto. It's not any individual's fault, but instead of lowering emissions, Japan has actually increased them by about 5% since they signed the Protocol. Blame vehicle emissions and an increasingly globalized economy.
Either way, it's not up to companies to follow the Kyoto Protocol. It's up to policy makers to restrict industry from making environmentally un-friendly decisions. And at least Japan signed the Kyoto Protocol: the U.S. didn't, because some people think increased CO2 emissions have no effect on the biosphere: mostly the uneducated or those who have a lot to lose from industry restrictions.
And I hate Greenpeace for painting a huge target of immaturity on the environmentalist movement. It's like saying all Texans are stupid just because the president proudly ignorant of almost everything. Anyway, fuck whales, fuck pandas, I don't really care if species go extinct. What scares me is increased incidence of major weather phenomena/disasters and drought, which will cause political instability on a global scale (= genocide and terrorism). It would also be nice if 25% of inner city kids didn't get Asthma from atmospheric particulates, but I'll worry about that in about 10 years when I have my own kids.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Nov 27th 2007 5:06PM
US didn't sign Kyoto because adhering to the policy would have nearly crippled our economy. And unlike those other countries that signed it and haven't done anything to keep it, we back up our signatures with actions.
SKI @ Nov 27th 2007 7:28PM
This report is complete bull. The reason why Greanpeace gave Nintendo a 0 out of 10 is because Nintendo didn’t release to them all documentation on product disposal, recycling, etc.
Synner @ Nov 27th 2007 9:35PM
@Granted:
can you explain what weather occurances you are babbling about?
Would you mean the increased hurricanes that didn't happen?
Or are you referring to the 1 degree global temperature variance over the last 1000 years?
Please elaborate on how More rain, less rain, more hurricanes, fewer hurricanes, higher and lower temps ALL get blamed on global warming?
GRANTED @ Nov 29th 2007 10:49AM
Synner: CO2 release is responsible for the redistribution of precipitation on our planet. Less of it is hitting land, more is hitting ocean. Less is hitting already low-precipitation areas, more is hitting already-inundated areas of the globe. Monsoon season in south Asia is lasting longer and is more violent. Drought in the Southern U.S. is more prolonged (see: Georgia, Califonia).
Here's an abstract from an article in Nature, perhaps the most respected science publication in existence, saying the same thing:
Human influence on climate has been detected in surface air temperature, sea level pressure, free atmospheric temperature, tropopause height and ocean heat content. Human-induced changes have not, however, previously been detected in precipitation at the global scale, partly because changes in precipitation in different regions cancel each other out and thereby reduce the strength of the global average signal. Models suggest that anthropogenic forcing should have caused a small increase in global mean precipitation and a latitudinal redistribution of precipitation, increasing precipitation at high latitudes, decreasing precipitation at sub-tropical latitudes, and possibly changing the distribution of precipitation within the tropics by shifting the position of the Intertropical Convergence Zone. Here we compare observed changes in land precipitation during the twentieth century averaged over latitudinal bands with changes simulated by fourteen climate models. We show that anthropogenic forcing has had a detectable influence on observed changes in average precipitation within latitudinal bands, and that these changes cannot be explained by internal climate variability or natural forcing. We estimate that anthropogenic forcing contributed significantly to observed increases in precipitation in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, drying in the Northern Hemisphere subtropics and tropics, and moistening in the Southern Hemisphere subtropics and deep tropics. The observed changes, which are larger than estimated from model simulations, may have already had significant effects on ecosystems, agriculture and human health in regions that are sensitive to changes in precipitation, such as the Sahel.
Zhang, et al. Detection of human influence on twentieth-century precipitation trends. Nature. 2007 Jul 26;448(7152):461-5
It's okay to not know--I'm afraid, however, that conservatives like you prefer to avoid the truth completely because the culture takes pride in differentiating itself from intellectuals. It's sad when people take pride in ignorance. Saying "show me proof" over and over again will only get you so far--the proof is already available, check PubMed (gov't-run science search site).
chalito @ Nov 27th 2007 11:50AM
I wonder if they took into account how much energy each console consumes and how that translates into environmental consequences in the long term?
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Nov 27th 2007 12:07PM
Probably not. They only looked at a loaded list of bullet points so they can try and make people look bad for political gain.
I believe in a cleaner earth, but I'll never align myself with Greenpeace nutjob eco-terrorists.
Brello @ Nov 27th 2007 12:24PM
@Chrono
Agreed. A cleaner earth is one thing, Greenpeace people are lunatics.
TwEE @ Nov 27th 2007 3:11PM
Greenpeace are terrorists now Crono?
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Nov 27th 2007 4:20PM
I dunno, have their members ever defaced or destroyed property to further their political goal? Putting spikes in trees to destroy chainsaws counts.
Thats what we call an eco-terrorist. And the term has been around since long before 9/11.
Sean Newton @ Nov 27th 2007 7:01PM
Actually, tree spikes aren't just about destroying chainsaws. They can potentially injure or kill loggers if the chainsaw jerks out of the tree when it hits it. If it only caused damage, it wouldn't be as big a deal... in some cases it's flat out murder.
Louis @ Nov 27th 2007 11:53AM
This is stupid, the ratings are based on consumer policies and not the fact that the Wii barely takes any power to run, while a PS3 and a 360 could run a small African nation even when they are off.
Emperor Samoth @ Nov 27th 2007 11:54AM
Being environmentally responsible cost money, and Nintendo is in the business of making money, not spending. Fools.. Bwwa, ha, ha, ha
R @ Nov 27th 2007 11:55AM
As pointed out on Kotaku, if you'll look at the report, you'll notice that they gave Nintendo a crappy score because they couldn't find any information on Nintendo's FAQ. Let me repeat that:
They have a score of ZERO because there is no information.
If you look at the report, it just says no info in every column. I'll admit Nintendo should be more open with that info but to say that they are the largest polluter among the console makers based on this information is simply a lie. I suspect Nintendo gets this grade because the Wii is still so popular, just like when they bashed the iPod as killing our children and puppies simply because it was the most high profile gadget.
Companies should have these goals firmly in mind, but there's not enough info here to base any decisions off of.
Noshino @ Nov 27th 2007 12:14PM
mmm...you have a point, but then again, if they know that they don't deserve such score, why not show the information? why hide it? Hell, even the companies with the highest contamination rates show their information...
R @ Nov 27th 2007 12:23PM
Why Nintendo isn't showing it, I don't know? They should, I agree, they absolutely should.
That said, I think this focus on green tech is fairly exclusive to this console generation so far and Nintendo is known for being oddly slow in some areas. That said, I'm sure we'll see a response to this soon, hopefully a rebuttal.
Also, just because there's a lack of information doesn't mean it's benevolant or nefarious. Saying that they don't show their info thus they're the biggest polluter is akin to saying that I don't disclose how often I argue with my girlfriend, therefore we argue more then anyone else.
If Nintendo does turn out to be the worst polluter out of the bunch, actions need to be taken and this will certainly influence my opinion of them as a company (similar to my reaction on the Xbox for Microsoft's repressive actions in the technology department).
Bottom line: Nintendo needs to disclose this info, it's wrong not to. But displaying this info in the manner in which the game blogs are doing is just as wrong.
Noshino @ Nov 27th 2007 12:46PM
I agree with you that the fact that they aren't showing the information doesn't directly imply that they are the worst polluters...
It was either guilty til proven otherwise or innocent til proven guilty, guess they decided to go for the first option...
R @ Nov 27th 2007 1:03PM
I prefer the japanese concept of "mu" as defined in pop culture. It's a third response besides "Yes" or "No" that can be used when the question is invalid such as in the famous "Did you stop beating your wife?" exercise (yes meaning you used to beat her but have stopped, no meaning you continue to beat her). Mu would be an answer that simply asserts the question or statement is invalid.
Unfortunately, we don't have a similar word in english and a single word usually represents a mindset. Still, if we could, I would claim this entire premise of this article falls under that third category.
Grey Acumen @ Nov 27th 2007 7:34PM
"When did you stop pretending to be a cow?"
"Mu"
........
R @ Nov 27th 2007 8:02PM
"Did you stop being a cow?" might retain the other meaning better but I LOL'ed, Grey.
Although, since this is the internet the best way to say it might be: "Did you stop being a cow furry?" ~_^
megaStryke @ Nov 27th 2007 11:55AM
Greenpeace probably visited the Nintendo FAQ page, found nothing in regards to waste management, then gave the company a fat zero because further research into the issue would have been too time-consuming.
Megalomaniac @ Nov 27th 2007 11:56AM
The actual report seems like they didn't bother to even contact Nintendo. Most of the "information" seems to be from Nintendo's FAQ and the other half lists "no information". It's really stupid to give some a 0 score just because you couldn't find the information. At very least they should make it a Not Available rather than a 0.
Joshua @ Nov 27th 2007 11:56AM
Well, it's cheap for a reason.