Ars Technica defends Nintendo from Greenpeace goose egg

by Justin McElroy { Nov 29th 2007 at 9:10AM }

"Say it ain't, so, Mario!" was the cry that went out from green-conscious gamers when they heard that Nintendo had scored a big zilch-o on Greenpeace's guide to the greenest electronics companies. Now, Ars Technica has taken the group to task on the credibility of the guide, reaffirming what all rings of the Nintendo Defense Force have always known: Big N can do no wrong.

Ars writes, "The research in general appears lazy. Nintendo's failing grade appears to be based entirely on this entry in the corporate FAQ, which briefly summarizes some of the steps the company has taken to protect the environment. Anything that's not covered there is simply rated 'No Information.'" While it's possible that Nintendo is as big an offender as Greenpeace says, their rankings would seem to lend no credibility to the claim.

Now, as far as the Wii's shelf pollution ... well, let's just say they should be happy the score stops at zero.

[Via GamePolitics]

Tags: ars-technica, greenpeace, nintendo, pollution

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Fernando Rocker @ Nov 29th 2007 9:17AM

Damn Cruis'n

Rhandos @ Nov 29th 2007 9:28AM

First comment minutes after the article went online and 23 comments yesterday alone. Jesus Christ...

Fernando Rocker @ Nov 29th 2007 9:36AM

Well... if you have your own bussines, in your own home, with workers, its easy to be in Joystiq and playing videogames.

Fernando Rocker @ Nov 29th 2007 9:37AM

Ah, and thanks for taking your time to count my comments.

bounchfx @ Nov 29th 2007 11:07AM

because that's the only crap game on wii...

/looks at 97% of the games on the system and sighs

Blast Processing Megadrive @ Nov 29th 2007 2:06PM

That's a bit harsh, bounchfx.

It's more like 96% of Wii games.

*sighs*

elpmis @ Nov 29th 2007 9:31AM

It's obvious that Greenpeace has never played Mario Sunshine.

Karen @ Nov 29th 2007 9:38AM

This was written by more then one commenter on the original story on Joystiq. It looks like Ars Technica was the only site that looked at the Greenpeace score as baseless because it had no information to come to a conclusion with.

I think the origin of the inaccurate story appeared on Next generation website it was re-posted everywhere and every time a commentator gave the real facts none of the articles were updated.

Zertoss @ Nov 29th 2007 9:46AM

I guess Joystiq's own story that I linked to in the last article wasn't a good enough debunking for Joystiq. Here it is again:

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/06/25/nintendo-hearts-the-environment/

Noshino @ Nov 29th 2007 11:30AM

Zertross,

Many readers actually explained what the problem was on the last article about this and also gave educated opinions on this matter.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/27/nintendo-dead-last-in-greenpeace-guide-to-greener-electronics/

Here, Greenpeace states this:

"Each score is based solely on public information on the companies website. Companies found not to be following their published policies will be deducted penalty point in future versions of the guide."

and I don't think Nintendo is a polluter, but why not show all that information? what is the problem with it? I mean, have you seen what other companies show? the news that you provide shows as much as their website does

Here, check the detailed information of what these other companies do:

http://www.sonyericsson.com/cws/corporate/company/aboutus/socialresponsibility/environment
http://www.nokia.com/A4243029
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/Environment/activities/vision/index.html
http://www.motorola.com/content.jsp?globalObjectId=8509

The problem at hand is making your policies public, its not some big secret, they should make their policies fully available and easy to access for the public.

Its really sad that an comment like this is coming from Ars Technica, they are blaming them for being lazy? I guess they were also lazy for not reading the whole article article

x876543 @ Nov 29th 2007 1:45PM

I'm sure the policies are public, but they just didn't think it was worth paying someone to post it up on the website and keep the site up to date. I'm sure if you send a letter to them, they will reply back with a request for $10 to ship you the binder of the policy they have on recycling/etc.

Jonah Falcon @ Nov 29th 2007 10:19AM

Yeah, Nintendo can do no wrong. It's only a megacorporation, and can be trusted.

Get real.

If you think Nintendo is holy, I suggest you have serious ontological problems.

Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Nov 29th 2007 11:07AM

If you think greenpeace is credible, then I suggest you have serious ontological problems.

Anonymous @ Nov 29th 2007 11:40AM

It's not that Nintendo is trustworthy - producing semiconductors is actually way more polluting than many people realise. I would be suprised if any of the corporations listed by Greenpeace and actually "green" at all.

The problem is that Greenpeace is known to be _untrustworthy_. Pick any issue of theirs you want and dig a little deeper. You'll see that their "research" is almost always sloppy in the extreme. Greenpeace do not work with information - they work will BS attention whoring.

Environmental problems are real, pressing, and really, really complex. We need to act based on an actual understanding of the issues, not just charge about with some halfwit's knee-jerk reactions.

There are environmental organisations I respect. Greenpeace sure as hell isn't one of them.

Dirk Dorkelson @ Nov 29th 2007 3:56PM

@Crono-

They're surely more credible than some guy named Crono posting comments on a video game blog. Despite what you might think of their tactics and public statements, it's hard to deny they've done some good. Just look at what they've done to limit whaling and the killing of seal pups for fur.

Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Nov 29th 2007 5:12PM

NO, its not hard to deny they've done some good.

I deny they've done some good.

Wasn't that hard at all. There are far better environmentalists and environmentalist organizations than greenpeace.

They have no credibility because they've demonstrated almost continuously for the last 2 decades that they can't be trusted at face value. See above comment.

Synner @ Nov 29th 2007 10:42AM

Fuck greenpeace and all the econazis everywhere

Zsavior @ Nov 29th 2007 11:28AM

A lot of these groups stoop to these tactics around the holidays to get press and attention to their environmental causes. Like attacking stars who put their names on certain clothing items when the celebrity has no say in how the clothes are made or where they are manufactured.

They probably picked Nintendo because they knew they were a popular item nothing more. They also knew the gaming media isn't to diligent in fact finding and figured they had a good amount of time to get away with this. Nintendo seems like a good prey because look at their stances against companies like R4 makers, they seem to shy away from courts. Sony and MS will stomp you out in seconds, you have to pick your battles when you are groups like these, and not attack a sleeping lion.

Noshino @ Nov 29th 2007 11:35AM

Sony Ericsson
Samsung
Sony
Dell
Lenovo
Toshiba
LGE
Fujitsu-Siemens
Nokia
HP
Apple
Acer
Panasonic
Motorola
Sharp
Microsoft
Philips

All are companies that are much more famous than Nintendo, oh, and Microsoft scored 2.7....

So what was your point again? have you even read the article?

Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Nov 29th 2007 11:37AM

No, I'd say "Nintendo" is a much more recognizable name that all but Sony on your list.

Noshino @ Nov 29th 2007 11:39AM

Crono....NDF....no wonder

Fernando Rocker @ Nov 29th 2007 11:42AM

Well... Crono is right...

And Nintendo makes more profits that that companies.

Koopaknight29 - (Nintendo Loyalist) @ Nov 29th 2007 12:09PM

Well, Nintendo _is_ the company currently in the spotlight, what with the DS, Wii and all that mainstream press coverage. It would make sense to target them for maximum outrage and they are a fairly easy target. Besides no one would expect "family-friendly" Nintendo of all companies to be a smog-belching supercorp. Instant coverage right there.

However, I think it's best for now just to attribute it poor communication and lazy researching practices rather than some conspiracy theory against Nintendo.
*tinfoil-hats*

...

Greenpeace is still crazy, regardless.

required @ Nov 29th 2007 12:01PM

Silly rogue factions at Ars Technica desperately try to defend teeny tiny pathetic little Nintendo from the big angry Greenpeace and its lethal scoreboard based attacks.

Tune into the boss level for more info...

hvnlysoldr @ Nov 29th 2007 12:35PM

Ars Technica also takes the report's usefullness to task. It's all well and good to put your recycling policies to the public, but how the heck can you broadcast your manufacturing processes for any possible "green" violations? And the point of deducting points for double talking means having to inspect the process lines anyway.

GrimReaper @ Nov 29th 2007 3:25PM

I find it hard to believe anything Greenpeace as anything credible or reliable. Those terrorists are what I simply state, they are terrorists who have delusions of trying to right things wrong when in fact they still cause problems.q