Greenpeace targets game industry

by Alexander Sliwinski { Dec 12th 2007 at 12:55PM }

After gaining some traction by calling Nintendo out a couple weeks ago for being a massive environmental offender, ~~eco-terrorist~~ environmentally conscious group Greenpeace is calling for reforms across the game industry. Greenpeace says that console manufacturers are "lagging way behind" mobile phone and PC makers in reducing their "toxic load" in the last year. The group goes on to say that game consoles have many of the same parts as PCs, meaning the manufacturers can do "a lot more."

The console manufacturers have yet to respond to the Greenpeace allegations. The campaign gives a list of toxic materials used in manufacturing and introduces issues such as Chinese and Indian workers in production facilities facing risk of exposure to chemicals. Greenpeace has also created a 90-second video aimed at gamers in which iconic characters compete for greener consoles -- when we find an embeddable version we'll place it after the break for those ethically opposed to giving Greenpeace traffic.

[Thanks Ron for finding the vid]

Tags: environment, green, greenpeace

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

rasgueado @ Dec 12th 2007 1:00PM

Greenpeace's suggestions, while a good step, are weak anyway. They need to highlight the profitability that material reclamation and a new business model would have.

Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Dec 12th 2007 1:10PM

That would require working with the industry, instead of just making irrational demands without any thought of the business impact.

Greenpeace has never been about working "with" anybody, only antagonizing until they get some sort of results.

Anticrawl @ Dec 12th 2007 1:53PM

Doesn't Nintendo do any domestic manufacturing at all? How are they polluting? I always though they outsourced/contracted manufacturing plants to develope their stuff. Of course the old inefficient plants in China and whatnot are gonna dump alot of polution.

nindustrial @ Dec 12th 2007 1:01PM

Um, since when does Greenpeace blow stuff up or kill people? Watch the bullshit please; direct action does not make one a terrorist.

Rocketboy @ Dec 12th 2007 1:06PM

I don't know about you, but I do believe that ramming ships in the open waters is a violent, possibly deadly act.

Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Dec 12th 2007 1:08PM

Spikes in trees, my friend. They've killed many a logger when the chainsaw chain breaks and kills the guy.

DSR7997 @ Dec 12th 2007 1:16PM

F**ckin hippies.......

nindustrial @ Dec 12th 2007 1:23PM

Well, I'm not positive, but usually when people use tree spikes (not that I'm condoning spiking trees) the logging company is aware that such actions are taking place. So whose fault is that? But if they don't let them know and I'm wrong, then you're correct.

As for ramming ships, the whaling ships have rammed greenpeace vessels as well, so would call them terrorists too? If so, then fair enough.

Point is, I'm not terribly fond of Greenpeace, but slapping the label ecoterrorist onto environmental groups without backing up the claim is a pretty serious charge for anyone who considers themselves a "journalist." You need to be more careful; just cause you don't write for a traditional media outlet doesn't mean you shouldn't still be ethical.

NATO_Duke @ Dec 12th 2007 1:23PM

Oh I guess you don't read the real news then:
"Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Gandhi – all of them advocated non-violent resistance, and what happened? They got whacked," Catalina Butterfly, a spokesperson with Greenpeace International's Amsterdam headquarters, said. "If they'd been carrying RPGs, maybe their fates would have been different."

Thats a quote in Avant News.
http://www.avantnews.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=314

So there, it must be true. :P

skittens @ Dec 12th 2007 1:30PM

Roketboy: That is the Sea Shepard's society that did the boat ramming. The founder of the SSCS was a founder of Greenpeace but left the group because they weren't hardcore enough.

http://www.seashepherd.org/

They are pretty nuts. Read the history.

ukickmydog @ Dec 12th 2007 1:33PM

shit, lol, i never thought of tree spiking, thats freakin ridiculous

d-pad @ Dec 12th 2007 2:20PM

"Well, I'm not positive, but usually when people use tree spikes (not that I'm condoning spiking trees) the logging company is aware that such actions are taking place. So whose fault is that? But if they don't let them know and I'm wrong, then you're correct."

Oh, that's precious.

Aside from killing loggers, destroying crops, burning down car dealerships and ramming ships, you feel the need to point the finger at the companies because 'they're aware such actions are taking place'?

How about putting the blame where it belongs - to the fucking douchebag activists who's 'peaceful' ideologies seem to always get left at the door when they injure people who THEY think deserve it.

Sorry to get so wound up, but this bullshit mentality really pisses me off.

Rususeruru @ Dec 12th 2007 2:50PM

"direct action does not make one a terrorist."

I think you missed your target with that one buddy. In other news most political groups with extreme agendas operate with a no-holds barred approach... perhaps not the EFF and I'm not exactly talking ACLU here.

Hunter Rose @ Dec 12th 2007 4:33PM

Definition of Terrorist can also be: a radical who employs terror as a political weapon, often using religion as a cover for terrorist activities.

Greenpeace seems to treat the environment as others would a religion, so they fit the definition of a terrorist.

NATO_Duke @ Dec 12th 2007 1:02PM

Maybe before you lecture the gaming industry you should stop killing all those whales Greenpeace. Yeah, thats right, we all know the truth.

Phylicus @ Dec 12th 2007 1:07PM

We're Vid30 Gamez, we don't do RL achievements.

Martez @ Dec 12th 2007 1:08PM

B-b-but, Mr. Splashy Pants loves the gamers!

Ron Coobie @ Dec 12th 2007 1:09PM

I look forward to the video. I'm a huge fan of takeback programs and I think it would be an admirable step if many manufacturers employed such a program, especially considering the rate at which new technology is being produced.

"The ranking criteria reflect the demands of the Toxic Tech campaign to the electronics companies. Our two demands are that companies should:

• clean up their products by eliminating hazardous substances
• takeback and recycle their products responsibly once they become obsolete."

LilCo187 @ Dec 12th 2007 1:18PM

lol@ eco-terrorists.....so true....

Man how can you NOT kick out all that pollution when you're Nintendo and you're manufacturing your console at an unheard of rate. Nobody said being #1 and the best was easy!

Mainman @ Dec 12th 2007 1:19PM

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/clashoftheconsoles/

Corbo @ Dec 12th 2007 1:32PM

On the one hand, I can understand that Greenpeace, being Greenpeace, wants to cut down on pollution and toxins in the environment. I just don't see how the games industry could be having a large enough effect to warrant immediate action.

And if consoles have many of the same parts as PCs, then how can PC manufacturers be so much greener? The pollution caused by producing the consoles can't be much more than any other industry and I doubt that the components of my Xbox are slowly seeping their way into the water table and killing anything important.

Reducing pollution and protecting the environment is a good thing. Making vague accusations at three big name companies in a high profile industry (seemingly) just to grab some attention, isn't.

Grog @ Dec 12th 2007 1:56PM

You're assuming that they are targeting the worst offenders so as to remove them, which is clearly not the case. A while back they released a report saying that Apple was a horrible polluter. A few days later it came out that Apple wasn't any worse than most other computer makers, Greenpeace just chose to target them because of all of the publicity over the iPod and impending iPhone - which gets them a lot more hype then if they just say "Electronics-makers don't do enough to curb pollution."

Wilson @ Dec 12th 2007 1:52PM

But consoles shouldn't make such an impact, I don't know anybody who has thrown away a console, even if they don't work, people keep them.

Greenpeace sucks.

Todd @ Dec 12th 2007 1:56PM

90 second video? Iconic characters? What copyrights does violate?

Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Dec 12th 2007 2:14PM

All of them.

Chilly Willy @ Dec 12th 2007 2:49PM

Copyright law has a fair use allowance where a "parody" does not violate the copyright. That was definitely a parody (with Mario farting mushrooms, etc.).

scott @ Dec 12th 2007 2:33PM

Read the report. Nintendo was ranked last because the information Greenpeace wanted was not available, not because they are using toxic chemicals or whatever is *implied* by Greenpeace.

What a meaningless report.

ColossalHat @ Dec 12th 2007 3:12PM

There's one problem that Greenpeace is going to have if they're going to try taking on the gaming industry. That problem is named Microsoft, with their nigh infinite amount of money will destroy Greenpeace if given the chance.

Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Dec 12th 2007 4:03PM

If only they would.

ck @ Dec 12th 2007 3:31PM

Man, I thought this story was dead a long time ago. Way to beat a dead horse, Greenpeace.

NoHitHair @ Dec 12th 2007 3:52PM

"Eco-terrorist"?

"Ethically opposed to giving Greenpeace traffic"?

It's good to know that even in the midst of producing more waste than ever before in history and facing global environmental catastrophe, people are still more than happy to demonize absolutely anyone that's willing to take a stand.

Fuck you, Mr. Sliwinski. Seriously, fuck you.

Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Dec 12th 2007 4:05PM

Seriously, destroying property isn't cool. Doing so for an environmental cause is eco-terrorism.

And targeting 3 companies with high profiles is an attention grab, not an attempt at saving the world. They aren't even talking about CO2 emmisions.

Seriously dude, fuck you.

Hunter Rose @ Dec 12th 2007 4:34PM

Seriously? You're pissed because Sliwinski has an opinion?

A terrorist is someone who uses terror as a political weapon. Greenpeace does this. Doing so when their cause is the environment means they are "eco-terrorsits."

DEAL WITH IT.

nindustrial @ Dec 13th 2007 1:22AM

@ NoHitHair: agreed. The sad part is that the posters to this comment board make me embarrassed to call myself a gamer. The people posting here don't even understand the definition of terror. Since when has anyone that Greenpeace has chosen to make a stand against been in fear for their safety? Never. Just because you disagree with someone's stance, it is intellectually dishonest to label them a terrorist. None of you assholes are any better than the fucking McCarthyites from the Red Scare in the 50s. You're all why this country is going down the tubes: you're afraid to have an honest discussion and rely on ad hominem attacks to make your arguments.

I love video games, but gamers sure do seem to take the cake when it comes to social ignorance.

Hunter Rose @ Dec 13th 2007 9:57AM

@ nohithair / nindustrial

The truly sad part is that you're so naive about a group whose goal is admirable, but uses methods that are beyond radical, legal or ethical, that you're now defending them.

One defenition of terror:Panic; Intense fear; One who instills intense fear; Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes.

Greenpeace has used intimidation, destruction of property, and violence to get their point across. This goes under the definition of "terror" for me.

I agree that the label should not be thrown out lightly, but with Greenpeace it IS accurate. Greenpeace doesn't get a pass just because there are more extreme groups out there.

Mainman @ Dec 12th 2007 4:05PM

Waitaminute...

Double-check who you've credited for finding the video against the comments. I think you'll find it was... ah, forget it.

(Side note: I'm attempting to get the video onto YouTube. I've successfully ripped the video, but I can't get the audio along with it. The recording program can't 'find' my built-in speakers and demands that I use external ones; something I don't have. The only alternative is placing a microphone nearby, but the sound quality will be horrible. Should I try it anyway?)

ThornedVenom @ Dec 12th 2007 4:13PM

Jacking up our console prices?!!! FAT CHANCE.

Synner @ Dec 12th 2007 4:27PM

How about my take on the situation.

Fuck Greenpeace

Fuck the environment, a 1degree temperature rise in the last 1000 years does not a crisis make.

Get the tory straight before trying to make me change my lifestyle...

What happened to the impending ice age, the hole in the ozone layer, the massive droughts and hurricanes?

Fuck you bunch of chicken little assholes, I'll still be laughing at you in 50 years when you are trying to predict the next end of the world scenario.

The only time the French government did anything cool was when the yrammed and subsequently sunk greenpeace's flagship Rawinbow Warrior, then boarded and held up the crew of rainbow warrior 2 with commandos.

Sidepocket @ Dec 12th 2007 7:30PM

1) Lets see. Guns as his icon. Cannot spell for beans, thus uses "tory" instead of story. Hates the French. Here is an idea while you are generalizing...are you a fucking HICK!?!

2) You can like animals and not be associated with the warped mindset of PeTA. Thus you can be friendly to your environment and not be a fan of green peace. Its people like you who lump people together that sends the human gene pool back a few thousand years.

3) How fucking lazy do you have to be to NOT care about your environment? Its were you live, you only have one of it. Its like your house just a billion times bigger. If your like, fucking afraid or stupid to not glut yourself on surplus and recycle a few basic things...then are you so lazy that you do not wipe your ass after taking a shit? Holy crap! No wonder why hicks like you smell all the time!

4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q71cMRGXx9o

Synner @ Dec 12th 2007 7:53PM

Yes, yes, attack the typos rather than the facts:

Recycling costs more money than just producing new products, all it does is create jobs for people.

In recycling paper alone, there is more pollution put into the air by the SECOND truck they use to cart around your seperated trash, and more hazardous chemicals used in the bleaching and processing of the paper back into usable pulp than I don't know, GROWING NEW TREES?

you are an idiot, keep believing the tripe the media and the left wants to push down your throat, just tell me what ever happened to the coming ice age, hole in the ozone layer, and increased hurricane season?

OH FUCK, they were wrong, just like they will be with the global warming scare. Here's a news flash: a 1 degree rise in global mean temperature doesn't even put us near the Mideval warming period, or mideval OPTIMUM as it is more widely known.

Oh and go fuck your mother.

nindustrial @ Dec 13th 2007 1:29AM

"Recycling costs more money than just producing new products, all it does is create jobs for people."

That might be true if you weren't so ignorant as to have not realized the fact that the cost of producing new products is not fully represented by the cost to the company in production. Why is this? Because of externalities. In the process of creating these products, the pollution and other harmful effects (poor labor practices, lack of health care, etc.) are not paid for by the company, they are shoved off on the taxpayers. So this supposed "cost to produce" new things has a bunch of hidden costs, that if the company was actually held accountable to paying for (seeing as they created them) would easily cost more than the cost of recycling.

Wow, maybe take an entry level economics class before talking about economics; until then, shut up and spare us the opinion of those who don't know what they're talking about.

Cheezeman3000 @ Dec 13th 2007 2:17AM

I dunno about the other stuff Synner's saying, but everything he's said about the media hype and global warming scare is dead on. Still, I was under the impression that most people didn't believe in global warming anyways. Right?
You all do realize it's just media hype, don't you?

Batzarro @ Dec 13th 2007 5:44AM

I must partly agree with the insane gunman. Being a christian, I know pointing at tha corner and yelling "DOOMSDAY" is a good way to gather attention. But what of the ozone layer thing, Gore says we "beat it", when in fact, I think we found out it wasn't that big a deal. Now, I think if you take all lefts, or all rights, you get nowhere fast, but there must be a middle ground, maybe?

Also, I'm pretty sure Ghandi would have blown himself up, had he chosen to carry an RPG(they are made to blow up tanks, not Spartans). Give him a Katana instead.

Synner @ Dec 13th 2007 7:04AM

How is sending 2 trucks to pick up your trask, having people seperate it at the recycling center, putting it on another truck to be treated with hazardous chemicals, taking that slop to another facility to be bleached, then taing it to another facility to be remanufactured into new paper better than tree farming?

I mean I don't know, but I've always been told trees are a renewable resource.

you cut the trees, plant new ones, then take them to the paper processing plant. Seems a lot less pollutant than dragging garbage all around town to be able to say: I got this paper by recycling!! And impress all your hippie friends.

And why should companies have to pay health care? why is that even related? Typical hippie response: don't answer the question, simply add irrelevant facts.

Here's a news flash Mr. intro to economics: when someone starts a company, his foremost goal isn't "gee, how many assholes can I give jobs to?" only the government thinks that way.

required @ Dec 12th 2007 4:41PM

Anticrawl, Nintendo is responsible for their pollution be it "outsourced" or in. Also note pollution travels, especially the airborne variety - it's not confined to China/anywhere. Same for water and land based pollutants. Ever hear the analogy that we all live down stream? Well we do. What goes around come around.