Greenpeace Down on Games Industry, Logic Flawed?

Earlier this week Greenpeace went after the games industry a bit, coming down on hardware manufacturers for poor environmental practices. Nintendo and Microsoft in particular got poor scores from the organization. Ars Technica's Opposable Thumbs blog notes, though, that their methodology is a bit odd. It's not so much that Nintendo's environmental policies (say) are all that bad - they're just not readily available on a website. "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." Similarly, all of the information on Microsoft originates from press materials and corporate statements on the company's web site. Clearly, Greenpeace did not perform an exhaustive evaluation of chemical use through the manufacturing pipeline."

What???

[by Anonymous Coward]

The methodology of Greenpeace was odd? Really?

What a harsh statement. It is almost as if the poster was saying that Greenpeace twists research to meet their own overall political goals.

Re:What???

[krog (25663)]

I know it! Next thing you know, PETA is going to be ham-fisting their objectives too. Hell in a handbasket, I tell you.

Re:What???

[Malevolyn (776946)]

I believe you meant tofu-fisting.

Re:

[Red Flayer (890720)]

If the "A" in PETA stands for wat I think it does, there is no way that they'd consider ham-fisting to be an ethical way to treat that part of the anatomy.

Although it might be interesting to watch the video...

Re:

[try_anything (880404)]

Their methodology wasn't odd, it just employs tactics that the typical geek wouldn't think of. Investigating current environmental practices and impacts, i.e., the engineering approach, could stir up a little PR tempest for companies to handle. Would companies respond by improving their environmental standards? Most likely it would be cheaper to act contrite, make a few token reforms and empty promises of more to come, and then sit back and wait for the next little tempest.

Greenpeace wants to force corpo

hmm

[nomadic (141991)]

Well I know anyone who criticizes Nintendo for any reason is drawn and quartered here, and even the word makes most slashdotters' (and all slashdot editors') critical thinking skills vanish in a puff of smoke...but my experience has been that if a company doesn't mention something, it's for a reason. If Nintendo is willing to brag about environmental steps they've taken, they're going to throw everything that possibly makes them look good in there. They're not going to fail to mention something positive out of humility or anything.

Re:

[Rycross (836649)]

Your comment doesn't deserve a troll rating.

Thats certainly a possibility, but it assumes that giving complete and detailed information is more beneficial than giving a brief summary and then avoid spending the time releasing all the proper information. I don't know whether this would be the case or not.

Another thing to consider: the Wii uses far less energy than the other systems out right now. I wonder if that was calculated the chart?

Re:hmm

[G Fab (1142219)]

You're right, criticizing Nintendo leads to a lot of flack on slashdot (and in the world in general... people really love that brand).

And surely you're right. Nintendo would publicize much of its environmentalism. But greenpeace is being dishonest here. It's not as though Greepeace is going to go out of their way to learn if Nintendo is a great company. That's because, at root, greenpeace is not about the environment. It's about western style government and corporations. Greenpeace's history shows it is generally focused on government regulation and distortion of truth for political purposes.

It's not as though Nintendo is pretending it is telling you the real story on Nintendo's environmental practices. Greenpeace is pretending it is, but is not doing the work to get the truth because it knows its story is better this way. Greenpeace is the one making the claim and with the responsibility to back it up with research. With, Nintendo, we can assume it is protecting itself and that's not very deceptive or surprising, but with Greenpeace, we are essentially being lied to.

Re:hmm

[webrunner (108849)]

Is it really fair to give them a ZERO though? It's their lowest score they ever gave anyone, and the reason is because they don't know what Nintendo is doing.

Mod Parent Up

[superwiz (655733)]

Someone hat to remind us of what he said.

Re:

[tepples (727027)]

Well, it doesn't matter what they say in the manual, since fair use law trumps any of their personal wishes of how you use what you bought.

Yes it does. Slashdot is in the United States, and in the United States, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is law. The DMCA trumps fair use because the DMCA creates separate offenses of circumvention and enabling circumvention that are orthogonal to copyright infringement and not subject to defenses to copyright infringement.

What makes a troll?

[adminstring (608310)]

"Troll" is defined as "someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum or group with the singular intention of baiting users into an argumentative response."

What makes GP a troll or not is not:

• whether his facts are correct
• whether his logic is correct
• whether his opinions match yours or other Slashdotters, or even
• whether you or other Slashdotters might get mad at what he has to say

What makes GP a troll or not is whether he bel

alternatives

[192939495969798999 (58312)]

Saying something's bad is a lot easier than providing viable alternatives. After all, if you throw paint on fur, doesn't that just make the wearer (who obviously is not adverse to buying fur) have to go buy another one, thus propagating the industry more? It's much harder to legitimately convince them to wear something else.

Criticisms

[fistfullast33l (819270)]

First, the original article should link to the original Greenpeace report [greenpeace.org].

Second, Greenpeace does provide suggestions, just not offered as part of the report. You can find links to their reports by starting here [greenpeace.org]. This one [greenpeace.org] (PDF warning!) provides suggestions for ways to reduce environmental impact in electronics. Personally, I don't see why it's Greenpeace's responsibility to dictate to a company how to make their product. Nor do I think that company wants Greenpeace to interfere in their design.

If there

Re:

[cromar (1103585)]

I'm all for less regulation of the actual technology, though I have no problem with keeping an eye on possibly negative environmental effects caused by industry and business. There has been a long history of business causing environmental/social problems when left to its own devices, so it is definitely something of which everyone should be wary.

Unfortunately

[Sycraft-fu (314770)]

Most "environmentalists" are just alarmists, cause heads, extremists, etc and not really that concerned about fixing the environment. As you said, it's real easy to find something wrong since there is something wrong with EVERYTHING. All actions have a downside, that's just how it is. Well there are plenty of morons that just like shouting about all the things that are bad with society, rather than trying to provide any solutions. Solutions are hard, problems are easy.

Also, you'll discover that there are a

Re:

[xappax (876447)]

Well there are plenty of morons that just like shouting about all the things that are bad with society, rather than trying to provide any solutions.

This is a generic argument trotted out tirelessly when people are confronted with activists who they don't agree with. It can just as easily be applied to you: All you're doing is complaining about how bad environmentalists are, what's your alternative? You offer no solutions for how we can get society to be responsible with ecosystems if not by being envi

Re:

[Sycraft-fu (314770)]

What to do better? That's simple: Don't fight things for no reason. Ensure that you've done proper research in to an issue before you speak on it, most are complex. Be for things, not against everything. Accept that there is no action without cost, that we have to chose between options that ALL have downsides and those downsides have to be weighed. Understand that there's no such thing as "zero" environmental impact, even non-human creatures impact their environment. More or less, just be educated and logic

What a waste

[earnest murderer (888716)]

Greenpeace used to be a reasonably decent organization. With all of their wealth and power, they could actually be affecting real change instead of bullying for dollars.

This seems to be a frequent issue with charitable organizations. Once they achieve their goal or enough business types get involved, instead of dissolving they transform into a money making operation. I guess it's just more profitable to ride the coat tails of your founders than to actually do something worth while.

Re:What a waste

[antifoidulus (807088)]

Meh, Greenpeace is a bunch of rich kids who like to gripe and love to trash anything thats popular, truth be damned.

I wonder if there is an "Environmentalists against Greenpeace" group? I would like to join.

Re:What a waste

[king-manic (409855)]

Meh, Greenpeace is a bunch of rich kids who like to gripe and love to trash anything thats popular, truth be damned.

I wonder if there is an "Environmentalists against Greenpeace" group? I would like to join.

When I was taking an ecology course in University my prof always harped about how counterproductive green peace was. Not all ecological goal can be achieved by "Doing nothing to the environment". In some ecologies they are so out of whack that "culling" is indeed required but Green Peace isn't about preserving ecologies but about making headlines, making young activist feel good, and saving cute furry animals (in a short term near sighted way).

Sometimes they are doing good work, for instance when they disrupted Japanese "scientific" research into whales. However the majority of their activities are media friendly, poorly researched, publicity stunts.

Re:

[aurispector (530273)]

Meh. You're right; who really gives a crap what greenpeace says? Anyone who lies to achieve their goals is immediately discredited.

I know a dude who presents himself as a sort of neo-hippy, anti corporate, anti globalization protester type. In reality he's a coddled rich white kid who uses his "politics" to score with hippy chicks. Mom and dad cover his many expenses and he drives a fairly expensive car. Carries a bag with a greenpeace sticker. He should choke and die.

Re:

[xappax (876447)]

However the majority of their activities are media friendly, poorly researched, publicity stunts.

When the weapon of choice among those doing huge damage to the environment is soundbytes and photo-ops, sometimes we have to fight back with the same. It feels dirty and is depressing, but the fact is that you can't change the world today with a strong research paper, or even a well-researched persuasive essay - at least when you have the forces of multi-million dollar PR firms arrayed against you.

I know i

Re:

[king-manic (409855)]

When the weapon of choice among those doing huge damage to the environment is soundbytes and photo-ops, sometimes we have to fight back with the same. It feels dirty and is depressing, but the fact is that you can't change the world today with a strong research paper, or even a well-researched persuasive essay - at least when you have the forces of multi-million dollar PR firms arrayed against you.

I know it offends our geek sensibilities to see people playing fast and loose with the facts, but I'm not sure there's another way. Reasoned research and data has to be the backbone of any legitimate movement, of course, but it alone can't capture the attention of the public to the extent needed to create real change.

The vast, vast majority of people are ignorant about the facts behind environmental issues, and are going to remain stubbornly ignorant of the facts forever, period. Far better that they should be ignorantly in favor of preventing environmental catastrophe than ignorantly apathetic. Like I said, it's depressing, but we have to realize that turning everyone into enlightened statistics geeks is pretty much the worst strategy for actually preserving the environment.

The problem is, they aren't making a difference. Mis-information means you are expending resources where the return may not be significant. In the grand scheme of ecology saving the spotted owl was unimportant. Saving 10 sq km of Amazon rain forest is much more important then the spotted owl. But groups like green peace chose to spearhead saving the owl because it looks cuddlier, less inconvenient to get to, and it is easier less life threatening. Thus the primary sin of Green Peace is detracting resources

Re:

[xappax (876447)]

There's definitely room for criticism of Greenpeace's campaigns, I just take issue with the idea that any campaign which involves publicity stunts and crowd pandering is inherently worthless, and should be condemned as self-centered attention seeking. Sometimes publicity stunts, even though they may not follow all the rules of a formal debate, are the best option for accomplishing a worthy goal.

And also, for the record, I have difficulty taking seriously people who criticize activists with the argument "

Re:

[king-manic (409855)]

And also, for the record, I have difficulty taking seriously people who criticize activists with the argument "if they really care, what they should really be doing is...". While it's fair to make constructive criticism and offer better ideas, it seems like a cop-out to just dismiss someone else's hard work simply because you were able to come up with a theoretical alternative action that you think would be better. After all, if you really cared, you'd be following your own advice and taking action instead of passively criticizing other's efforts :-)

I do take action. I've written my MP(Canada), I push that idea on public forums and within my social circle, I drive a small compact car (not hybrid, out of my price range at the time of purchase). With in my capabilities I do what I can. If green peace really put in hard work I wouldn't be criticizing them. They do lazy well publicized work. Intellectually lazy. They may have students and young people do psychosocially hard work like solicit signatures, harass fishing fleets, and pass out pamphlets but th

Re:

[king-manic (409855)]

Make that "physically hard work". silly spell checker.

Re:

[CFTM (513264)]

My problem with Greenpeace is very simple and has absolutely nothing to do with the spotted owl or throwing paint on fur coats; my problem with Greenpeace centers around the propaganda campaigns that they've waged against Nuclear Energy. According to Greenpeace's website, they "will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plant

Re:

[JaredOfEuropa (526365)]

I wish it was just savvy business types taking over Greenpeace. But it isn't. As one of the organisation's founders said, it's activists with a political agenda who have taken over, and that agenda is not the environment. It's the same tired old enemies of the left: big business and right wing government. It's easy to see when you look at their "business practices": lazy research (as in this case), outright lying and falsification (Brent Spar), picking easy targets who aren't actually doing wrong (loggi

Re:

[cliffski (65094)]

"With all their wealth and power":

from greenpeaces 2006 annual report (freely downloadable)
Income: $14 million
Expenses: $15.5 million.

lets pick a games company:
Nintendo's net sales for the first half of this fiscal year amount to 6.08 billion USD The operating income results in 1.65 billion USD, and the net profit is the aforementioned grand total of 1.15 billion USD.

I cant really see how greenpeace are some big evil corporate bully that is wasting its powers. And exactly how do you conclude that the organ

Re:

[j-turkey (187775)]

Personally, I'm 100% in favour of hardware companies being pressured to make energy efficient video cards, CPU's and consoles. This can only be a good thing, unless of course, your mom is currently paying your electricity bills.

The article has nothing to do with putting pressure on the industry. It's about poor methodology and inappropriately tagging high-profile businesses in order to generate more buzz. They did the same thing with Apple, and later admitted to doing exactly this.

Also remember that

Re:

[Rallion (711805)]

Personally, I'm 100% in favour of hardware companies being pressured to make energy efficient video cards, CPU's and consoles. This can only be a good thing, unless of course, your mom is currently paying your electricity bills.

Well, see, there's a lot of irony there. I don't think the big problem here is with companies actually doing what they can to be environmentally friendly, there's a problem with the sensationalist nature of this thing. You mention energy efficiency, but the only one of the three cons

Re:

[cliffski (65094)]

entirely my point. I'm showing that greenpeace are nothing like the parent poster suggested some huge corporate beast that wanted to just sustain its own existence, despite operating in a modern day ecological nirvana that had no need for them.
Most of their staff are volunteers anyway, not exactly people trying to perpetuate their jobs.

Greenpeace is bad for the enviroment

[NiceGeek (126629)]

I mean, they tarnish real environmentalists with their whack-job antics. They create a "boy who cried wolf" situation.

Whu

[goldaryn (834427)]

Similarly, all of the information on Microsoft originates from press materials and corporate statements on the company's web site. Clearly, Greenpeace did not perform an exhaustive evaluation of chemical use through the manufacturing pipeline."

Yeah, there was a lot of drugs involved in the design of ME

This is news?

[wattrlz (1162603)]

When was Greenpeace ever lauded as a bastion of logic?

Greenpeace sucks.

[Egdiroh (1086111)]

1. They do lousey research. 2. They care as much about announced plans as they do about current practice when rating companies. 3. They have admitted that their active chastisements are targeted at the companies that will get them the most press to target, instead of the worst, in terms of practice. In summary, they suck. What they say isn't that based in reality. And in my opinion they have reached the point where they are doing more harm to the cause of environmental progress then they are doing good.

Re:

[Rei (128717)]

hey have admitted that their active chastisements are targeted at the companies that will get them the most press to target, instead of the worst, in terms of practice,

Actually, the greenpeace letter says that they go after *everyone*, despite the fact that certain targets get them more press. The article posted to slashdot just spun it to imply the opposite of what it actually said.

Maybe their logic is this

[DrXym (126579)]

It's all well and good to say "well they could have gone off investigating", but why should they and how many companies would cooperate? So they instead they the info that companies disclose on their corporate website. I expect there is a benefit to this since it shames companies enough to actually disclose info that they otherwise might try to hide and get even worse marks. And going forward (as is the case with Apple), it causes them to try harder in future.

Re:

[Rallion (711805)]

So, you fail to deny that you collect child pornography!

See, now, in the future, maybe you'll remember to list all the things that you don't do wrong.

Re:

[DrXym (126579)]

Perhaps the whole point of the survey is public disclosure. Ever think of that? If people are expected to ask for the information, consumers will never know what goes on. As stated, companies should disclose it for investors if for no other reason since there is a very real risk of liability about manufacturing processes.

And maybe Nintendo isn't guilty of anything. In which case they should reveal their policies and bask in the glow of a high ranking next year.

(shock)

[(arg!)Styopa (232550)]

Hairshirt-wearing, veggie-sprout-yogurt-eating, deeply earnest, obsessively-focused, humorless young leftists might be considered to simply be anti-fun?

-1, Unsurprising.

Hell, from having Best Buy deliver a giant resource-consuming TV in a giant gas-wasting truck only to come pick it up again 3 days later, to eating the delicious flesh of a number of animals no doubt injected with hormones and raised in horrible, inhumane conditions, to the dumpster afterwards filled with enough wasted food to feed the entir

In Unrelated News

[Greyfox (87712)]

SONY today announced WhaleHunter, a game where you take command of a ship and harpoon whales for fun and profit! Try your hand at the clubbing baby seals mini-game and watch those dollars roll in!

The whole thing is about disclosure

[sweatyboatman (457800)]

The fact that their environmental records are impossible to determine should not be considered a defense.

I am a consumer of consoles and games. I am also gravely concerned about the environment. In an ideal world, I would favor (e.g. buy more of the products of) only manufacturers that use the most environmentally-sound practices. However, today, there's no easy way for me to tell if Nintendo is "greener" than Microsoft or Sony. And since I cannot tell, I cannot base my purchasing decisions on it, and there's no incentive (from the demand side anyway) for Nintendo, Microsoft or anyone else to spend extra money to use less fossil fuels/harmful chemicals/baby seals in their products.

Reports like this one from Greenpeace are a first step in getting these companies to be more transparent regarding the true environmental cost of their manufacturing processes. If that information became as ubiquitous as privacy policies it would lead to an arms-race among manufacturers to see who could implement the greenest practices.

So before you damn Greenpeace for taking your favorite console maker to task, consider the broader picture of what they're trying to accomplish.

Re:

[faloi (738831)]

So before you damn Greenpeace for taking your favorite console maker to task, consider the broader picture of what they're trying to accomplish.

Given their methodology, it seems like the broader picture of what they're trying to do is get big corporations to send out press reports saying they're going to do something to better their manufacturing processes, or have already. It appears they made no attempts to independently verify the information they got was accurate.

Re:

[Rallion (711805)]

So the first step is slandering the company, okay.

What's the second step? Is it just reading a press release and believing it blindly?

Because if there's gonna be some verification in there somewhere, well, shit, that should probably just be the first step, shouldn't it?

Lazy?

[MLCT (1148749)]

The research in general appears lazy

That is not a surprise, I would expect more time would be devoted to the wording of their press release than the research. Greenpeace have become a thoroughly discredited organisation, interested more in their own verbosity and charitable revenue generation than in finding constructive and progressive ways to make the world a better place.

Patrick Moore crits of GP

[ducomputergeek (595742)]

In the Disinformation book a year or two ago, there was an interesting essay penned by Patrick Moore, one of the original founds of Greenpeace. As he put it, he left the organization just as they started to offer a 401k plan. One of his big topics is trees. He was talking about how all these groups complain about when "old growth" forests are cut down. Now he's the first to admit that the slash and burn of Rain Forest isn't a good idea, but at least in North America, the amount forested land is increasi

A Useful Methodology

[UESMark (678941)]

Given that this is what Greenpeace considers a legitimate methodology I sent an email to [e-mail] (the contact email address listed on their website) inquiring if they use child labor and asking for a list of employees with their birthdays as proof of their adherence to international child employment standards. Since to date they have only sent me an automated response to my question I am giving them a 0/10,000 score on my child labor survey, earning them the rank of exploitative slavemasters(tm). Please feel free to re-publish this survey result.

Re:

[Sciros (986030)]

They're killing enough whales off the coast of Japan already for "research" (into tastiness I think). You should concentrate on the whales off the coast of, say, Chile.