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:

[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.

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

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

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:

[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

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.

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.

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.

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.