Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Entertainment Games

Greenpeace Decries Lack of Environmental Progress From Console Makers 143

Posted by Soulskill
from the it's-not-easy-being-green dept.
SwiftyNifty writes with an update to Greenpeace's 2007 criticism of game console manufacturers over environmental concerns. Their claim was that some of the chemicals used to make the consoles were toxic, and that the manufacturers' recycling practices were not up to snuff. Two years have passed, and Greenpeace now says that progress is either slow or non-existent. "... Nintendo has little plan to remove PVC and almost no plans to remove [brominated flame retardants]. Slightly further up the scale, Microsoft was again awarded a poor ranking due to the use of toxic waste materials. And Sony, who rank rather well in their mobile phone partnership with Ericsson (scoring 6.5 out of 10 for improved toxic waste and efficient energy usage) didn't perform as well in the console category, failing to eliminate PVC or BFRs from their gaming products."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Greenpeace Decries Lack of Environmental Progress From Console Makers

Comments Filter:
  • Screw Greenpeace (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Goldberg's Pants (139800) on Friday July 24, 2009 @01:16AM (#28803757) Journal

    Greenpeace have pulled this nonsense before. They lambasted Apple for not being "green" enough then came out and admitted they didn't really have a beef with Apple, they just went after them for the publicity as they were such a well known corporation.

    Greenpeace are barely one level above PETA in the asinine self publicity stakes.

  • by MrMista_B (891430) on Friday July 24, 2009 @01:19AM (#28803769)

    The incoherent propoganda, lies, and lack of science that Greenpeace shouts to the world does very little benefit, and very much harm to actual, real enviromental concerns.

    They're as mindless, cultlike, and factually wrong as PETA.

    Which is terrible and unfortunate, because they are wealthy and powerful, and if Greenpeace actually cared for the enviroment, at all, in any way, they have the capability to actually do enviromental good.

  • by twostix (1277166) on Friday July 24, 2009 @01:28AM (#28803801)

    Greenpeace cares about is more money for Greenpeace.

    Just like any other multinational.

  • by Shag (3737) on Friday July 24, 2009 @01:28AM (#28803803) Homepage

    I'm glad to see Greenpeace finish griping about Apple's failure to publish the "precautionary principle" (in Greenpeace-approved wording) on its web site, like every good environmental NGO does... and get around to pointing fingers at the real purveyors of plastic junk. :)

  • by timmarhy (659436) on Friday July 24, 2009 @01:31AM (#28803817)
    in a lot of ways they are a victim of their own success. after all the lobbying in the 80's greenpeace won most of their battles that they were going to win, so now they are in a position where they really should just go away, but won't ever be able to bring themselfs to do so.

    people are waking up to them now, but they still have enough of an ignorant support base to keep them in stunt dollars for a while...

  • Nuts to Grenpeace (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SirDrinksAlot (226001) on Friday July 24, 2009 @02:34AM (#28804121) Journal

    Their rating system is entirely biased and is not even remotely objective. Their admitting in the past that they will still give failing grades to some companies even if they are the greenest around just because they think it might influence them to do better. Basicaly saying regardless of how well you do you'll never be good enough.

    Effectively they invalidated the entire program of rating companies meaningless. You cant hold everyone to wildly different standards and still expect to be taken seriously.

  • by nick_davison (217681) on Friday July 24, 2009 @02:34AM (#28804123)

    The console industry works on five year cycles with a ten year lifespan for each product, a new version turning up halfway through its lifespan.

    We're currently about two and a half years in to the current cycle for the PS3, a little more for the XBox360.

    So, amazingly enough, the manufacturers didn't dump their hundreds of millions of dollars of investments, six months in to their ten year lives, just because Greenpeace told them to? Why that's just crazy.

    Or, alternatively, it would've been blatantly obvious to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the console industry to know there couldn't be any significant change by this point (with the exception of the PS3 slim on the horrizon) and Greenpeace are simply showboating, picking something they know can't be changed but is mainstream culture enough to draw them column inches if they attack it.

    It's cheap politics like that that lead me to ask, getting daily acosted by them to save the whales, "Why? Do they make good sushi?" When they can treat me with respect and stop trying cheap manipulation, I'll return the favor.

  • by TiggertheMad (556308) on Friday July 24, 2009 @03:01AM (#28804237) Homepage Journal
    Like most things in life, the Environment is neither in danger as the radicals would have you believe or as healthy as the conservatives would have you believe. But I digress. Are game consoles really worth talking about in the grand scheme of things? I would think that figuring out how to transport people and heating homes without emitting carbon would be SLIGHTLY more relevant.
  • Preying on fear (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24, 2009 @03:27AM (#28804349)

    It's interesting to see how the green propaganda machine is specifically targeting the high-tech industry. A length of drain pipe probably contains more PVC than a hundred game consoles, but you don't see Greenpeace decrying the lack of environmental progress in the plastic pipe industry. They're just preying on peoples' fear of technology.

  • by bky1701 (979071) on Friday July 24, 2009 @03:47AM (#28804451) Homepage
    Breeder reactors can not only extend the life of fuel substantially, but also decrease waste to almost nothing. Nothing is a permanent option, but nuclear is by far the best currently. Believe me, I've read much more on it than your average slashdotter.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24, 2009 @04:49AM (#28804715)

    It is a fact that CO2 in the atmosphere increases global heat.

    I challenge this assertion. Where is your experiment showing causation? Furthermore, where is your experiment showing this this alleged increase in heat is significant compared to other factors?

    It is also a fact humans are adding massive amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere.

    I challenge this assertion. I do not deny that we are adding some CO2 to the atmosphere, but where is your data showing that it is "massive" compared to other sources?

    We cannot predict the outcome, but there will certainly be one.

    I challenge this assertion as well. You have no experiments or data establishing any kind of causation.

    What ended the last ice age 11,000 years ago?

    Explain why median temperatures on Mars are increasing as well.

    Explain the global cooling trend through the 1940s to the 1970s.

    It is insane and incredibly arrogant to think that our observations over the last 30 years are the be-all and end-all showing that somehow we are responsible for all of the Earth's climate change.

  • by MikeFM (12491) on Friday July 24, 2009 @06:12AM (#28805051) Homepage Journal

    Why live at all if you're going to live by some crazy rules set down by some nuts that don't even know what the frick they're talking about? Most greenies are hippies that don't know any actually science and it's all about being nice and in tune and that kind of crap. Then you get the second layer that just do it because it's politically correct and kind of cool right now. Obviously we all need to live within limits. That doesn't mean we can't use plastic, eat meat, or actually behave as human beings have a right to act like human beings (the most successful species ever to our knowledge).

    Green living isn't going to do shit for mankind. It's to late to go back - the only way left is forward. We need to use chemistry, genetics, nanotech, and all those other 'evils' to leapfrog our own path of destruction. This is just one planet - we can make others habitable if needed.

  • by fredrik70 (161208) on Friday July 24, 2009 @06:44AM (#28805163) Homepage

    yeah, but that's because he though Greenpeace wasn't radical enough and went and started Sea Shepherds - now they are nuts. I know a few people who work for greenpeace and they come from the whole political spectrum, just so you know. What they are trying to do here is teh gool ol' carrot and stick. make sure the comapiens that do good gets highlighted (cue Nokia) and the at the bad ones gets som bad publicity for it. What's wrong with that? Personally I find it a very civilized way of getting companies to clean up their act, far better that the nutters going burning down offices or simiar in some stupid effort to make their point heard

  • by John Nowak (872479) on Friday July 24, 2009 @07:17AM (#28805267)

    I've thought "damn hippies" ever since seeing the hysteria they try to throw people into [youtube.com] over nuclear power.

  • by jellomizer (103300) on Friday July 24, 2009 @07:19AM (#28805277)

    That thinking is where it gets dangerous.

    There is a balance that is needed to maintain. Enviromentalism and Personal Freedom. It is not one or the other. It is getting a good balance between the two. Greenpeace wants to dictate how people live, and make a huge fuss about any resistance, even if it is relatively minor.

    The way that environmentalism works the best is threw education and marketing. Don't give the people these worst cases of dooms day scenario. This will only get a small group of people and when it doesn't go as plan they drop away and don't believe you any more. (Eg. Durring the 1970 they had predicted Global Cooling, that didn't happen so a lot of people won't believe in global warming. (Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me)) I like the trend that we are going in now for environmentalism. Put effort in research to make current technology more energy efficient. Implementing other sources of power, showing people that they can be green without breaking the budget.

    If they are able to influence my Father to get a win turbine for his house (a staunch republican who still doesn't believe in global warming) then I think we are going in the right direction. Forcing people will only give push-back, showing them alternatives and good cost/benefit information will move to your goal much faster.

  • by jedidiah (1196) on Friday July 24, 2009 @09:02AM (#28805831) Homepage

    > I'm guessing you saw the 'Green' in their name and just thought 'damn hippies'.

    Nope. A lot of us have personal firsthand experience with these people or know
    people who have. It's quite common for groups like Greenpeace to shout down anyone
    with anyone with any real technical expertise or experience or anyone that doesn't
    buy completely into the groupthink. This is not merely limited to Greenpeace and
    also afflicts a lot of other sort of "activist" groups.

    This also is true for "gooder" parts of the government like the EPA.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24, 2009 @11:15AM (#28807421)

    That they dyed seals is true, but what else is true? I see nothing in that link to confirm that the Polar bears were killing seals that were dyed more than they were killing seals in general. Even if they were, were they eating more seals than they normally would?

    Polar bears would probably eat seals anyway, and I don't see Greenpeace being stupid and trying to make the bears into pure vegetarians. Nor do I see evidence that the paint was toxic to the bears.

    Sorry, but the full facts do not follow from your evidence.

Going the speed of light is bad for your age.

Working...