5307017
story
Comments: 143 +- Games: Greenpeace Decries Lack of Environmental Progress From Console Makers on Friday July 24 2009, @12:14AM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicearth.gif); width:77px; height:80px;
earth
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicentertainment.gif); width:62px; height:44px;
entertainment
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgames.gif); width:68px; height:77px;
games
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."
Related Stories
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices.
-- William James
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Screw Greenpeace (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Screw Greenpeace (Score:5, Informative)
Greenpeace's own founder is against Greenpeace. It's time to stop letting insane left-wingers threaten everybody into living the way they want them to live.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Screw this hippie bullshit. (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Screw this hippie bullshit. (Score:4, Informative)
I'm guessing you saw the 'Green' in their name and just thought 'damn hippies'.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/about/how-we-work/scientific-research [greenpeace.org.uk]
Greenpeace aren't saying we can't use plastic, they're saying that companies can use less polluting materials and processes.
Electrical appliance waste is a serious problem, many of the materials used are extremely toxic and causing serious problems where they're dumped.
That's why Europe has the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment directive for example:
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/waste/32084.aspx [environmen...ncy.gov.uk]
Parent
Re:Screw this hippie bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've thought "damn hippies" ever since seeing the hysteria they try to throw people into [youtube.com] over nuclear power.
Parent
Re:Screw this hippie bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
> 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.
Parent
Re:Screw Greenpeace (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I hate to break this to you, but Greenpeace isn't interested much in the continued survival of the global ecosystem (over and beyond what any normal human being would have, out of self-preservation). That is merely their bandwagon; Greenpeace is in the business of influence and publicity, not to save the planet but to sell themselves. They are an evi
Re:Screw Greenpeace (Score:4, Insightful)
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. :)
Parent
Re:Screw Greenpeace (Score:5, Funny)
Greenpeace has not only jumped the shark, they're now in geosynchronous orbit above it.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad the shark they jumped does not have a frikken lazer mounted on it's head to take them completely out of the universe.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I was previously in favor of Greenpeace until the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior [wikipedia.org] in 1985. Once it became obvious that they hated rainbows and fought with them, it led me to some serious questions about their real love for the environment. When even the French secret services have step in to stop you killing rainbows, it's time to accept you hate nature.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I agree. After their last stunt [keloland.com] I really don't see why anyone should listen to them.
Good job, Greenpeace. Get everyone's attention by defacing [scoopthis.org] a public monument.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The current mode of global resource allocation requires a Greenpeace to permit us to continue to consume at unsustainable rates. If the consumptive "first world" were faced with how to redress the the vast injustices we cause through consumption, instead of simply buying indulgences through slightly more expensive environmentally-friendly labeled goods, we might slow down to think about why 2/3 of the world's population must struggle through inhumane living conditions so that we can enjoy our dozens of Energy Star appliances.
Right, because what that 2/3 of the rest of the world REALLY needs is for first world to set up trade barriers and tell them to fuck off with making stuff for us. The RAPID RISE in living conditions around the world is because the first world decided to farm out more of the manufacturing to places where they were scratching at dirt to keep themselves on a filling starvation diet. China is probably the best example. A few decades ago they were busy bleeding off percentage points of population to mass star
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Quote from Greenpeace:
[quote]Apple has not responded directly, but we check our mailbox every day for some sign from Steve that he's listening. We don't actually mind if he *never* answers us, just as long as he does the right thing and greens Apple.
Apple has made a few reactive comments in the media when questioned about the campaign. Often it refers to the environmental section of its website which our ranking already highlighted the lack of timelines and transparency in that section. Also it has made a
Incoherent Propoganda (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Incoherent Propoganda (Score:5, Funny)
The story goes that Greenpeace's latest publicity stunt was to try and protect seals in the arctic from getting poached, so they decide they would make their skins worthless to the poachers by spraying the seals with bright green paint. As it turns out, however, the main defense of arctic seals against their natural predators (polar bears) is to lay perfectly still, with eyes closed, hoping to blend into the snowy/icy background to evade detection. Thanks to Greenpeace, these seals were now visible from miles away and, not knowing they were now targets, would just lie perfectly still while polar bears raced towards and devoured them.
Hooray for Greenpeace.
Parent
Re:Incoherent Propoganda (Score:5, Funny)
Not to mention, the green paint poisoning the polar bears!
Sadly, that seems an entirely accurate metaphor for what Greenpeace does in the world today. Anti-enviromental bastards.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yup it's true: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/harp-seal-hunt [greenpeace.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm?oid=131 [activistcash.com] concludes with this quote:
====
Writing in Canada's National Post in October 2001, [Greenpeace founder] Patrick Moore offered the following critique: "I had no idea that after I left in 1986 they would evolve into a band of scientific illiterates... Clearly, my former Greenpeace colleagues are either not reading the morning paper or simply don't care about the truth."
====
The only thing that (Score:5, Insightful)
Greenpeace cares about is more money for Greenpeace.
Just like any other multinational.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
greenpeace = piece of the green
greenpeace fighting for relivance (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:greenpeace fighting for relivance (Score:5, Interesting)
I grew tired of listening to them about a decade ago. Back when they were in the thick of things (like getting rammed by a French warship or bombed by French intelligence), I had some respect for them. But over the years, they began to look more like the Luddite fringe groups that would seem to rather see the collapse of civilization than to harm a single insect. I think much of the world has come to agree with what they were talking about 25 years ago, but as the radicals have gained power, they have been more willing to bend the truth (or outright lie) and so many people no longer trust what the organization has to say. Thus, by attempting ever harder to push their agenda, they may be doing more to derail it than any corporation could do.
Parent
greenpeace fighting for relivance. KING COMBO! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:greenpeace fighting for relivance (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a depressing cycle, that every fringe philosophy that gains mainstream support, money and power quickly gets taken over by the radicals who then purge the original soft and usually more pragmatic visionaries and then quickly turn the movement *against* them, making the founders appear to be traitors against their own cause.
Every single time.
Environmentalism
Communism
Conservatism
Liberalism
Examples of movements that started out so well then largely went sour leaving societies stuck trying to figure out how to achieve the aims of the original movement *in spite of* the groups who lay claim to being the "movement".
Hopefully with such a swath of historical examples the next great "movements" will somehow figure out a way of protecting themselves from the power hungry radicals.
Western democratic political systems seem to have largely got that figured out so a model based on that may work.
Parent
Well, (Score:2)
It's not like they come out with a new console every few years. Oh, wait, they do. Whatever happens to the old ones, and where will they be a few decades from now? I hope console makers make a conscious decision to do better.
Re: (Score:2)
of course that isn't as alarming or profitable for greenpeace so they will neglect to tell you this.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's a good thing though. It will give future robots something to do while they clean up the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever happens to the old ones, and where will they be a few decades from now?
Usually end up at my house, I have consoles around here older than I am.
The worlds most toxic consoles? (Score:4, Funny)
Not a surprise in the least. Nothing can be fun and safe anymore.
Maybe true (Score:2)
Maybe consoles are toxic, but I don't know for certain just from the article. I don't think I can trust Greenpeace to evaluate these things accurately given their track record as a hostile quasi-terrorist activist organization.
I'd like to get a report from the EPA or Consumer Reports. I'd even take the Sierra Club over Greenpeace, even though they have a history of less than accurate reporting of situations.
PVC is useful stuff, and there are ways to manufacture it so it is less hazardous. But Greenpeace is
Th French (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I No Respect For Greenpeace (Score:5, Interesting)
Now we have everyone against the rational answer to the problem, and everyone shelling out billions to try to develop what simply isn't coming. Solar and wind have been around for a very long time; short of a massive breakthrough, it is never going to be as economical as the CO2-creating alternatives. Meaning, we're stuck with them until some sort of government regulation comes along... and we all know how much THAT usually helps.
Our economy is being run into the ground by power costs, and peak oil means it will just get worse. Wind and solar are not becoming more economical, and the government's answer of taking even more money out of the system is just going to make a bad situation horrible. If global warming turns out to even be half as bad as claimed, we'll be in essentially a second dark ages.
We could have built enough nuclear plants to power the entire world, and thus avert all these problems, with the money Obama threw away; but here we are, the construction of a single plant is news-worthy.
Sometimes I wonder if it would really be so awful if humanity killed itself off. We're not really getting any better... perhaps we shouldn't go and pollute space with our stupidity.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
ahh what comedy. I would agree with you that nuclear is better than *, and I sure hope that fear of the global warming bogey man causes the ridiculous regulation preventing the creation of new plants to be freed up, but boy, are you brainwashed.
There's no evidence that shows that human activities are the cause of global warming. There's correlation data, but correlation != causation. You know this, I know this, but whenever talking to the drooling public we're required to forget about it because they don
Re:I No Respect For Greenpeace (Score:4, Informative)
It will be gradual, and perhaps even reversible with better technology. However, we're still betting a lot on that by doing nothing. If it turns out to be less gradual than expected (and as you say, we've never observed this happening before, so we cannot be sure how fast it will be), we could be looking at a disaster, as we won't have time to come up with ways to mitigate the damage.
I've never seen anyone suggest that water levels could rise astronomically overnight. But the fact is, we can only guess how fast they will rise. 50 years before major land losses? 30? 10? How long will it take to prevent mass death from flooding, starvation, exposure? How much will it COST?
Like so many else, you only look at here-and-now. Like a CEO running a company into the ground for short-term profits, unchecked CO2 will, in some form, hurt the human race some day. And for what? Cheap gas, air conditioning, and irrational fear of the alternatives?
It's not a happy situation, that's for sure, but hiding your head in the sand and yelling "hoax" is not going to do anything to help people when it happens. I for one am glad there are enough people out there that don't ignore facts because they are inconvenient.
Parent
Re:Nuclear not an alternative (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Like most people you didn't read up on Nuclear power before you posted.
Seems you didn't either...
Nuclear power isn't available in abundance.
The TOTAL amount of Nuclear fuel on this world can sustain the current energy hunger for about 3-5 years.
Utter bullshit. The currently known reserves of U235 are enough to last around 80 years at current rates of consumption. Reprocessing the waste can greatly extend that, and those figures ignore reserves which haven't yet been discovered.
Those figures also ignore U238, which can be bred into Pu239. Known reserves of U238 are enough to last us tens of thousands of years.
Problem with this is that mining and processing the stuff actually cost lots of energy (and creates greenhouse gases).
Like most other power generation technologies. Did you think that mining coal took no energy?
In the short term
Nuts to Grenpeace (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
The Same Products Are Still Much The Same?!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Other manufacturers have managed to change their then-current products. E.g. the ROHS program, which forced manufacturers to remove lead (and other things) from their products -- for a while it was fairly hard to get the WRT54GL, but a month later that was all cleared up.
Changing the way you produce a motherboard or replacing brominated flame retardants (nasty stuff, by the way) with something safer doesn't require a product redesign.
Answer In The Question? (Score:3, Informative)
E.g. the ROHS program, which forced manufacturers to remove lead (and other things) from their products
How many companies changed their product, midcycle, to comply before they were legally compelled to?
My guess is new product cycles may have been changed in anticipation and those that were midcycle when forced by law did so - but that no one suddenly tossed out a working design simply because they felt it was the nice thing to do.
Microsoft had their reputation trashed with the red ring of death issue. The last thing they need for the 360 is to tweak some design component that doesn't save them money, doesn'
Re: (Score:2)
How many companies changed their product, midcycle, to comply before they were legally compelled to?
Some did, but obviously not enough, or RoHS laws would not have been necessary. We can still criticize the companies for gambling with our safety.
*unless there's a heavy marketing angle in it.
That's what Greenpeace is trying to accomplish. I'm sure that Greenpeace wouldn't mind having a law forbidding brominated flame retardants, but in the meantime they have to work with what they have.
Anyway, now is the time to complain anyway, because it's at this time that decisions for the next console are being made. So far none of the manufacturers have announce
Preying on fear (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe its because they have a bigger profile and more money. Does anyone even know the name of a company that produces PVC pipe?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I don't know about you, but I don't replace all the drainpipes in my house every few years. In fact I've lived in this house 10 years and not touched the ones that were here when we moved in.
Greenpeace are like the HR department of the Earth (Score:3, Funny)
For the most part pointless, they apparently spend most of their time trying to come up with new crap in order to try and justify their existence, and are often only noticed when people mock the next stupid thing they've come up with.
And yes, I was so gutless I waited until I got home to post this, just in case someone else from the ^H^H^H ... ahhhh, you nearly got me there.
And furthermore (Score:3, Interesting)
Everyone pointing out that Greenpeace are stupid power-hungry jerks whose opposition to nuclear power is an environmental disaster is right.
Now they are doing it again. This time, they have been opposition to genetically modified crops, with (once more) no good scientific or environmental reason. And once again, they try to whip up public sentiment with scare stories. It worked on a bunch of europeans this round, but failed in the USA.