Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



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This discussion has been archived.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 @12:16AM (#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.

    • Re:Screw Greenpeace (Score:5, Informative)

      by Overly Critical Guy (663429) on Friday July 24, 2009 @12:27AM (#28803799)

      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.

      • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by Jurily (900488)

        It's time to stop letting insane left-wingers threaten everybody into living the way they want them to live.

        "We have classified them on the imaginary political spectrum, so their arguments are invalid."

        Are you implying your right to live as you please is more important than the continued survival of the global ecosystem, and the human race depending on it?

        • 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

          • by tolan-b (230077) on Friday July 24, 2009 @05:36AM (#28805129)

            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]

            • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

              by Anonymous Coward

              Penn & Teller's bullshit did a good episode a while ago: Environmental Hysteria [milkandcookies.com]

              Many of the followers are mindless zombies. You see them pretending like they care about the environment, while sipping $4 plastic bottles of water paid for by their rich parents.

            • by John Nowak (872479) on Friday July 24, 2009 @06:17AM (#28805267)

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

            • by jedidiah (1196) on Friday July 24, 2009 @08:02AM (#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 xappax (876447)
                Rather than referring vaguely to this "personal firsthand experience" of being "shouted down", tell us what actually happened. How were you shouted down by groups like Greenpeace? Personally, I doubt you were, but I'm willing to listen.
            • Greenpeace is an organization that has hired people to harass my family and, when I lived with my parents, to harass me (my parents work in the nuclear industry). They are a company that has proven time and again to not act in good faith and to spread misinformation because they believe the ends justify the means, and their ends are in turn, not actually environmentalism in many cases, but in fact anti-nuclear (from the outset) and expanding into other ideas that they desperately try to link to environment

        • by jellomizer (103300) on Friday July 24, 2009 @06:19AM (#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 xappax (876447)
            Greenpeace wants to dictate how people live, and make a huge fuss about any resistance, even if it is relatively minor.

            Ok, Greenpeace isn't the government, they can't force anyone to do anything. In fact, they're not even a particularly influential NGO - they have difficulty even pressuring people to do anything. So the force thing is a red herring.

            All they're really doing is "making a huge fuss", as you observed. And is that really such a problem? Would you really preclude people from making a fus
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by JaredOfEuropa (526365)

          Are you implying your right to live as you please is more important than the continued survival of the global ecosystem, and the human race depending on it?

          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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by fredrik70 (161208)

        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

      • by hey! (33014)

        Oh, come now. "Threaten"? Greenpeace just said unkind and poorly supported things about these manufacturers' products. If that's a threat, then marketing ought to be banned.

        One thing that would be nice is if this lead the manufacturers made their products easier to recycle. This would certainly address Greenpeace's concern about the breakdown of plastics in landfills, and then some. The best documented health concerns over PVC are the use of plasticizers, but that probably doesn't apply to consoles. Co

    • by Shag (3737) on Friday July 24, 2009 @12:28AM (#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 ErikTheRed (162431) on Friday July 24, 2009 @01:06AM (#28803951) Homepage

      Greenpeace has not only jumped the shark, they're now in geosynchronous orbit above it.

      • by rts008 (812749)

        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)

      by nick_davison (217681)

      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:1, Informative)

      by Ragica (552891)
      Doing a bit of research on your post. Greenpeace's archived website [greenpeace.org] makes no such admission. I did find some people on the net claiming what you claim above, but when I read further to find the basis for the claim I find none.

      For one shameful example is this gizmodo article [gizmodo.com] which ranks highly on google. It's Fox News-like way they use the headline of an admission. The arcile is long, and Greenpeace sounds quite reasonable in it. At they very end of the article the gizmodo author bolds a bit of Greenpeace'

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by jo_ham (604554)

        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

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by SBFCOblivion (1041418)

      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.

      • by xappax (876447)
        Yeah, I mean the atmosphere is being altered to the point that it threatens world-changing shifts in climate and weather patterns and widespread famine, but let's try to keep some perspective here: people's view of a national monument was partially obscured for hours!
      • by Omestes (471991)

        Taping up a banner != Defacing.

        Personally I don't care one bit, it was a pretty good publicity stunt. Sure, it is a bit tasteless, but not harmful.

        But then again I refuse to take PETA seriously (even if parts of their agenda are fine) because they are shrill. I stopped listening the second they compared my love of cheese burgers to Auschwitz. Greenpeace at least has a more serious (and timely) message, and generally presents it in a somewhat tasteful way (at least more tasteful than saying beef = genocid

  • by MrMista_B (891430) on Friday July 24, 2009 @12:19AM (#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.

  • *YAWN* What was I saying?
  • by twostix (1277166) on Friday July 24, 2009 @12:28AM (#28803801)

    Greenpeace cares about is more money for Greenpeace.

    Just like any other multinational.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      greenpeace = piece of the green

  • by timmarhy (659436) on Friday July 24, 2009 @12:31AM (#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...

    • by Martin Blank (154261) on Friday July 24, 2009 @01:01AM (#28803931) Journal

      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.

      • by TiggertheMad (556308) on Friday July 24, 2009 @02:01AM (#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.
        • by Omestes (471991)

          I personally think this is generally for the best. When we look at environmental issues, we have the extreme protectionists, and the extreme exploiters ("drill baby drill"), the crowds with actual influence (as always) are the extreme vocal fringes of the spectrum. Through the conflict between these two, we can hope that a more moderate compromise, or equilibrium, will be reached through the conflict. This seems to be what generally happens.

          The sad fact is that no one cares what informed moderates (the o

        • Much as I hate to say something in defence of Greenpeace at all....

          Yes, game consoles are worth talking about. Transport and heating are definitely more important in aggregate, but video game consoles have a narrow chokepoint to attack -- just three companies need to change their policies and the entire industry is improved throughout the future, compared to massive infrastructural overhauls taking many years for transportation and then still replacing the current systems in many homes that otherwise would

      • by twostix (1277166) on Friday July 24, 2009 @02:19AM (#28804313)

        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.

        • 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.

          There's an easy and simple solution to that. These movements would be just fine if it wasn't for all the damn people.

          Western democratic political systems seem to have largely got that figured out so a model based on that may work.

          Wow. I'm sure I've never seen anyone's tongue penetrate his cheek and emerge outside his face before....

        • by Daetrin (576516)
          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.


          That's not especially likely. The problem is that a skilled and benevolent dictator (or _small_ cabal) will always be more efficient than any large committee, bureaucracy or democracy. So groups founded and controlled by a few ski
  • 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.

    • by timmarhy (659436)
      in one of our many well run landfills, doing no one any harm.

      of course that isn't as alarming or profitable for greenpeace so they will neglect to tell you this.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Antony-Kyre (807195)

        That's a good thing though. It will give future robots something to do while they clean up the planet.

      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        by cliffski (65094)

        actually a lot of stuff you assume goes to landfill gets stuck on a ship and exported to some third world country where it becomes 'someone else's problem'.
        the west are great and dumping our crap on poorer countries. We brits got caught doing it with 1,400 tonnes of toxic waste a few days ago:

        http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6719508.ece [timesonline.co.uk]

        Of course we are all better off just not knowing about this ro giving a fuck about how our actions affect other countries, so I'm sure its evil of gre

        • by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

          How the hell is this a troll?

          Who's modding this crap?

          I read this in Time magazine just last week (granted, it was the bathroom copy, so quite a bit delayed, but still).

          It's a valid point with references. WTF?

          I'm burning some karma just to be sure it stays visible.

          cliffski wrote:
          actually a lot of stuff you assume goes to landfill gets stuck on a ship and exported to some third world country where it becomes 'someone else's problem'.
          the west are great and dumping our crap on poorer countries. We brits got caught doing it with 1,400 tonnes of toxic waste a few days ago:

          http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6719508.ece [timesonline.co.uk]

          Of course we are all better off just not knowing about this ro giving a fuck about how our actions affect other countries, so I'm sure its evil of greenpeace to even draw attention to it.
          bastards eh?

      • Every gamer I know keeps their consoles indefinately. With newer ones not being 100% backwards compatible, you need to keep your old consoles in order to play your older games. I'd bet very few ever get tossed into the landfills.

        New games are still being developed for some "old" consoles as well, e.g. PS2.
    • 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.

  • by bertoelcon (1557907) <berto.el.conNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday July 24, 2009 @12:41AM (#28803851)
    So all the major consoles are supposedly toxic?

    Not a surprise in the least. Nothing can be fun and safe anymore.

  • 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

    • by xappax (876447)
      Throwing around the term "terrorist" when referring to groups like Greenpeace doesn't help anyone. It trivializes terrorism and demonizes Greenpeace through the use of a popular buzzword for "evil". If you have any legitimate reason to claim Greenpeace is a terrorist organization, though, please present it.
      • Then you better go fix the wiki page on Greenpeace [wikipedia.org] because it uses the word "terrorism" too. Terrorism is a loaded term in this day in age. I choose a more literal interpretation, the use of terror and fear to achieve political objectives. In this case, there area handful of instances where Greenpeace could be accused of using this tactic. And there are many more clear cut cases where people associated with Greenpeace committed acts of violence or extreme vandalism to suit their eco-political goals.

        • by xappax (876447)
          If there are a handful of instances where Greenpeace could be accused of terrorism, why not give us some examples? Seems like you're being deliberately vague. I wouldn't think it'd be difficult to find accounts of these instances - terrorist attacks are generally a big deal and well documented.

          If your definition of terrorism is really just "using fear to achieve political objectives", then campaign smear ads are terrorism, because they try to make you afraid of what will happen if the other guy gets ele
  • Th French (Score:4, Funny)

    by Fengpost (907072) on Friday July 24, 2009 @01:15AM (#28804001)
    Where is the French Navy when you needed them!
  • by bky1701 (979071) on Friday July 24, 2009 @01:25AM (#28804061) Homepage
    Greenpeace is largely to blame for our current energy problems. Their vilification of nuclear power has greatly hindered its adoption (politicans are already irrationally afraid of it, because of BIMBY and "terrorists"), and their pushing of so-far dead-end technology like wind and solar has caused us to be stuck with coal and oil. If they, and the average environmentalist, had enough of a brain to understand the concept of the lesser evil, we would probably not be so worried about global warming. But, logic never stopped them from crying about things.

    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)

      by QuantumG (50515) *

      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

      • by bky1701 (979071) on Friday July 24, 2009 @02:15AM (#28804291) Homepage
        While this is not really the place for another pointless discussion on global warming, I would say we have plenty of proof it is indeed going to happen. It is a fact that CO2 in the atmosphere increases global heat. It is also a fact humans are adding massive amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. We cannot predict the outcome, but there will certainly be one. It's not just going to go away.

        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.
        • Re: (Score:1, Redundant)

          by timmarhy (659436)
          "It is a fact that CO2 in the atmosphere increases global heat"

          no, it doesn't. the sun is the source of heat. and no CO2 does not act like a green house, heat reflection is an effect of water vapour. CO2 is a very poor heat absorber, so even if humans added significant amounts the effect would be very minimal.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          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?

        • The frustrating part about global warming is that we are presented by our leaders with two solutions: either drastically increase government power and regulation and cripple the economy (and pretend like it won't hurt the economy), or stick our heads in the sand and say it won't happen.

          No one wants to talk about tradeoffs, about cost-benefit analysis of what we can do to control (control, not stop) global warming. The world has always been changing temperatures - there is some level of fluctuation that will

          • Actually, in the American model, the taxes are a subsidy for Goldman Sachs [rollingstone.com].


            The new carboncredit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that's been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won't even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.

            Here's how it works: If the bill passes, there will be limits for coal plants, utilities, natural-gas distributors and numerous o

      • by Chris Burke (6130)

        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't *care*. They see correlation evidence as proof, especially if it's a lovable idiot that is presenting it to them.

        Oh Jeebus. Yes, correlation by itself is not causation. While "correlation != causation" is a great cudgel to swing around when th

    • by cluke (30394)

      To say we "Pollute" is entirely subjective. There is no Gaia entity that is crying over all the bits of discarded plastic floating in the oceans. The only people who care are US. So, to fantasise about humanity killing itself off to "save" the universe from being ruined is ludicrous, as if we weren't here there would be no-one to even care. The Earth has no perfect state save for any we would project onto it, born from our own sensibilites.

      • To say we "Pollute" is entirely subjective. There is no Gaia entity that is crying over all the bits of discarded plastic floating in the oceans. The only people who care are US. So, to fantasise about humanity killing itself off to "save" the universe from being ruined is ludicrous, as if we weren't here there would be no-one to even care. The Earth has no perfect state save for any we would project onto it, born from our own sensibilites.

        That is an interesting philosophical argument, that "if a styrofoam cup is dropped in the forest and no one cares, is it bad?" That is a rather human-centric view of things, but also myopic. "Ruining" the universe (or at least our universe) isn't just an aesthetic concern. Even if we are the only entities that can put a value on things, we depend on nature to provide us a lot of useful stuff. Degrading its ability to provide us with stuff could also result in a lower standard of living for us. Perhaps

        • by cluke (30394)

          I think we are actually in agreement here. I was saying that there is no point saying the universe would be better off without us ruining it, because the only entities we are ruining it for is ourselves - making it a circular argument.

  • Nuts to Grenpeace (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SirDrinksAlot (226001) on Friday July 24, 2009 @01:34AM (#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 @01:34AM (#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 amorsen (7485)

      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.

      • 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'

        • by amorsen (7485)

          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

  • Whenever greenpeace says anything I simply cannot beleive them because of their practice to make shit up.

    It is possible that consoles are hazardous and that it is a real problem but when greenpeace says so, I simply do not beleive them. Had this come from a coherent not-making-shit-up-routinely organisation then I probably could have listened. So far though, no such organisation has spoken out.
  • Preying on fear (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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 LoRdTAW (99712)

      Maybe its because they have a bigger profile and more money. Does anyone even know the name of a company that produces PVC pipe?

      • by rwjyoung (674310)
        I do now! [google.com]
        • by LoRdTAW (99712)

          I should have worded that last sentence better. It should have read "Does anyone know off the top of their head the name of a PVC pipe manufacturer?"

          You will have a good percentage of the general populace that knows Sony = Play Station and Microsoft = Xbox. I bet that the only people who know of PVC pipe manufactures are plumbers and their suppliers. And I bet that a good percentage of plumbers never even bother to look at who makes the PVC pipe they are installing.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by cliffski (65094)

      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.

      • by jedidiah (1196)

        See all of those home improvement stores littering the landscape?

        See all of that new home construction?

        See that house being renovated?

        All of that represents plenty of PVC that's a lot more signficant than what the game industry generates.

        The other day I saw a big pile of it stacked next to a road being rebuilt. It looked like it was ripped out of the ground when they dug out for the road.

  • GreenPiece* is all about viral marketing and 'causes' without really looking at the deep implications of their actions. For example, the TOTAL carbon footprint of trolley buses, due to line loss, is actually larger than diesel. Nuclear power kills a lot less people and is less environmentally damaging** than coal mines, coal dust and the resulting carbon emissions.

    Combined with whining and pouting, gaming consoles keep kids from being driven to soccer, baseball, hockey or other organized sports, thus redu

  • 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.

  • I wish that getting a 65% on a test in college would have qualified as "rather well", thought I guess electronics manufacturers get graded on a curve
    • by jedidiah (1196)

      Engineering classes do tend to be graded on a curve. An absolute score
      of 65% is probably what the chinese wunderkind managed to score. Everyone
      else (including the normal chinese kids) are down in the 20's and 40's.

      Of course no one in Greenpeace has enough clue to get the irony there.

  • And furthermore (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GlobalEcho (26240) on Friday July 24, 2009 @10:53AM (#28808041)

    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.

We don't know who it was that discovered water, but we're pretty sure that it wasn't a fish. -- Marshall McLuhan

Working...