Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment Science

Greenpeace Down on Games Industry, Logic Flawed? 138

Posted by Zonk from the throwing-green-stones dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Greenpeace Down on Games Industry, Logic Flawed? More

Greenpeace Down on Games Industry, Logic Flawed?

Comments Filter:

  • What??? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30, 2007 @12:43PM (#21534827)
    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??? (Score:5, Funny)

      by krog ( 25663 ) on Friday November 30, 2007 @12:56PM (#21535039) Homepage
      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 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 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nomadic ( 141991 ) <nomadicworld@ g m a i l . com> on Friday November 30, 2007 @12:46PM (#21534879) Homepage
    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: (Score:2)

      by 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: (Score:2)

        by antek9 ( 305362 )
        Yet another aspect left out in the article: Funny how, with this article being a rant against an anti console makers rant, Zonk somehow forgets to mention that Greenpeace applauded Sony for taking the top spot in their comparison for having the strictest and most explicit environmental policies. But that wouldn't fit into the article's argument about Greenpeace crusading against 'the gaming industry' now, would it?

    • Re:hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

      by G Fab ( 1142219 ) on Friday November 30, 2007 @01:17PM (#21535401)
      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.
    • The parent does not deserve to be modded Troll. He has a valid argument whether you agree with it or not.
      • Yes, he does deserve to be modded Troll. His logic proclaims that Nintendo is guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Since when does failing to mention that you *don't* do something bad conclusive proof that you *must* do it?
        • This is the type of logic that reduces the utility of a user rating system. Troll != discord.

          Since when did a "troll" mod apply to any cynical (but commonplace) opinion directed at a popular company? I don't believe he is entirely correct in the case of Nintendo, but he had a very valid point in that it is common for corporations to skim over details they aren't as proud of. He never said they were guilty, he merely presented the same cynical view common on Slashdot - only he directed it at a company

          • Replace the company name and the subject being discussed, and his argument would be accepted much more readily. Using "Microsoft" would be far too easy, so try it with a company you have a neutral opinion of - perhaps a waste management company. If they go into detail on all the areas of ecology that they are doing well at, and another organization points out major (to them) factors not covered by the company's statement, you're going to naturally assume that it's for the usual reasons - specifically, that

            • "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

          • "On a side note, is there some natural law that dictates that every well-intentioned non-profit group must eventually degenerate into a caricature of their former selves? ie Greenpeace, PETA, MAD, etc"

            2 cents incoming:

            non-profit groups are just like any other corporations. The company doesn't make profit, but people are still earning their rent\mortgage running them. Company growth = less chance of getting canned + likelihood of increased salary(?). Not sure exactly how salary increases work in a non-pr
    • Guilty until proven innocent. I love it!

    • Re:hmm (Score:4, Insightful)

      by webrunner ( 108849 ) on Friday November 30, 2007 @01:30PM (#21535599) Homepage Journal
      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.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by 7Prime ( 871679 )
        If you failed to hand in an assignment in school, what grade did you get?

        If I were taking a sales examination at work, and failed to show up, do you really think my boss would say, "well... you didn't show up, but at least you didn't get any answer's wrong."

        Welcome to the real world... failing to give answers is the same as getting them wrong. The fact that you weren't stupid enough to ACTUALLY get them all wrong isn't much consolation to anyone.
        • Are you a child molester?
          Did you support Hitler?
          Are you, or have you ever been, a communist?
          Can you tell the difference between Pepsi and Coke?

          Good thing that in the real world, I can't answer any of those question for you because I don't know.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
      "But my experience has been that if a company doesn't mention something, it's for a reason. "
      Funny I work for a software firm. The company donates money to a camp that helps disabled children. We have not released any press releases or or made a big deal about. We also recycle and reuse paper and and aluminum cans. All small things but we are not a huge company. We do make a few million a year but not hundreds of millions. We don't publicist these things because frankly if we did it just seems tacky.
      Funny

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by nomadic ( 141991 )
        We also recycle and reuse paper and and aluminum cans.

        The difference is Nintendo DOES publicize these things. It would be like if your company publicized that you recycled paper, but not aluminum cans.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
          It is possible even likely. Frankly it is possible that someone would just forget to put in in the press release or on the Website. I honestly doubt that it helps the sale of there games.
          Frankly I think Greenpeace is nothing but a bunch of publicly hounds that long ago decide that their goals are far more important than the truth.

          • Maybe it is more likely that they don't consider it anything special, just something that needs to be done.

            Let's say there is a city ordinance that says business's have to recycle their paper. Should that be listed as something the company is doing for the environment or something they are doing to not get a fine? Or what if they have been doing it for so long, it just seems like second nature and nothing special to note about?
    • Do you have MySpace or Facebook profile? Does it list what kind of lightbulbs you use, how much you recycle, what you do with used oil, what kind of efficiency furnace you have? Probably not...why? Not because you're hiding anything, but because it's a summary that describes you, not a detailed expose on every facet of your life.

      Greenpeace took one look at Nintendo's site, didn't do any research or call anyone, and rated them a zero. That's just plain irresponsible, and saying "my experience has been t

    • 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.

      Do you realize how ridiculous that logic is? If you don't publicly state that you're NOT doing something, then you MUST be doing it?

      Let's try the same logic with a twist...

      "My e

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by donaldm ( 919619 )
      Even if Microsoft or Nintendo got a bad rating the truth is all manufacturers of any product have to conform to the so called "Green" guidelines of the country they do business in otherwise they cannot sell their products. I have not seen or heard of Microsoft or Nintendo products prevented from being sold or even recalled so I think all you can do is take the Greenpeace report with a grain of salt.

      It is nice if a company tries to be green without being "forced" into it but it is much cheaper and in also

  • alternatives (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 192939495969798999 ( 58312 ) <info AT devinmoore DOT com> on Friday November 30, 2007 @12:51PM (#21534947) Homepage Journal
    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 (Score:3, Informative)

      by 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: (Score:2)

        by 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 (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by 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 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

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by xhrit ( 915936 )
            I like pointing out to people that Bullshit is little more then a platform advocating the policies proposed by the right wing conservative think tank Cato Institute, ov which both Penn Jillette and Raymond Joseph Teller are research fellows.

            It is little suprise then, that 'Bullshits' stances on abolishing the minimum wage, reforming drug policies, eliminating trade barriers, diminishing federal government involvement in the marketplace, privatizing education, and abolishing affirmative action would benef
            • Ahh the sponsorship argument. So I guess that means we can dismiss just about any environmental study that finds any kind of damage right? After all, you will find nearly all of them get at least some funding from places like Greenpeace or the Sierra Club. Please don't for a second pretend that they don't have an agenda, just like companies, and that they aren't concerned with maintaining their organization and funding, just like companies. This idea that just because they are a non-profit means they are co

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by xhrit ( 915936 )
                All people are biased, but only some are willing to sell their bias to the highest bidder and create propaganda to promote it.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by xappax ( 876447 )
            Don't fight things for no reason.

            The globe is warming and if we don't stop it most of the people on earth will probably die prematurely. Sounds like a good reason to me, but maybe I'm just "shouting".

            Ensure that you've done proper research in to an issue before you speak on it.

            Ok, how about this? [greenpeace.org]

            They have big lists of problems but never any real solutions.

            Greenpeace Solutions [greenpeace.org].

            Just screaming about problems isn't useful. This is especially true if you are demanding action be taken. If you wan

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kris_J ( 10111 ) *
      For every idiot that will sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide there's someone intelligently involved in an ongoing reduction of their ecological footprint. To make any sweeping statement about what all (or even most) environmentalists are is misguided at best.
      • I've been suffering an ongoing, uh, "experience" with one of these people who strive to reduce their ecological footprint. Shortly after suggesting a reduction in our ecological footprints, he began to try to convert everyone in the class to vegans, decry the evils of technology in general, imply that we should move toward some abstract form of neo-shamanism, and suggest benefits of using various hallucinogenic drugs (as long as they're natural, of course). A nice guy, I suppose, but a little part of me die

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Kris_J ( 10111 ) *
          The person that you describe is simply trying for too much too fast. Yes, vegan is more friendly than carnivore when you look at the resources needed to farm animals. Yes, much high technology results in excessive power usage and thus pollution, etc. However, if you simply reduce the amount of meat you eat, or look for energy efficient devices when you come to replace your existing equipment, you're still doing something positive.

          Personally, I'm happy so long as people are going in the 'right' direction

  • What a waste (Score:5, Insightful)

    by earnest murderer ( 888716 ) on Friday November 30, 2007 @12:53PM (#21534983)
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by antifoidulus ( 807088 ) on Friday November 30, 2007 @12:58PM (#21535075) Homepage Journal
      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: (Score:1)

        by bi_boy ( 630968 )

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

      • Re:What a waste (Score:5, Interesting)

        by king-manic ( 409855 ) on Friday November 30, 2007 @01:47PM (#21535941)

        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.
        • 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: (Score:2)

          by 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

          • 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: (Score:2)

              by 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 "

              • 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

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

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by xappax ( 876447 )
                  I do take action. I've written my MP(Canada)

                  It's good that you take action - that's admirable and should be commended. The initial impression I got from your loud complaining is that that's all you do: complain and criticize.

                  I guess that goes to show how initial impressions can be deceiving. Just because your most noticeable, attention-getting action was complaining doesn't mean you aren't also doing positive, constructive things that aren't as publicized...

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by xhrit ( 915936 )
              >IF they want a better target, lobby for closing of the "small truck" tax loophole for SUVs and lobby for higher Taxes on Gas.

              'Down with cars and oil' v.s. 'down with video games'.

              The automotive and oil industry has few foes to rally against them. At least the console manufacturers have the anti-video game pundits who may hop on board just to get back at teh evil gamers. Fact is, console makers are an easier target. Just like the Spotted Owl is native to North America, while the rainforrest is spre

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by 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: (Score:1)

        by whoop ( 194 )
        I believe it was Greenpeace, but on one of Penn and Teller's Bullshit shows, they had one of the founding members of that or a similar environmentalist group. He has since come out against them for doing just that sort of thing. They area all in it for the money more than anything.

        Likewise, there will never be a cure for cancers, diseases, etc. There is far too much money to be had to do research and conduct studies.
      • Probably, there are plenty of online communities for animal welfare supporters who hate PeTA.
    • 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: (Score:1)

        by xhrit ( 915936 )
        Oh, yes. The logging industry never did anything wrong. It is not like Georgia Pacific is one ov the largest corporate producer of air pollution in the United States and has been linked to some of the United States' worst toxic waste sites. Oh, and they are in no way racist.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by 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

      • 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: (Score:2)

        by 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

      • First off sales does not equal profit. All of greenpeaces money is equivalant to profit as its all donations. APples and oranges. Greenpeace is a very well off non-profit that gets away with murder because their PR is so good no one openly criticises their methods.

        Personally, I'm 100% in favour of hardware companies being pressured to make energy efficient video cards

        Yet you want all that performance? Err, YOURE the problem, not these companies. You consumers demand more fps, better graphics, etc. Its ph

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cliffski ( 65094 )
          bullshit. I am not vaguely the problem. given a choice between two vaguely comparable systems, i will always buy the one with the lower power consumption. The problem is most manufacturers care so little about this issue, they dont even mention power consumption. GP are doing their bit to draw attention to such issues, and all power to them. Your attempt to polarise the issue as being "waste 1000 watts to lay cutting edge game or play monopoly" is just strawman bullshit.
    • Greenpeace does whatever they want, whenever they want. They answer to no one, have tons of money, and actually make enough of a stink to influence government policy sometimes. There are always Greenpeace people asking for money near where I live. If you feel compelled to give money to people on the street give the money to the Red Cross, they'll use it to help someone. Unless you think that your money would do more good funding studies and press releases on which electronics corporation is the biggest
  • I mean, they tarnish real environmentalists with their whack-job antics. They create a "boy who cried wolf" situation.

  • Whu (Score:2, Funny)

    by 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? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wattrlz ( 1162603 ) on Friday November 30, 2007 @12:55PM (#21535031)
    When was Greenpeace ever lauded as a bastion of logic?

  • Greenpeace sucks. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Egdiroh ( 1086111 ) on Friday November 30, 2007 @01:03PM (#21535159)
    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: (Score:2)

      by 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.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by khallow ( 566160 )
        It's the same problem as when they were rating PC makers. They were bashing companies with relatively good policies like Apple because they weren't announcing sufficiently aggressive improvements.
  • If you're pissing either of them off, you must be doing something right.
  • 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.
    • so from this logic, I should publish an article about /. eating babies, because as far as I can tell from their website they don't have any policies against eating babies. Yes, I know that's an extreme situation but the point remains that you shouldn't drag a corporation through the mud so that they have to report their policies just to clear their name. Responsible journalism is to investigate first and then report about what was discovered instead of the other way around. Besides, wouldn't you rather a

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by 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: (Score:2)

        by DrXym ( 126579 )
        I don't see the point you are making. Corporations *should* disclose their environmental policies even if only for investors. That they don't means there is no basis for judging what they do. If Greenpeace can't find the info on their site, they get a zero. Better luck next year. I expect Nintendo will be keen to beat out its rivals and I fully expect they'll publish the information in due course.

  • (shock) (Score:2, Funny)

    by argStyopa ( 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
  • 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 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: (Score:2)

      by 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: (Score:2)

      by 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? (Score:2)

    by 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.
  • 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
  • Gamestop recycles for them. Old gameboy cartridges can be played in the advance. Old advance cartridges can be played in the DS. Old gamecube games and controllers can be used in the Wii. Old Nes's and SNES's are still coveted for nostalgia value. I've thrown away a ton of electronics in my day, but I don't think I've ever thrown away anything Nintendo branded unless it was broken. Next thing they're going to be complaining the VC titles use valuable electrons when they are sent over the internets. I

  • A Useful Methodology (Score:5, Funny)

    by UESMark ( 678941 ) on Friday November 30, 2007 @06:20PM (#21539337)
    Given that this is what Greenpeace considers a legitimate methodology I sent an email to info@wd.greenpeace.org (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.

  • Isn't the most environmentally friendly thing you can possibly do

    "stay home and turn the lights out"?

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say that kids who get driven to soccer pratice are *worse* for the environment.
  • Greenpeace is just doing the same thing they did with Apple a couple of months ago. Trashing the big names gets them news coverage.

    At the same time it's good to hold people's feet to the flames from time to time. Perhaps we'll see some positive spin from the games companies about how they do business, or even some reforms, who knows.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Confound these ancestors.... They've stolen our best ideas!" - Ben Jonson

Close