Greenpeace Complains Game Consoles Aren't Green Enough 450
jasoncart writes "None of the major games consoles are 'green enough', says environmental group Greenpeace in a report released today. Zeina Al-Hajj, Greenpeace's International Toxic Campaign co-ordinator, said: "We were shocked with Nintendo; it was our biggest surprise." The company is described by the group as the least 'green' tech firm."
Re:Sigh.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Call me when a Credible organization has such a report.
What's so hard about re-usable materials? (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, check this out. When I was a kid, TV's were put into wooden cabinets. Steel was used for a lot of structural things. Plastic was considered cheap and the knock on Japan was that it was all "cheap plastic stuff".
Well, fast forward almost 40 years later and what do we find. Plastic stuff is really not all that recyclable, it comes from petroleum, so, when it really boils down to it, plastic actually really does suck as much as the old timers said that it did.
Why can't they make a video game enclosure or a computer enclosure out of some kind of wood? Or, make controllers out of some kind of steel? Wood is at least renewable and steel is the most recycled thing there is. It just seems to be madness to be making more plastic junk out there when we already have mountains of this stuff.
Animal Crossing or Harvest Moon in real life (Score:4, Interesting)
WiiConnect24 (Score:4, Interesting)
re: Greenpeace means well?? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you REALLY want to encourage positive changes in our "environmental footprint" - you need to do it with education and promoting scientific advances. Research in creating lower power-consumption devices, improved battery technology, an HONEST and REASONABLE approach to the subject of "recycling"
Re:Sigh.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sigh.. (Score:5, Interesting)
If I'm understanding correctly, you're berating him and accusing him of trolling because repeated, willful dishonesty isn't "useless" as it gets media attention for Greenpeace?
Re:Sigh.. (Score:1, Interesting)
Actually, I was looking for a spot to mention this. Every feel how hot your Wii is when it's been sitting idol for a long time? Yeah, that's a lot of unneeded power drain.
It's also something I've been thinking about for a few years now and actually found an article on it at some point called "vampire electronics" or something. It's how we have so many things "plugged in" today that we're all constantly tapping the power grid. Cell phones, coffee makers, toasters, DVDs, game consoles, portable game systems, office computers that are logged out but not turned off, etc.
We certainly are consuming loads more energy due to technology than we use to.
Re:Moron. (Score:3, Interesting)
It isn't that easy.
Seeing the way the dollar is going, it isn't the smartest move to increase supply. As long as the dollar is weak, it is better to keep the prices for oil high (downside of selling oil in dollars). The only other option would be to start selling oil in euro's (several OPEC members already hinted at this), but that would probably crash the dollar.
Oil is a finite supply, especially the easy, cheap accessible oil. The longer you keep it under the ground, the more you can ask for it later.
Not all OPEC members are able to increase supply. As a whole, OPEC could increase supply, but the members who's oil production has peaked wouldn't be to happy about that. They would face both decreasing production and decreasing prices.
Regardless what OPEC does, for at least the next few years, demand will keep outgrowing supply, and thus prices will continue to rise. OPEC may be able to provide very short term relief by increasing supply, but the emphasis is short term.
Last but not least, there is more to the oil price than just OPEC and their production. Traders (e.g. the market) are responsible for a huge increase in the price of crude oil. The price of a barrel may be 120$ on the market, but that is nowhere near the price when it leaves the production facility.
Re:Who Cares? (Score:2, Interesting)
They typically just browse the corporate site looking for a "Find out how we're helping save the planet by going green!" link. Whatever they see on that page ("Reducing waste", "Fewer hazardous materials", "Limiting Drown a Panda in Oil Day to just twice a year") they award points for. If they don't find much info, you'll be raked over the coals.
Re:Green ?! Jesus, they are not SAFE enough (Score:5, Interesting)
As it turned out, Apple was the best of the bunch. They were already using the safest materials, used the lowest power, and generally were superior to the competition in the area of environmental consciousness. But since they didn't shout it from the mountaintops, Greenpeace decided to get some free press out of them. Assholes.
According to TFA, they are now doing the same thing to Nintendo: Oh noes! No policy! I'll bet they even went as far as to check Nintendo's website!
(shock! horror! awe!)
Nevermind that Nintendo just produced the most energy efficient game console in the history of game consoles. Only handhelds use less power than the Wii.
As far as I'm concerned, Greenpeace has lost all credibility. They can take their little crusade and shove it for all I care. Progress may be slow when you're doing it on the level, but at least you keep the trust of the public. These publicity stunts only result in lower trust, which translates to lower credibility, which impacts their ability to be a force for change.
Not to mention all the folks who will no longer donate toward ANY of their efforts. (Hint)