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."
Green ?! Jesus, they are not SAFE enough (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
modern times ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Green ?! Jesus, they are not SAFE enough (Score:4, Informative)
well (Score:4, Funny)
one has to know his priorities.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Given that phtalates are associates with reduced testoserone levels and testicular cancer, among other things, I'd suggest double-checking your
And while you're at it, maybe check to see whether you're starting to grow breasts. Sometimes friends and family are too polite to say anything.
Re:well (Score:5, Informative)
Re:well (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
or... Flatulent... but I think that just causes hormonal problems with your wife...
Re:Green ?! Jesus, they are not SAFE enough (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Green ?! Jesus, they are not SAFE enough (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Green ?! Jesus, they are not SAFE enough (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re:Green ?! Jesus, they are not SAFE enough (Score:5, Informative)
* Assume 20 hours a week of gameplay
* Assume that all consoles remain plugged into the wall for a year
* Assume that WiiConnect24 is active on the Wii
* Assume that the 360 and PS3 are powered down when not playing games. (A stretch due to their secondary functions, but we'll go with it.)
* I will compute using the average figures given in this article: http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-356-1.htm [hardcoreware.net]
* (20 * 52) = 1040 hours of playtime per year
* (52 * 7 * 24) - 1040 = 7696 hours of standby time per year
Gameplay Power Usage
Wii: 18.51 kWh
360: 192.5 kWh
PS3: 201.3 kWh
Standby Power Usage
Wii: 73.88 kWh
360: 19.24 kWh
PS3: 14.62 kWh
Total Power Usage
Wii: 92.39 kWh
360: 211.74 kWh
PS3: 215.92 kWh
Even with WiiConnect24 operating all the time, the Wii will still use less than half the power used by the 360 and PS3.
Q.E.D.
Who Cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Animal Crossing or Harvest Moon in real life (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Who Cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
After the Apple issue, I will no longer listen to these zealots on anything regarding electronic technology.
Once a liar, always a liar.
Re: (Score:3)
I support the goals of Greenpeace. But I don't support their methods. They had ridiculous methodology. Probably nothing is as far as the scientific method than what they did.
'I'm lazy so I will only see their web page' is very, very irresponsible when publishing a study. Specially if it will be read by thousands if not millions of people. For a group as big and loud as Greenpeace the cost of a couple laptops should not be an
Re:Who Cares? (Score:4, Informative)
Greenpeace has been pretty good about not doing anything too car-bomby. However, there are a number of other environmental activists (like the Earth Liberation Front and such) who do - in fact, "guerilla warfare" is more or less an explicit part of their mission - and some people probably lump them together, as they share a cause.
Which is less than ideal, but hey, lots of people do things like that. For example, some well-intentioned people lump all the Christians together whether they're midwestern Protestant young-earth-creationist fundamentalists, borderline new-age syncretists, old-school Orthodox or Catholics...
Re:Who Cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who Cares? (Score:5, Informative)
There have been incidents. [youtube.com]
Also - apparently in spite of --now-- publicly trying to distance themselves from the Sea Shephard, there are credible ties to GP and a ship specifically built to ram and sink whaling ships [seashepherd.org].
Re:Who Cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Greenpeace for years has used fearmongering and scare tactics to frighten people into thinking that the world will explode if we don't do whatever they say. They've lied repeatedly to the public to try and make their point, and they've performed (potentially valuable) scientific studies, only to ignore the results when they didn't match up with what they wanted the study to conclude.
There are a lot of things wrong with how we treat the environment. There are a lot of groups out there that are trying to make things better. Greenpeace is not one of them, and its actions only give a bad name to those people who do honestly and truly care about environmental issues and the life of our planet.
That's why they're terrorists.
Re:Who Cares? (Score:4, Informative)
The APL jade was not piracy. It was exactly the same thing Greenpeace does with whaling boats. They boarded the boat to hang a banner on it to advertise the fact that it was carrying illegally harvested mahogany.
Greenpeace never advocated arson. That was the Earth Liberation Front.
I don't care if you don't like Greenpeace. But if the only things you know about them are lies, then the only thing you don't like about Greenpeace are the lies that their enemies spout.
Re:Who Cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
After that letter was published, Greenpeace claimed it was a "great victory" for successfully changing the environmental policies of a major company. All Apple really did was say they'd be more forthcoming about what their environmental plans were; no actual change in those plans was announced.
If you want to say that doesn't qualify them as "nutjobs", perhaps you'd be right. However, it certainly qualifies them as a political organization concerning itself with propaganda victories rather than real solutions.
Re:Who Cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Greenpeace has every right to whine and bitch and express themselves. But slashdot is giving them a voice every time they chose to whine and bitch about a technology company and that's annoying.
Free speech is glorious but it doesn't give the individuals the right to be heard.
But then, it gets us whining and bitching which fuels the community so there's what slashdot gets out of it in a nutshell. I suppose it's a case of don't feed the trolls. It would be a nice fairy tale if, the next time the editors post a story about greenpeace, NOT A SINGLE PERSON COMMENTS.
Alas, I'm dreaming.
That's a bit of a fallacy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, asking those bastards their opinion about any electronics is pointless. They won't be happy until it runs on fairy dust (harvested from free-range fairies, of course).
Greenpeace is a great example of one of the environmental organizations that give environmentalism its freaky leftist reputation. The environment is not a left or right issue; we all live here, we all should care.
But having an organization who honestly believes we should abandon most aspects of our current technological society in order to be more in tune with the planet polarizes the issue, and drives more moderate people away.
This is a great example, along with all the rest of their consumer electronics whinging lately. That stuff is minor league in terms of global pollution problems, but they know that they have a better chance of getting the boomers to protest apple or microsoft than they do of persuading them to give up their hummers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Try: Harvested from Free-range Fairies, purchased at Fair Trade prices (fairy farmers have to eat, too!), packed in an unbleached cardboard box made from 100% recycled material (at least 90% post-consumer), and shipped via row-boat and bicycle, each driven by unionized Fair Wage workers from the Third World. Oh, and could I have fries with that?
Re:That's a bit of a fallacy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. The efects of just transporting games and game consoles dwarfs any negative environmental impact of their manufacture and disposal. Greenpeace should think about how much more it would harm the environment if you had to drive to an arcade to play electronic games like you did in the 1970s.
Speaking of the seventies, in the 1870s someone actually predicted the huge environmental problems that would be posed by the futuristic society of the 1970s - the continent, he predicted, would be hip deep in horse shit.
Technology solves far more problems, environmental and otherwise, than it causes.
Re:That's a bit of a fallacy. (Score:5, Funny)
Was he making an environmental commentary or political one?
Re:That's a bit of a fallacy. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And pollution was far, far worse. If you drove through Sauget [wikipedia.org] in the summer when it was 100F (38C), the humidity was 100%, and you had no air conditioning, you STILL rolled the windows up.
Dead Creek [google.com] in Cahokia [wikipedia.org] (note that the Cahokia mounds [wikipedia.org] aren't in Cahokia) downstream from Monsanto, Cerro Copper, and other polluters in Sauget actually caught fire once.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Greenpeace is certainly involved in piracy [guardian.co.uk] (the nautical kind) against Japanese whaling ships. If that's not terrorism, then there's a pretty thin line.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Getting in between whalers and whales is neither "piracy" nor anything even remotely close to terrorism.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Entirely consistent with their environmentalist goals. That's part of their strategy to stop global warming [venganza.org].
Re:That's a bit of a fallacy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Since they aren't a representative of a government, they are terrorists.
I will never give up hummers!...oh wait, did you mean the vehicle?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No thank you! Do not want! I mean...not that there's anything wrong with that...it's just not my thing.
Sigh.. (Score:5, Informative)
For the last two years, Nintendo has been rated the worst. But, not because that is the truth. They are rated that way because they refuse to disclose their environmental methods. And, by disclose, I mean that Nintendo didn't have that information readily available on their website.
See this follow-up report [arstechnica.com] from Ars Technica.
In other words: nothing to see here; move along.
Re:Sigh.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Call me when a Credible organization has such a report.
Re:Sigh.. (Score:5, Informative)
The Wii uses a small fraction of the electricity of the other two consoles. If all Wii sales had been PS3 or XBox360 sales, the environment would be a lot worse off.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sigh.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Propaganda is not useless, and this particular propaganda is definitely not useless. Environmental concerns are very real, and bringing attention to them serves a useful purpose. By making consumers aware of environmental concerns with products, consumers may factor them into their purchase decisions. Without information about environmental practices, there is no way for purchasers to compare products along those lines.
So I ask you, why is it useless for purchasers to have more information when purchasing a product?
Note that this doesn't mean that Greenpeace doesn't use misleading information, which while not useless is detrimental. But Greenpeace uses publicity campaigns in order to affect the decisions made by consumers... and there is nothing wrong with that. In my opinion, it is a useful counter to the corporate propaganda (advertising/marketing) that runs practically unchecked.
All that said, one would be wise to take any information from an interested party with a grain of salt. Whether it's Greenpeace, industry organizations, or the producing company itself, critical analysis always helps... but dismissing information out-of-hand is probably the most useless act to take with regards to market choices.
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:5, Insightful)
Re:Sigh.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sigh.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sigh.. (Score:5, Informative)
With the PS3, if you leave it on 'remote play' standby, it uses 24 watts. This guy [aeropause.com] did some interesting measurements. Among the more interesting ones:
Satellite TV receiver (non DVR), standby or off: 15 watts.
ReplayTV DVR: 30 watts standby, 34 watts active.
Christmas tree, sparsely lit: 61 watts.
HP Compaq 2510p work laptop, idle: 67 watts.
So if you're really concerned about how much power your Wii uses in standby, make sure you're unplugging your receivers, DVRs, christmas trees, and computers when not using them as well.
But that's standby? What about when they're on and running? The first article mentioned shows some interesting figures - namely that the 360 averages 185 watts, the PS3 averages 193 watts, their test PC averaged 198 watts, and the Wii averaged... 17 watts?
So the Wii uses 1.3 watts idle, 9-11 watts on Connect24-idle, and 17 watts while active.
The PS3 uses as low as 1.9 watts idle, 24 watts in 'remote start' standby, and up to 193 watts while playing a game.
Sorry Greenpeace - which system is greener?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not disclosing that information makes you wonder - why wouldn't they publish something that could make their products more appealing to a certain crowd? The most obvious answer would be that that information would make their product less appealing.
Nintendo probably have all
Power consumption, my friends (Score:5, Informative)
Doesn't this make th Wii the greenest? OK, so it may not be the easiest to recycle, but it's an order of magnitude better on power consumption!
WiiConnect24 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Power consumption, my friends (Score:4, Insightful)
*Doesn't this make the Wii the greenest? OK, so it may not be the easiest to recycle, but it's an order of magnitude better on power consumption!*
Not only that, but from a physical perspective the Wii is far smaller than the PS3 or 360 and has a lower component count. It follows logically that it requires far less toxic soup to manufacture and the process consumes less energy. I suspect that a much larger percentage of Wiis are being used with old standard definition TVs, too (since the Wii tops out at 480p). Those older CRTs draw more power, although one doesn't have to factor in the environmental cost of manufacturing a new flat panel. And, honestly, recycling is a moot point in most of North America - we have a very immature electronics recycling industry.
Re:Power consumption, my friends (Score:4, Funny)
Actual Report (Score:2)
Nintendo mainly scores bad because of their use of PVC and BFR if I read the rapport right, and the lack of a disposal policy.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
What about my ltd ed Xbox? (Score:2)
Yeah yeah, no environmental policy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah yeah, no environmental policy. (Score:5, Insightful)
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"
Let's see, what's on the news today? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hybrids are in the news? Not green enough - Their batteries kill the planet!
The Westminster dog show is on? Dogs aren't green enough! Their pee kills grass!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course it's complicated - that's why we need to fund Greenpeace to keep track of it all for us, so that they can tell us what to be afraid of and what company we should boycott pointlessly this week.
How much impact will this have? (Score:4, Insightful)
While you may think about saving the planet, you won't be thinking about the one Greenpeace wants you to think about saving.
Can't Follow the Link (Score:3)
Lately, Greenpeace doesn't have a lot of legitimacy with me. And of course, saying that, I'll probably have a couple of people screaming about how I don't care about the environment. Seems theres always at least one guy who think that Greenpeace represents the entire environmental movement.
Re:Can't Follow the Link (Score:4, Funny)
Straight off the website (Score:5, Informative)
What does Nintendo do to help protect the environment?
Nintendo is very concerned with doing our part to help preserve the environment. We're always researching new products and procedures to make our products and operations as environmental-friendly as possible.
Some things Nintendo is already doing:
In Nintendo of America offices:
In our products:
BBC link (Score:2)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7407934.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Longer, faster, no adverts, etc, etc
Just Picking the "hippest" target (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I dunno about you... (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:What's so hard about re-usable materials? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Steel? Too expensive, and besides, way too heavy for people to use properly. Not to mention the fact that a steel controller turns into a goddamn weapon.
I'm surprised you forgot about another little problem with steel: RUST. I certainly don't want to have to start thinking about maintaining every other electronic device in my house.
If you just had to make the controller out of metal, aluminum would be a much better choice. Much lighter and it doesn't corrode as much. It's also cheaper in equal volumes than steel.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's stupid for a Democrat to agree with Greenpeace, simply because they're wrong. It's doubly stupid for a Republican to agree with Greenpeace because you OUGHT TO KNOW BETTER.
The reason I say that it's stupid to agree with Greenpeace is that there is no shortage of landfill space in America, and plastic is very cheap and, well, plastic, whereas wood and steel are quite difficult to form into complicated shapes. The durability and strength of steel are usually not req
Yes, and? (Score:5, Insightful)
To be honest, I could never take these guys seriously anyways. They aren't interested to solutions or working within the economic reality of the planet, they seem to want to end the industrial revolution and have everyone go back to farming. Nuclear power, nope. Working with companies to make an imperfect process better, while letting it remain imperfect, nope can't do that rather continue to yell at them from over here rather than work with them. It's all or none.
Nature conservancy is an example of a environmental group actually making a real difference. Green peace is a bunch of self important attention whores.
How much fuel ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Next time Greenpeace goes chasing whalers, grab an oar.
A word to Greenpeace (Score:5, Insightful)
To me, Greenpeace is almost completely irrelevant as an organization, and have lost pretty much all of their credibility. They oppose everything, and offer very few practical solutions to the world's ills, whilst continuing to decry virtually anything fashionable or popular.
As a result of their anti-nuclear tactics, construction of new nuclear plants stopped, and a great many coal plants were constructed instead, which had a far more hazardous effect on the environment as a whole. Heck.... wildlife in the areas around Chernobyl are doing quite well thanks to the complete lack of human activity in the area.
Instead of encouraging us to all drive electric cars, the enviromentalists should have been promoting hybrids as a reasonably practical segue into developing electric cars. Now that hybrids have been proven to be practical and effective, companies are turning their attention to plug-in hybrids and true EVs.
Instead of demanding full and widespread adoption of wind and solar power, they should have been encouraging experiments with small-scale wind and solar farms, as well as more R&D into those two technologies. Small wind farms have slowly proven to be practical and economical in certain areas, and if NanoSolar can keep true to their word on production costs, we should be seeing solar panels being printed onto every exterior surface imaginable over the next few years.
The thing is....you can't force a revolution. GreenPeace need to learn that they might actually have a chance of achieving their goals by lightly prodding industry and consumers in the right direction.
Instead of proclaiming "GAMES, NINTENDO EVIL," perhaps they could instead publish a headline such as "Greenpeace study finds that Nintendo could drastically cut landfill waste by using biodegradable hemp-based plastics for just $0.02USD per unit"
Perhaps that's a bit of a mouthful, but it's a lot more likely to provoke a response from the public: "Hey, why don't they do that? Sounds awfully selfish of them not to," and a resoponse from the company: "Hey, why don't we do this? It'll help us improve our image, and won't cost much"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a bad point (Score:3, Insightful)
Too often they end up somewhere like this: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/01/high-tech-trash/essick-photography [nationalgeographic.com]
Which is just sad.
Re:Not a bad point (Score:4, Insightful)
You say it's sad that third-world people can make money recycling first-world electronics, but you should consider that they're choosing to do this OVER THEIR OTHER CHOICES. If you don't want them to pick the choice you don't like, then give them better choices. Don't try to take away the one thing out of all their choices that they DID choose.
ED (Score:3, Funny)
Hmmm...that explains the plethora of Viagra spam to geeks. The more you game, the harder it is to satisfy a woman thus the less chance of actually keeping a girlfriend. Not having a girlfriend and not getting any directly contributes to gaming more. A vicious circle!
In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
Additionally, when asked for comment on the above story Miyamoto replied, "Yes, and?"
Greenpeace are scumbags (Score:5, Insightful)
They're a bunch of nutjobs, and only one step away from terrorists.
Headline too long.... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Greenpeace complains video consoles aren't green enough"
"Greenpeace complains apple isn't green enough"
"Greenpeace complains that some people smell bad"
"Greenpeace complains that when the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie that's amore"
Srsly. Quit complaining. Start fixing.
"OH manufacturer X doesn't have a recycling program WAH WAH WAH!"
How about...starting one? Or at least designing one? You're not leading, you're not following, so just get out of the way already.
Re:Well yeah (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Well yeah (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Well yeah (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well yeah (Score:5, Funny)
I'm going to send some pictures of my new setup to Greenpeace, I hope they'll feature them on their website.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Moron. (Score:3, Insightful)
But if sensible fuel economy had actually been meaningfully enforced in this country, we'd be in a lot better shape right now.
The real cause for the current spike in oil prices is that developing economies like China and India are subsidizing oil imports to keep their economic expansion going, thus artificially lowering the prices inside their respective countries, and keeping demand higher than it would be if the price reflected th
Re: (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.
N
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"the reason fuel prices are high is THE GREEN LOBBYS FAULT."
How? this is the same green lobby that tries every year to get the pathetic US standards of car fuel economy raised slightly towards the much higher European standard, while the US Oil and Motoring lobby squash it every time with big fat campaign contributions.
Yet somehow its the EVIL GREEN LOBBY to blame if fuel prices are hurting.
what the fuck?
I guess you are upset that you can't destroy the few last remaining
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Manufacturers just cut corners wherever possible, and the end result is weak, light cars, and more serious accidents and road deaths. Waydago!
Here is a link to a crash-test comparison between a tiny (really tiny!) European car (minicooper) versus a Ford F150:
http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150/ [bridger.us]
Please explain to me why you believe small-european cars are inherently more dangerous?