Slashdot Mirror
Greenpeace Down on Games Industry, Logic Flawed?
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."
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.
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.
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.
stuff |
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.
Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
I mean, they tarnish real environmentalists with their whack-job antics. They create a "boy who cried wolf" situation.
Ahhh GreenPeace... the organization with the big ass boat burning oil at a normal rate of a cruise ship...if ur so green about it ROW like the vikings.
Irony + AC=Flame
Irony+login=Funny
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
When was Greenpeace ever lauded as a bastion of logic?
For every point they arbitrarily ding I'm going to arbitrarily kill a whale off the coast of Japan. That'll teach them!
-Misao Little Weasel Girl
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.
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.
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 entire (remaining) population of Darfur for weeks, I'm going to pretty much guess everything about my entertainment plans for Superbowl weekend would get the big "thumbs down" from that bunch of whingers...to say NOTHING of my collection of game consoles.
In those famous words coined so brilliantly in 2005 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article515384.ece) : "Sod off, Swampy."
-Styopa
First, the original article should link to the original Greenpeace report.
Second, Greenpeace does provide suggestions, just not offered as part of the report. You can find links to their reports by starting here. This one (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's misinformation in the report, that's something that should be addressed. But do we really need more policy makers interfering in the technology industries? I think we have enough of that already.
The parent does not deserve to be modded Troll. He has a valid argument whether you agree with it or not.
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!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Someone hat to remind us of what he said.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I think I saw a porno like that once.
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.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
Well, it doesn't matter what they say in the manual, since fair use law trumps any of their personal wishes of how you use what you bought. It may be annoying, but it's ultimately just a nuisance.
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 good number that really are using environmentalism as a cover for another agenda, anti-corporatism often. So they really AREN'T interested in solutions, they just want to try and find lots of problems and use that as an excuse to further their actual agenda.
Terrorism isn't the only thing that is used like this. Anything that raises alarm with people is used by those with other agendas to push them.
Then they ought to say there was insufficient evidence, and if they want to shame them, they should say something like: "What have Nintendo and Microsoft got to hide?"
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.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Where do we sign up?
Seriously, I'm all for helping the environment, but Greenpeace lost touch with reality a long time ago.
One of the gaming magazines (I forget which one) recently did an energy consumption comparison of the big three consoles and a PC doing various tasks (idling, gaming, playing movies). Their methodology wasn't perfect, but it was decent. Their main tool was a simple Kill-a-watt meter, which is more than accurate enough for what they were doing.
The PC, X-box 360, and PS3 all came in around 200 Watts average while gaming. The Wii came in at about 20 Watts.
What was Greenpeace's methodology again?
I'm not necessarily defending Green Peace' tactics or integrity. I admit I don't know too much about them. But it's certainly legitimate to raise environmental concerns in an industry where there has been little attention paid in this area. Plus, it's a pretty safe bet that if Microsoft and Nintendo had really great environmental practices that they would have let us know by now. Even the most minor environmental improvements are usually advertised pretty heavily to let us know that we are making purchases from a responsible corporation. In the end, I'm glad the issue has been brought to people's attention.
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 polluter.
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. It's not like there is a landfill full of old videogames out there polluting the groundwater. This is a publicity stunt plain and simple and should be recognized as such.
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.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
A little bit funny, a little bit insightful
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 believes his facts and logic to be correct, and whether he is presenting his point of view as an honest part of the discussion, or if he is rather just playing a trick to get a rise out of people.If you disagree with his facts or his logic, the proper response is to post your factual corrections, criticisms of logic, and differing opinions, as you have done. This makes the discussion more interesting and informative.
Whoever modded GP troll, though, is just lashing out at someone they disagree with. 75% of the "troll" mods I see in meta-moderation are of this nature. The key to spotting real trolls is to discern the likely intent of the poster. If I'm in doubt, I give the poster the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's a legit post.
My truck is like a series of tubes.
I can remember reading an article about the development of the Wii where Iwata and his chief engineer were discussing how power efficient the Wii was compared to the other next gen consoles. Greenpeace didn't take that into consideration at all in their report.
Does anybody take them seriously anymore? They lied in the past and they'll lie in the future. They are anti-capitalist, anti-Western civilization, and anti-human.
Hey at least they have a bigger selection meaning the Wii and the Xbox360 compared to the PS3! I have one and I'm not impressed!..I can't stand SCEA's crappy Customer service and there support Contact the Web masterbater-Now they have hack after hack what the hell is going on with Phony Entertainment Of America! is what I call them they never reply because either there just to damn lazy to fix your problem etc! I swear I want to beat the crap out of there web master's!! There just to damn lazy to release that Xmb Music player or 2.2 for your games and being able to chat without having to leave your online games!..Man screw SCEA they had a whole freaking year and still you can't do shit with the Pee On The Station 3!.."$600 bucks and you can't provide me with a HDMI cord!" From-G4TV
...that Slashdot recycles stories, right?
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.
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
There is a reason they do it this way, and its really simple to understand if you try (but from most of the posts so far i can tell that most people don't really want to). The first thing you would want if you are going to put preassure on companies to reduce their environmental impact is to have them declare what negative environmental impact they currently have and what they intend to do about it. That gives you the oppertunity to focus on following up on the companies own promises. If they declare nothing its quite difficult to prove that they have a negative environmental impact. It requires accurate data from the company that is very hard to get. So instead greenpeace creates a point system that rewards companies that divulge information (and hey, if they doing good they have nothin to hide right?) that allows them to focus on following up on the companies own promises.