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.
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?
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.
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 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!
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.
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.
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.
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
And maybe Nintendo isn't guilty of anything. In which case they should reveal their policies and bask in the glow of a high ranking next year.