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.
When was Greenpeace ever lauded as a bastion of logic?
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.