Slashdot Mirror
Greenpeace Complains Game Consoles Aren't Green Enough
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."
every 1-2 years they put out a console that explodes from some of its parts from some brands. they need to make consoles explosion free before making them green.
Read radical news here
Wiis are all white.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
Honestly, who cares what these people think about gaming consoles. What's next? Reporting on what Hamas or Al Qaeda or some other terrorist organization thinks about the XBox 360?
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Not green enough? That makes me want to go buy them just to spite these assholes.
Sorry, but these "environmentalists" are insane and are on a mission to bring us back to the dark ages in terms of technology. Logic does not apply to them.
...are we supposed to care about what Greenpeace says? They're an organization as biased as Fox News, chances are anything that plugs into an outlet that isn't solar or wind powered is going to piss them off anyway.
Greenpeace is great at offering criticism, just not solutions, and solutions are what the world actually needs.
More useless propaganda, and the idiots that fall for it.
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 from Ars Technica.
In other words: nothing to see here; move along.
I don't doubt that consoles could be greener. But, I suspect that maybe we should focus on things like electrcity generation and total life cycle polution from automobiles before we worry about jumping up and down on top of the Wii.
All of you saying Bush is slowly creeping in on your liberties, you need to look at the real enemy: the far left environmentalists. They (and the politicians joining them) are using false science to control your life and liberty, by saying that such clearly innocuous items as light bulbs are going to destroy the planet.
According to this http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/08/wii-the-greenes.html/, the Wii uses 17 watts of energy, compared to the PS3's 171 watts and the 360 Elite's 194 watts.
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!
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/how-the-companies-line-up
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.
It's very green.... oh I see.
http://www.nintendo.com/corp/faq.jsp#environment Assuming you ignore that. This is a repeat of old news anyways. Their criticisms of Nintendo basically boil down to them not having an answer to everything on their checklist exactly how they like it. Greenpeace means well but they tend to demonstrate a horrifying lack of thought or genuine consideration of anything other than their own agenda.
Game consoles are in the news? Nintendo just released a new $80 piece of hardware for the Wii that's making headlines? Game consoles aren't green enough!
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!
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
While you may think about saving the planet, you won't be thinking about the one Greenpeace wants you to think about saving.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
I can't follow the link at the moment, but is this the same logic as last time? You know, where they say that, because Nintendo doesn't disclose enough information, they'll rank Nintendo as low as possible (and, hey, the press that they get because of the Wii's popularity is nice too). Will they ignore the fact that the Wii uses a fraction of the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3's power? Basically, are they whoring for more press like the last time they published this study?
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.
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:
Charming man. I wish I had a daughter so I could forbid her to marry one. -Arthur Dent
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7407934.stm
Longer, faster, no adverts, etc, etc
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
one has to watch his balls even playing console games ...
Read radical news here
Face it, this is just like green peace singling out Apple as the computer company they were going to harass about manufacturing methods. They pick the brand best known to their political base and go after it for practices shared by the whole industry because they get a lot more press coverage attacking a "hip" company like Nintendo or Apple, than a boring one like HP or Microsoft.
I would hate having to go around telling people I have a green Wii. Might get some funny looks.
Greenpeace != Terrorist organization
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.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Now there's a job they never discussed during high school career counseling: International Toxic Campaign co-ordinator.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Seriously, who cares about this crap?
If the console works, you get fun out it - and you can afford to pay the electricity bill, does it really matter at all wtf Greenpeace report?
à_à
Look, I'm an old, angry, Republican, and not one of these tree hugging types, but I think Greenpeace has a really good point.
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.
This is my sig.
What do they expect? Industrialized societies destroy their surroundings. From shipping products, to driving to the store to buy it, all the way to the manufacturing process. The best you can honestly hope for these days is that the product doesn't poison your kids and even that isn't a guarantee. To call out "consoles" over, say computers in general, is merely an attempt to ride the media buzz surrounding a market that isn't being hampered in the United States during it's recession.
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.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Why is it up to console manufacturers to develop the next generation of power supplies? Why didn't they pick on computer manufacturers or power supply manufacturers themselves? There are far more computers out there than gaming consoles, and I think 450W is becoming the standard for a PC power supply these days. They could make a much bigger dent by going after the PC userbase.
Long signatures suck.
They've thought this for a long time: http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/30/176226
Then I'll care. I'm not here to follow the agendas of just any self-righteous ideological guilt tripper. I pay taxes to people who are responsible for studying what I need to care about environmentally.
The golden rule and extrapolation are on call. What if I heeded every extra-governmental organization who thought I needed "awareness" of some cause which I was not required by law to recognize? I'd have no time for my own agendas. My conscience exists for my own deciding, back off.
Greenpeace needs to restrain their feel good agendas to the campus, where they serve as handy attraction lures for identity seeking idealists with more free time than sense.
i'd worry about phtalates after i was sure my balls wouldnt get chopped off in a console battery explosion.
one has to know his priorities.
Read radical news here
We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK (Obama)
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
First: these guys are nothing more than a big Business nowdays, so what they "think" is irrelevant. Money talks now. Second: people from Greenpeace, you are a bunch of hipocrites. Don't like the modern world? Think WE are "hurting" Earth? Go live in a cave and survive by hunting gazelles. Better yet: kill yourselves. Your mere existence adds more stress to our enviroment (oh, the irony). Third: wanna make something really useful? Stop bitching about a bunch of plastic and go after the Biopiracy that runs rampart in the Amazon Rainforest. Go after de dozens of lumber mills that deforest the Amazon illegally EVERY SINGLE DAY. And PLEASE, leave nuclear energy alone. It's the best bet for our energy needs in the foreseeable future. [/rant]
I think you give them FAR too much credit with that statement! IMHO, they DON'T "mean well" by any stretch of the imagination! They're on a rampage with a skewed agenda - and it's important for people to see them for what they are, a group of radical environmental extremists.
... these are all good moves. Harassing businesses and publishing negative reports about their products just makes you lose your credibility.
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"
I do think that making consoles and controllers out of steel or aluminum would make a lot of sense and possibly even lower production costs for the companies. I think a big reason for why the stick with plastic is because that's "just the way it's done" ever since the Atari.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Next time Greenpeace goes chasing whalers, grab an oar.
Have gnu, will travel.
More rubbish from a stupid and corrupt organization.
Learn how to choose your battles.
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"
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
I'm concerned about the future state of our planet. Certainly more concerned than a vast majority of people. But, really, does anyone really care what Greenpeace thinks any more? Does anyone really give any credence to their fear-mongering garbage? Do they really think they're doing any good with their ill-informed and often incorrect "information?" I mean, if I tell you something that is easy to prove as incorrect, are you more or less likely to believe me in the future? Yeah. Exactly.
We can't be self-sufficient in oil. Period. Blame whoever you want for that.
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 the actual cost.
I guess you'd rather blame it on anyone else though, to feed your stupid prejudice.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Do people commonly solicit opinions from Greenpeace? Or is this the sort of opinion that has to be rammed down a person's throat to be effective?
That determination should be a factor in deciding whether or not this matters to anyone that is not a smelly hippie...
hehe
But seriously.
Greenpeace can fuck off. It's not even worth arguing about.
There are a lot of comments complaining about Greenpeace in general, or making jokes... but they have a good point. Electronics are manufactured from way too many toxic and impossible or difficult to recycle products. Consumers aren't aware enough about the need to recycle electronics, or even where to bring them.
Too often they end up somewhere like this: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/01/high-tech-trash/essick-photography
Which is just sad.
Plastic is cheaper, and it's easier to shape...That's pretty much it in a nutshell.
In the long run, plastic recycling will probably become lucrative enough that we'll probably start mining the waste dumps full of stuff that was "cheaper to throw away" back in the day, so I'm not all that worried about the long run, though I do think that we need a better method for recycling/throwing away household electronics...That stuff is full of valuable crap.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Demand has increased, but why would they go out of their way to increase supply? Artificially lowering supply is what OPEC is all about.
We need to be a lot less dependent on oil. We can't be self-sufficient in oil, and it's clearly a bad idea to be so dependent on a resource controlled by other people.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
and should be ignored. Give your money to an organization that actually helps in some way besides lying about companies and endangering other people lives at sea.
GreenPeace lost it's way in the 80's, and isn't worth giving the time of day.
Former GreenPeace memeber.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Anyone else already sick of the new buzz word, "Green" ??
It's left blank because I have nothing to say to you punks!
So why don't we just paint them? SCNR...
This organization continually reminds me of the spoiled child who will not stop complaining to his mother in the grocery store line. I still am laughing over when Greenpeace visited our University for a "Green Awareness Day" and left a giant mess outside the student center. Seriously...what are Greenpeace's motivations? Do they honestly expect to get anything done by yelling and whining?
Components of the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation3 also contained high levels of phthalates, one of which - DEHP - is known to interfere with sexual development in mammals: including humans and, especially, males.
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!
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Greenpiece has jumped the shark. When you start to worry about how pristine your garbage is, you ought to find more serious things to worry about (like peace rather than pieces).
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
None of the major environmental activist groups are 'fun enough', says gaming console manufacturers in a report released today. Shigeru Miyamoto, Nintendo Director of Technology, said: "We were shocked with Greenpeace; it was our biggest surprise." The group is described by the companies as the least 'fun' green firm.
Additionally, when asked for comment on the above story Miyamoto replied, "Yes, and?"
I rate Green Pees as worst at being insufferable worthless smug dickwipes who should either:
A) Shut the hell up and get real jobs
B) Euthanize themselves
In the end, the only way anything will change in ways which significantly impact our future will be through government directive:
(1) Industry will always be concerned with maximizing returns, which, at least in the US, they are required to do by laws. If this means using nonbiodegradable parts and polluting, they'll do that. The "do no evil" concept in business is a marketing concept, by which people are massaged to use a company's products because of the veneer of social responsibility, and the masturbatory pleasure of "doing good" by buying supposedly "green" companies' products.
(2) Consumers cannot and will not control themselves. They feel put-upon by the suggestion that they should do without anything for the purpose of environmental benefits, worker safety, fair wages, . There are exceptions - so-called "green consumers," but they are a minority, and mocked by the rest as effete NPR-listening, latte-drinking liberals. The focus will always be on where these people fail to be perfectly green consumers; any positives in their lifestyle will be dismissed in favor of pointing out their hypocrisies or weaknesses.
(3) Brand fetishism. Whatever you do, don't pick on a company that makes products that have sentimental value to people. Especially don't ever pick on Apple. Or in this case, Nintendo. Or Ford, if you're talking to a Ford driver, or Chevy if you're talking to a Chevy driver.
Whether free market people like it, whether planned-economy authoritarians like it, the only way anything will change is via government action, whether this is through taxation and tariffs, banning of certain materials, and so on. Whether or not people will tolerate government action like this, or whether the positives will outweigh the negatives, are other questions, but I am convinced that substantial change will only happen if it is forced upon people by government directive. I am not sure I like the idea of government directives about anything. I am not sure the benefits will outweigh the negatives, especially in terms of the proverbial slippery slope. Governments start "doing" power on the weekends with friends. Then a little bump during the week, just to get through. Before you know it, they're stone cold regulation junkies, victimizing anyone they have to just to get a "hit." I understand this.
But I still think...
As long as the governments of the world are unwilling to pass what many would consider draconian regulations on industry, we will continue to toxify the planet because for all their bluster, consumers will tolerate anything except higher prices and inconvenience, and industry will tolerate everything except for the things that affect them, personally.
The other problem is that people continued to be focused on the packaging of messages rather than the content. So if you're a white guy with dreadlocks with a fuck-the-man t-shirt, everything you may be saying about a certain issue may be correct, and people might do well to heed your warning, but people will be smugly satisfied in ignoring you because they don't like how you look - they will spend at least five times the effort mocking you than they will building their own coalition or working toward the social goal in question.
Whether this is stupid or not is irrelevant to the concept that this is a fact. Accordingly, Greenpeace's biggest sin is being Greenpeace. We can agree, for example, that declining fish stocks and the big slick of plastic in the Pacific is a bad thing, but the minute someone tries to do something - anything - under the Greenpeace logo, hearts and minds are lost because the inner compulsion to hate "a bunch of whiny hippies at sea" outweighs the desire to fix the oceans. People could, in theory, join Greenpeace and try to change its direction, but it is far easier to slag them on the Internet and do nothing. Which is what people do, the same way they rant about their political parties but won't go to a party meeting (or even vote in most cases). This, too, is reality. Sl
I read this article on Joystiq about 6 months ago.
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/12/greenpeace-targets-game-industry/
Nobody gave a crap 6 months ago and no one gives a crap now. It won't matter how many press releases they issue or how often they issue them.
It seems to me they're finally admitting that their tactics and stance may be considered toxic. "Let the cause suffer, I want the spotlight."
Invenio via vel creo
Even the founder of Greenpeace has disowned them, because they go way too far.
They're a bunch of nutjobs, and only one step away from terrorists.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
I just want to say here that not everyone who is pro technology and concerned about stuff for nerds is anti Greenpeace. I think it is essential to push big companies hard to improve their ways since the governments that we elect (or don't) seem to be powerless against their lobbies. I am always amazed when I meet people with libertarian leanings, who really want to get rid of governmental controls all together, but then are willing to let corporations (who are not accountable to anyone except for their profit minded share-holders) have a free ride. I would be happy to see less government if there was some other way to keep the corporations from making serious decisions that effect my health, my children's future and life as we know it. And, well, the governments we have now are barely effective as it is, so we need groups like greenpeace to keep pressure on them. No matter how much I love my linux box or my x-box, it does not trump the responsibility being aware of the damage they may be causing.IMHO.
That's a joke, right ? The APL Jade boarding was an attempt at (peaceful) demonstration. Now, you may like Greenpeace or not (although I'm not a big fan, I personally prefer a world with Greenpeace to the same world without Greenpeace), but you're just trolling.
the irony is that, if it wasnt for those tree huggers in the 60s, individual rights and freedoms wouldnt be in daily life as we know it now. for whites, blacks, asians, greens, magenta, beige, short, long, farting, non farting people and else.
they would remain just written in well worded proclamations and government text.
Read radical news here
for that, i'd need a decent sized console first. every butt is different you know. maybe you can give some tips.
Read radical news here
Last I checked, the Wii was white. I guess that would make the XBox the greenest console out there right?
Oh please - this was non-news months ago.
They are just upset Nintendo hasn't jumped through their hoops.
You've hit it on the head.
All people in this world care about is Number One.
Take a look at this report posted at EnergyStar (a US DOE & US EPA).
... how can something that dies from overheating be good for the environment? They were never supposed to, show me the comparison with computer parts ... there's a disaster you can focus on.
And please get off my balls Greenpeace, you're still pissing on the Wii for micrograms of some chemical compound and do not acknowledge that the thing needs 10 times less power under full load than both it's competitors. Is some hidden toxin really the biggest problem?
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:
Do NOT eat electronics components, Thank you.
...looking relevant.
In essence, they couldn't find out what Nintendo's "environmental policy".
Greenpeace couldn't find this information on Nintendo's website--or perhaps they asked for it and Nintendo said "Screw you we're to busy laughing all the way to the bank".
So greenpeace picks this easy target and makes a lot of noise about how irresponsible they are (even though they have no idea what Nintendo is actually doing).
Nintendo will make a big statement outlining everything they are already doing for the environment and greenpeace will take the credit for making Nintendo a more environmentally friendly company and people will think greenpeace is really great and donate more money to them (so they can build some more war ships).
.sig? Get your own damn
It should just be "Greenpeace Complains".
"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.
Acoustic guitar hero!
For example, plastic bags are a relatively minor problem compared to other plastic debris, since they tend to sink to the seafloor.
Does every aspect of our lives have to be approved by Al Gore and the Crying Indian? Is it worth it to "green" game consoles based on hours of usage and saturation in the population? Let's focus on the those things that are used daily, by everyone, internationally such as transportation; heating, cooling and lighting; cellphones; and habitual waste products.
I ignore environmentalist groups. I am not a treehugger and I am sick of alarmists ZOMG! POLLUTION! -- They are the perfect example of the boy who cried wolf, because they whine about EVERYTHING. We could go back to living in wigwams and use only renewable fuels (wood) for heating, and poop in the woods like every other animal does, and that kind of "environmentalist" would STILL say we're not green enough. That is why Rush, etc. refer to them as "environmentalist wackos," and you know what? They're right. Greenpeace is not much better than a terrorist organization - except they fight with economics and lobbyists rather than suicide bombs.
The problem? There is no happy medium with them. I consider myself a conservationist: I do drive a gas-guzzling pickup truck and do own sportscars. One car gets 16mpg (not too bad for the mid-70s) and one gets 27mpg combined with the stock EPROM and driven sanely (damn good for ~400hp car made in the early '90s) - about the same as many of today's compact cars. I won't give up the cars, but the pickup is going to be replaced by either a hybrid SUV or a toyota matrix (and considering I drive the truck the most, that is the one I need to replace).
I need the cargo space, but the mileage sucks - at least the Matrix will get around 30mpg, or a hybrid SUV about the same. When I can afford to build my dream home, I want to have full climate control and keep the place at 72* in the winter, but plan to offset it by using photovoltaic roofing to feed the grid, and completely offset creature comforts. For supplemental heat in extreme cold I do plan to use coal, but the same furnace would be able to also burn corn husks, peat, and other "renewable" fuels as they become available. My apartment is heated by oil, so what I am doing for next winter (unless I move in the meantime) is investing in a heat pump so I can minimize oil use. I switched to CFL even though my past experience with them was bad (I'm prone to migraines), hoping the more modern ones would be improved, and found that the new CFLs are great. I use terry cloth at home for most cleaning, and use paper towels sparingly, as reusing a cloth is less wasteful than constantly throwing away paper. I do what I can to conserve.
Why do I refer myself to a conservationist? I strive for balance, not eliminating technology and resource usage. I want to have my cake and eat it too, and it is possible to do so, with a slightly higher initial investment. I want to treat the environment kindly for self-serving reasons: If I squander resources now, when I'm older they will be scarce or unobtainable, and it will be bad for my country in general.
Greenpeace needs to focus on serious issues, not major over minors. Is there a Chernobyl-style nuclear plant being built? Protest THAT and insist it's an American-styled nuclear plant which would contain any catastrophic, worst-case incident. Is there an oil company leaking millions of barrels of oil into the environment? Focus on them, and holding the executives and board members personally responsible - don't block off ALL oil exploration and reclamation. Focus on the fact that China is exempt from CO2 eemissions, AND uses slave/forced labor, and don't focus on trivial issues like game consoles not being quite green enough. There are bigger-impact issues at hand, and focusing on the minors does not solve ANYTHING. It only serves to make your organization irrelevant as even your most liberal supporters begin to realize that you exist only to media whore, not bring attention to real, serious issues that affect us all.
Ultimately, what we need is a return to personal responsibility, NOT a bunch of alarmists who cry wolf at every gnat, flea, and fly that comes along. If you take responsibility for your own actions and are looking out for your own best long-term interest, you'll come to the conclusion that you need to use resources and the environment responsibly.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
ROHS compliance has cost the electronics industry Billions to implement, was based on one now retracted faulty scientific study about leaching of lead from electronics into ground water.
This costs the world continuing $$$ from higher process temperatures, more brittle solder connections, tin whiskers. Thanks EU!
46137
...sometimes it's green.
Don't trust those evil corporations, politicians, and scientists! Trust us!
worthless bunch of pseudo-hippies, even their founder renounces the current state of the organisation.
Debian FTW
The xbox power brick is the largest watt sucking monster I've ever seen in my entire life yet greenpeace still manages to have the audacity to be 'shocked' by nintendo? I wonder what Microsoft and Sony had to pay greenpeace to be spared the shocked label?
Sorry if I'm off by a bit; this is from memory, but I'm fairly certain the ratios are correct. I went on a rampage with a kill-o-watt meter last year after a rather large power bill.
Nintendo Wii: 45W
MSFT Xbox360: 185W
MSFT Xbox: 135W
Yea, Nintendo is the worst polluter of the bunch. Those bastards. I think they sell more of them too!
These opinions guaranteed or your money back.
A "big screen" is a video monitor large enough to fit four people around. In practice, this means a monitor with a visible area at least 15 inches (38 cm) tall, such as a 25" full screen or a 32" wide screen. PCs connected to a big screen are called "theater PCs".
As of 2008, consoles still outnumber theater PCs by a large margin. Because of this, most major-label games designed for more than one player are released exclusively on one or more consoles. A few PC games such as Lego Star Wars and Serious Sam work well on theater PCs, but most multiplayer PC games need one PC and one monitor per player. This is the case even if the game isn't a first-person shooter or war simulator that benefits from separate views per player.
Does a console plus a big screen LCD draw more power than four PCs and four 17 inch LCDs?
Does Greenpeace utilize alternative fuels for its vehicles (both on land and sea)? If not then I think they just need to shutup. For that matter, they need to shutup anyway. I'm tired of people blaming others for not being green enough whether it is hypocritical or not but being hypocritical about it does make it worse. Nintendo can just fake it by buying carbon credits. Like the credits really do something meaningful anyway. Oh, I'm not bitter by the way.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
45W isn't correct. (Or if it is, your Wii will be melting soon!) The Wii never crosses 20 Watts in power usage. The primary reason for this is that the chips are basically updated GameCube chips, but made with a 90nm process rather than the previous 180nm process. This makes the previously ~39 watt hardware a clean and cool ~17 watt architecture.
:-)
More info here: http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-356-1.htm
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
If we had been able to build out nuclear power like we should have, electric and other alternative vehicles would have caught on long ago.
But, due to their efforts, we are still choking on coal smoke and burning gas in our vehicles.
...and we should care what Greenpeace thinks, why?
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
The dirtiest little companies are electronics manufacturers! After building 1000 boards you have 10x that in garbage or more! Your the ones buying it... lead-less soldering processes start to almost get overshadowed by the Styrofoam, but lead is poison ;^)
I care about the environmental impact of my technology usage too, but Greenpeace are are bunch of publicity-seeking, medievalist extremists who wilfully distort science just as much as the "global warming is bunk" crowd. It's a terrible shame, because they make adopting real, practical solutions that much harder.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Nintendo is so Green!
http://ui08.gamespot.com/1383/greenn64_4.jpg
---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"
because someone criticizes their toys. And mildly
Greenpeace have a point, none of you address it. If you bothered to read the Greenpeace website, or the link to the original article (the link is suspiciously missing even in the blog article referenced.)
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/game-consoles-no-consolation200508
Why won't Nintendo publish their disposal policy? Who knows. I think it reasonable they should. I'd like to see it.
The one fact - power consumption - has been done to death. The lower power consumption still doesn't avoid the fact that the wii is made of something very, very poisonous.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/greener-electronics-ranking-6-291107
"Our guide focuses on toxic chemicals and takeback policy because of the rapid growth in quantities of toxic e-waste being dumped in developing countries like China and India. While Nintendo's Wii console appears to be more energy efficient compared to the Microsoft Xbox and Sony Playstation, energy use is not yet covered in the ranking."
Very suspicious that not mentioning the power consumption because they don't include it in the ranking - yet. Wearing all that tin-foil must have leached into your brains guys.
And they had the temerity to criticize the saintly Apple. Get a grip. Most of you sound as bad as a bunch of creationist fundamentalists.
In before a bunch of nutjobs who can't see past the end of their hummer. It's no wonder the US has such a shite environmental record. Actually, the level of anti-Greenpeace vitriol on this topic has made me re-consider Greenpeace. I may well contribute to them in the future.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
Well the truth is that the gaming world is a fast moving industry, and that means a lot of production, and eventually a lot of waste.
Moving up to the next console will certainly do that.
If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
With all the RRoD'd Xboxes out there, of course they aren't green enough! :rim shot:
I'll throw in a link to the actual study this article is based on:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/playing-dirty
Contrary to what many commenters would have you believe, Greenpeace actually took apart these consoles and had the components analysed for hazardous chemicals in a university laboratory.
is a sufficient headline.