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."
errr ... don't laugh. That exists : http://www.hempplastic.com/
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
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.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.
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
'Greenpeace reserves the right to arbitrarily change a company's score if they decide the company did something disagreeable' I tkae this as popularity points so to speak, the companies have to "suck up" to them if they don't want to "lose" points. I find this whole thing utterly ridiculous. Im surprised JT hasn't reared his ugly head.
I agree.
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.
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.
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.
In any case, you shouldn't be licking your console.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
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
This is the same thing that Greenpeace tried to do to Apple. Despite having one of the best records in the industry, Greenpeace rated them "worst" because they didn't publish enough details or promise to do things in the future. Other companies which were in much worse shape but promised things in the future got better ratings. In other words, Greenpeace appears to value words over actions.
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.
E pluribus unum
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
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
Only when they harass me on my way home from work to some some idiotic petition or another. I always just ask if Greenpeace is still opposed to nuclear power, and if they say yes, I keep walking. Haven't had to listen to them yet.
Comment of the year
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?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
It's called exaggeration. No, they are not terrorists, but it's annoying when idiots group together in numbers to protest something they don't even understand properly.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
There have been incidents.
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.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Terrorism is also the use of fear and intimidation tactics as a form of unconventional or psychological warfare, which I think includes most of Greenpeace's activities pretty well.
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.
Except that the XBox 360 and PS3 can often use even more than the Wii. If you turn off the Wii's 'connect24' option, it's measured at 1.3 watts, as seen in this article.
With the PS3, if you leave it on 'remote play' standby, it uses 24 watts. This guy 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?
...I am disturbed to my very core that someone felt it necessary to mod this Informative.
Any plan which depends on a fundamental change in human behavior is doomed from the start.