Slashdot Mirror
Greenpeace Decries Lack of Environmental Progress From Console Makers
SwiftyNifty writes with an update to Greenpeace's 2007 criticism of game console manufacturers over environmental concerns. Their claim was that some of the chemicals used to make the consoles were toxic, and that the manufacturers' recycling practices were not up to snuff. Two years have passed, and Greenpeace now says that progress is either slow or non-existent.
"... Nintendo has little plan to remove PVC and almost no plans to remove [brominated flame retardants]. Slightly further up the scale, Microsoft was again awarded a poor ranking due to the use of toxic waste materials. And Sony, who rank rather well in their mobile phone partnership with Ericsson (scoring 6.5 out of 10 for improved toxic waste and efficient energy usage) didn't perform as well in the console category, failing to eliminate PVC or BFRs from their gaming products."
Don't be so hard on them. The current mode of global resource allocation requires a Greenpeace to permit us to continue to consume at unsustainable rates. If the consumptive "first world" were faced with how to redress the the vast injustices we cause through consumption, instead of simply buying indulgences through slightly more expensive environmentally-friendly labeled goods, we might slow down to think about why 2/3 of the world's population must struggle through inhumane living conditions so that we can enjoy our dozens of Energy Star appliances.
Also, I don't think the glitter-starved masses would pay attention to lifecycle analyses, total energy equations, comprehensive resource requirements and all that science which would rationally price our disposables based on their impact on fellow humans, as opposed to what some database thinks we're worth.
In what ways does it make sense to ship flavorless but dent- and parasite (life!) resistant fruit from nutrition-deprived regions half way across the world for routine daily consumption, regardless of how its transported when most parts of the world have provided adequate nutrition for hundreds of thousands of years?
There are 1.1... kinds of people.
Sadly,
Like most people you didn't read up on Nuclear power before you posted.
Nuclear power isn't available in abundance.
The TOTAL amount of Nuclear fuel on this world can sustain the current energy hunger for about 3-5 years.
Problem with this is that mining and processing the stuff actually cost lots of energy (and creates greenhouse gases).
So a big part of the fuel will actualy cost more than it produces
Combined with the massive amount of energy needed for building a Nuclear power station is neither green or any sort of real alternative.
It is not without reasen the government needs to put in massive amounts of money for a Nuclear station it cannot compete on costs.
(so it probably neither can on energy efficiency compared to fossil fuels)
I see, so because Greenpeace used the kind of tactics needed to get heard in the modern world just like any other organisation they're not worth listening too? Why wouldn't they be after publicity? Publicity helps further their cause.
It seems dishonest to suggest Greenpeace had no beef with Apple, they did have a beef with Apple: http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/. In fact, Apple still ranks quite badly according to them: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/how-the-companies-line-up hardly a company they "have no beef with" then.
Greenpeaces biggest mistake was probably not realising how bad the worst zealots in the Apple community can be, these are people who would rather spread propaganda and defend Apple than realise that Greenpeace has a point, and that they could still have their iPods and iMacs but have them greener too. Unfortunately this would mean accepting that Apple and it's products aren't the most perfect entities in the universe, something that is beyond the most rabid of Apple fans.
But here's a question, if Greenpeace had singled out Microsoft instead, would we still be seeing these blistering attacks here against Greenpeace? I'm guessing the answer is almost certainly not.
Yes, Greenpeace has some nuts, but so does any large organisation. It's not like other political movements from the British Labour party to the US Democrats and Republicans don't also have more than their fair share of nuts and extremists - I mean, George Bush got into power and Sarah Palin was a VP candidate, it takes some pretty extreme views to think that either of them were a good idea and amongst the talk of Greenpeace dishonesty how many other large organisations aren't also guilty of the exact same thing to make their point from Microsoft to Apple to the Democrats to the Republicans.
That doesn't stop them having a point, just as despite the fact Bush and Palin are probably two of the biggest laughing stocks in politics in the last 50 years, McCain was mostly pretty reasonable and had some good points and good ideas. Most the work they do is done in a relatively mature manner - their work against whaling is fairly tame compared to Sea Sheperd which rams Japanese ships with their boat called the Steve Irwin whilst flying the jolly roger and throwing acid on the deck of the Japanese ships. Greenpeace on the other hand just gets in the way whilst being sprayed with water cannons by the Japanese whalers.
My point is this, I'm not defending fringe nutcases, but I'm pointing out they exist everywhere, and we shouldn't let them detract from more moderate, sensible people and the good work that they do. Suggesting Greenpeace shouldn't exist anymore is really stupid because at the end of the day they do still do a lot of good work. After all, Apple did change their policy in the end:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/tasty-apple-news-020507
Realise that even if Greenpeace went, the fringe nutcases amongst the Greens would still exist regardless, just as with any organisation or political movement. You'd still have them lobbying against nuclear power without understanding it's actually probably our best option for green energy and bad policy being made as a result of that.
The biggest worry if anything should be the fact many people are more interested in shouting down Greenpeace than accepting that there is a lot more we could do to produce more green electronic products. Finally, for those decrying Greenpeace's lack of scientific method, see here, most the points raised in the comments are covered:
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/makingwaves/archives/2007/12/nintendo_ranking_creates_a_sti.html
what fucking drivel.
this place is more like digg, full of anti-environmental prop-piracy retards every fucking day.
It's time to stop letting insane left-wingers threaten everybody into living the way they want them to live.
"We have classified them on the imaginary political spectrum, so their arguments are invalid."
Are you implying your right to live as you please is more important than the continued survival of the global ecosystem, and the human race depending on it?
And "Troll" still does not mean "Something with which I disagree."
I meant every word I wrote above. You may not like what I have said, but that doesn't make me a liar, nor does it make me wrong. (I may not be right, of course.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"