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."

Comments

Re:Well,

[cliffski]

actually a lot of stuff you assume goes to landfill gets stuck on a ship and exported to some third world country where it becomes 'someone else's problem'.
the west are great and dumping our crap on poorer countries. We brits got caught doing it with 1,400 tonnes of toxic waste a few days ago:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6719508.ece

Of course we are all better off just not knowing about this ro giving a fuck about how our actions affect other countries, so I'm sure its evil of greenpeace to even draw attention to it.
bastards eh?

Re:Screw Greenpeace

[m0s3m8n]

Hey Greenpeace, kiss my hairy yellow ass.

Re:Screw Greenpeace

[drinkypoo]

yeah, but that's because he though Greenpeace wasn't radical enough and went and started Sea Shepherds - now they are nuts.

Visited their site and I love it. Frankly, I would be in favor of mining/torpedoing whaling vessels, if not for the environmental impact of sinking a ship full of fuel. I don't see a problem with killing people bent on genocide of intelligent species. By and large I am against violence, but what these people do hardly qualifies.

What they are trying to do here is teh gool ol' carrot and stick. make sure the comapiens that do good gets highlighted (cue Nokia) and the at the bad ones gets som bad publicity for it. What's wrong with that?

The idea that Nokia is a "good company". Until Nokia gets to 0% output (e.g. every ton of everything that they emit gets fixed somewhere; every ounce of product material is accounted for one way or another on the recycling end, et cetera) then they are just another planet-raping bastard enabled by a clueless populace.

Personally I find it a very civilized way of getting companies to clean up their act, far better that the nutters going burning down offices or simiar in some stupid effort to make their point heard

Yes, when the fuck will they learn that the only thing that will work is bringing consequences to decision-makers? If you are going to engage in an act of terrorism, by god make it an effective one. Nothing is more offensive than a pointless act of destruction that simply leads to more of whatever you were railing against. If you're going to burn something down, burn down the guy who made the decision that you have a problem with. Arson only results in an insurance claim, a new building, and a lot of pollution.