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."

17 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. Screw Greenpeace by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Greenpeace have pulled this nonsense before. They lambasted Apple for not being "green" enough then came out and admitted they didn't really have a beef with Apple, they just went after them for the publicity as they were such a well known corporation.

    Greenpeace are barely one level above PETA in the asinine self publicity stakes.

    1. Re:Screw Greenpeace by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Greenpeace's own founder is against Greenpeace. It's time to stop letting insane left-wingers threaten everybody into living the way they want them to live.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    2. Re:Screw Greenpeace by ErikTheRed · · Score: 5, Funny

      Greenpeace has not only jumped the shark, they're now in geosynchronous orbit above it.

      --

      Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
    3. Re:Screw Greenpeace by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That thinking is where it gets dangerous.

      There is a balance that is needed to maintain. Enviromentalism and Personal Freedom. It is not one or the other. It is getting a good balance between the two. Greenpeace wants to dictate how people live, and make a huge fuss about any resistance, even if it is relatively minor.

      The way that environmentalism works the best is threw education and marketing. Don't give the people these worst cases of dooms day scenario. This will only get a small group of people and when it doesn't go as plan they drop away and don't believe you any more. (Eg. Durring the 1970 they had predicted Global Cooling, that didn't happen so a lot of people won't believe in global warming. (Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me)) I like the trend that we are going in now for environmentalism. Put effort in research to make current technology more energy efficient. Implementing other sources of power, showing people that they can be green without breaking the budget.

      If they are able to influence my Father to get a win turbine for his house (a staunch republican who still doesn't believe in global warming) then I think we are going in the right direction. Forcing people will only give push-back, showing them alternatives and good cost/benefit information will move to your goal much faster.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  2. Incoherent Propoganda by MrMista_B · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The incoherent propoganda, lies, and lack of science that Greenpeace shouts to the world does very little benefit, and very much harm to actual, real enviromental concerns.

    They're as mindless, cultlike, and factually wrong as PETA.

    Which is terrible and unfortunate, because they are wealthy and powerful, and if Greenpeace actually cared for the enviroment, at all, in any way, they have the capability to actually do enviromental good.

    1. Re:Incoherent Propoganda by routerl · · Score: 5, Funny

      I heard this story once and I absolutely love it. Sadly, no sources, so it may be apocryphal.

      The story goes that Greenpeace's latest publicity stunt was to try and protect seals in the arctic from getting poached, so they decide they would make their skins worthless to the poachers by spraying the seals with bright green paint. As it turns out, however, the main defense of arctic seals against their natural predators (polar bears) is to lay perfectly still, with eyes closed, hoping to blend into the snowy/icy background to evade detection. Thanks to Greenpeace, these seals were now visible from miles away and, not knowing they were now targets, would just lie perfectly still while polar bears raced towards and devoured them.

      Hooray for Greenpeace.

      --
      Trust me, kids; don't drink and post.
    2. Re:Incoherent Propoganda by MrMista_B · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not to mention, the green paint poisoning the polar bears!

      Sadly, that seems an entirely accurate metaphor for what Greenpeace does in the world today. Anti-enviromental bastards.

  3. The only thing that by twostix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Greenpeace cares about is more money for Greenpeace.

    Just like any other multinational.

  4. greenpeace fighting for relivance by timmarhy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    in a lot of ways they are a victim of their own success. after all the lobbying in the 80's greenpeace won most of their battles that they were going to win, so now they are in a position where they really should just go away, but won't ever be able to bring themselfs to do so.

    people are waking up to them now, but they still have enough of an ignorant support base to keep them in stunt dollars for a while...

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:greenpeace fighting for relivance by Martin+Blank · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I grew tired of listening to them about a decade ago. Back when they were in the thick of things (like getting rammed by a French warship or bombed by French intelligence), I had some respect for them. But over the years, they began to look more like the Luddite fringe groups that would seem to rather see the collapse of civilization than to harm a single insect. I think much of the world has come to agree with what they were talking about 25 years ago, but as the radicals have gained power, they have been more willing to bend the truth (or outright lie) and so many people no longer trust what the organization has to say. Thus, by attempting ever harder to push their agenda, they may be doing more to derail it than any corporation could do.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    2. Re:greenpeace fighting for relivance by twostix · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's a depressing cycle, that every fringe philosophy that gains mainstream support, money and power quickly gets taken over by the radicals who then purge the original soft and usually more pragmatic visionaries and then quickly turn the movement *against* them, making the founders appear to be traitors against their own cause.

      Every single time.

      Environmentalism
      Communism
      Conservatism
      Liberalism

      Examples of movements that started out so well then largely went sour leaving societies stuck trying to figure out how to achieve the aims of the original movement *in spite of* the groups who lay claim to being the "movement".

      Hopefully with such a swath of historical examples the next great "movements" will somehow figure out a way of protecting themselves from the power hungry radicals.

      Western democratic political systems seem to have largely got that figured out so a model based on that may work.

  5. Th French by Fengpost · · Score: 4, Funny

    Where is the French Navy when you needed them!

    --
    The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity....Calvin
  6. I No Respect For Greenpeace by bky1701 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Greenpeace is largely to blame for our current energy problems. Their vilification of nuclear power has greatly hindered its adoption (politicans are already irrationally afraid of it, because of BIMBY and "terrorists"), and their pushing of so-far dead-end technology like wind and solar has caused us to be stuck with coal and oil. If they, and the average environmentalist, had enough of a brain to understand the concept of the lesser evil, we would probably not be so worried about global warming. But, logic never stopped them from crying about things.

    Now we have everyone against the rational answer to the problem, and everyone shelling out billions to try to develop what simply isn't coming. Solar and wind have been around for a very long time; short of a massive breakthrough, it is never going to be as economical as the CO2-creating alternatives. Meaning, we're stuck with them until some sort of government regulation comes along... and we all know how much THAT usually helps.

    Our economy is being run into the ground by power costs, and peak oil means it will just get worse. Wind and solar are not becoming more economical, and the government's answer of taking even more money out of the system is just going to make a bad situation horrible. If global warming turns out to even be half as bad as claimed, we'll be in essentially a second dark ages.

    We could have built enough nuclear plants to power the entire world, and thus avert all these problems, with the money Obama threw away; but here we are, the construction of a single plant is news-worthy.

    Sometimes I wonder if it would really be so awful if humanity killed itself off. We're not really getting any better... perhaps we shouldn't go and pollute space with our stupidity.

  7. Nuts to Grenpeace by SirDrinksAlot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Their rating system is entirely biased and is not even remotely objective. Their admitting in the past that they will still give failing grades to some companies even if they are the greenest around just because they think it might influence them to do better. Basicaly saying regardless of how well you do you'll never be good enough.

    Effectively they invalidated the entire program of rating companies meaningless. You cant hold everyone to wildly different standards and still expect to be taken seriously.

  8. The Same Products Are Still Much The Same?!?! by nick_davison · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The console industry works on five year cycles with a ten year lifespan for each product, a new version turning up halfway through its lifespan.

    We're currently about two and a half years in to the current cycle for the PS3, a little more for the XBox360.

    So, amazingly enough, the manufacturers didn't dump their hundreds of millions of dollars of investments, six months in to their ten year lives, just because Greenpeace told them to? Why that's just crazy.

    Or, alternatively, it would've been blatantly obvious to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the console industry to know there couldn't be any significant change by this point (with the exception of the PS3 slim on the horrizon) and Greenpeace are simply showboating, picking something they know can't be changed but is mainstream culture enough to draw them column inches if they attack it.

    It's cheap politics like that that lead me to ask, getting daily acosted by them to save the whales, "Why? Do they make good sushi?" When they can treat me with respect and stop trying cheap manipulation, I'll return the favor.

  9. Re:Screw this hippie bullshit. by John+Nowak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've thought "damn hippies" ever since seeing the hysteria they try to throw people into over nuclear power.

  10. Re:Screw this hippie bullshit. by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > I'm guessing you saw the 'Green' in their name and just thought 'damn hippies'.

    Nope. A lot of us have personal firsthand experience with these people or know
    people who have. It's quite common for groups like Greenpeace to shout down anyone
    with anyone with any real technical expertise or experience or anyone that doesn't
    buy completely into the groupthink. This is not merely limited to Greenpeace and
    also afflicts a lot of other sort of "activist" groups.

    This also is true for "gooder" parts of the government like the EPA.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.