backtop


Print 71 comment(s) - last by NesteaZen.. on Dec 31 at 5:19 AM


Mario, Master Chief and Kratos in Greenpeace's "Clash of the Consoles"  (Source: Greenpeace.org)
Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony tagged as toxic console makers by Greenpeace

Earlier this week Greenpeace posted a trailer depicting Nintendo’s Mario holding a Wii, Microsoft’s Master Chief holding a RROD’ed Xbox 360 and SCEA’s Kratos hit by a PlayStation 3.

No, it’s not the world’s greatest console gaming crossover – it’s Greenpeace’s jab at the three console giants for their apparent environment negligence.

“The games consoles market is one of the fastest growing in consumer electronics with over 60 million sold and 14 percent growth last year,” Greenpeace explained on its newly launched Clash of the Consoles website. “These consoles contain toxic chemicals and can contribute to the massive growth of electronic waste that's often dumped, causing widespread environmental pollution and health problems for unprotected workers.”

Greenpeace has been pushing for the entire electronics manufacturing industry to replace the use of toxic chemicals such as brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) with safer alternatives, the environmental group believes that none of the consoles produced by the big three are toxic-responsible.

“We've checked how the environmental performances of Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo measure up on toxics, recycling and energy use,” said Greenpeace. “None of these three seems even close to making a greener console.”

Sony has a policy for eliminating the worst toxic chemicals from its products by 2010, but the policy does not cover PlayStation products, according to Greenpeace. Sony won marks for having the best take and recycling programmes, but was criticized for make the most power-hungry gaming console (128 watts).

In August, Sony announced the Sony Take Back Recycling Program, allowing consumers to recycle all Sony-branded products – including PlayStations – for no fee at 75 Waste Management Recycle America eCycling drop-off centers throughout the U.S.

On the other hand, Microsoft has a policy to eliminate toxicity by 2011 but does not have the voluntary take back program. The Xbox 360 Elite was also hit for consuming more power (97 watts) than the Wii.

The Wii pleased Greenpeace for its exceptionally low power consumption (15 watts), at levels at least six times below the other systems, but Nintendo was condemned as the worst offender on the scale of toxic use, policy and recycling credits.

Greenpeace slammed Nintendo in November following a report on “greener” electronics. Nintendo was placed dead last in a list of 18 companies due to the console maker’s lack of public disclosure on its chemical and recycling policies.

Nintendo expressed surprise at the content of the Greenpeace report, releasing a statement saying, “Nintendo takes great care to comply with all relevant regulations on avoiding the use of dangerous materials, recycling of materials etc. For example, all Nintendo products supplied worldwide are designed to comply with relevant global standards.”

The company continued, “In order to certify that Nintendo products comply with standards for hazardous chemical substances, Nintendo has established the Green Procurement Standards, which require our component suppliers certify that any parts including hazardous chemical substances should not be delivered, and Nintendo fully controls its products in the company.”

Microsoft and Sony have yet to respond to Greenpeace’s claims.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Electronic dumps
By kiwik on 12/12/2007 5:42:42 PM , Rating: 2
Did you guys ever wondered where all our cellphones, computers, printers, consoles, televisions, whatever electronic product goes?




RE: Electronic dumps
By lukasbradley on 12/12/2007 5:46:40 PM , Rating: 2
It is very easy for most readers here to dismiss Greenpeace. Those who are political conservative will most certainly lambast their intent. However, electronic recycling is extremely important, whether we are talking about cell phones, televisions, or gaming consoles. Bringing more attention to the problem won't hurt.

Please recycle your electronics through reputable vendors. It's costly, but worth it.


RE: Electronic dumps
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/12/2007 6:12:18 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
It is very easy for most readers here to dismiss Greenpeace.


It's easy for Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, to dismiss Greenpeace as well.

Nobody is saying Greenpeace has bad intentions in mind. But when Greenpeace gives Nintendo a very public 0 out of 30 rating after some intern looked though the Nintendo.com FAQ ... well there will be backlash for Greenpeace and their methods.

Instead of bringing light to electronic recycling, the group has only managed to show their incompetence. And thus, the next time Greenpeace wants to stop above ground nuclear testing (or something of the sort), they'll likely be discounted for the fact that they can't be bothered to get out of their comfy armchairs (or even pick up the phone?!!) in the past, and their protests should be ignored.


RE: Electronic dumps
By derdon on 12/12/2007 6:57:32 PM , Rating: 4
The Anti-Greenpeace sentiment on this forum is really hurting. People are demanding more objectivity yet all they claim is completely subjective... attention-seeking lazy environmentalists... you'd wonder whenever somebody doesn't come from Los Alamos or have supercool weapons research technology done, some think he can't add 1 and 1.
Actually Greenpeace isn't anti-technology or anti-growth or all that people like to underestimate. Some may remember that it was Greenpeace who developed the first CFC-free fridge (Greenfreeze) and proved what everyone claimed was impossible.
I think having greener electronic products isn't a bad thing and neither is making a case for it. Your claim about deciding based on looking at the FAQ is childish. Normally Greenpeace sends out questionnaires and tries to get answers where it demands proves of and then publishes the results. You can't be serious about a backlash when you don't even know how they work.

Overall there are some really childish responses here.

About the co-founder thing. I think it's natural that people develop different opinions about different matters and that not all is able to be unified under one hood. That doesn't make quitters more right than others though.


RE: Electronic dumps
By 16nm on 12/12/2007 9:45:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The Anti-Greenpeace sentiment on this forum is really hurting.


I like green peas. They're high in fiber.

quote:
Overall there are some really childish responses here.


Touché.


RE: Electronic dumps
By GreenyMP on 12/13/2007 9:41:37 AM , Rating: 2
There are more effective ways to go about this. Had Greenpeace worked with the console manufacturers to educate the public and endorse electronics recycling they would not be in the news, but their ends would have been achieved. That makes me agree with those who think this is a PR stunt.


RE: Electronic dumps
By derdon on 12/14/2007 3:30:52 AM , Rating: 3
There are a lot of campaigns that are won on a direct level and public attention is never reached. There's a lot of work that you'll never see or hear of. And that's exactly the problem with your statement.
The false conclusion that you drew is that they're only making public attention campaigns, because that's the only thing you ever see.


RE: Electronic dumps
By robinthakur on 12/13/2007 9:57:04 AM , Rating: 3
This isn't an environmental propoganda website so don't expect to see the unconditional love for Greenpeace which you might be used to. I actually call Greenpeace's attitude these days far more childish than these replies, and they've clearly decided that by targeting higher profile items such as games consoles or the iPhone that they can bask in their reflected glory and steal some column headlines.

Nintendo has now made an official statement which contradicts quite persuasively Greenpeace's original damning piece, but I don't think their rebuttal got much attention. I think if nothing else, the 3 major manufacturers should sue Greenpeace for use of their relative trademarks in their ad 'campaigns'.

I think they do this because actually I don't remember hearing anything much about Greenpeace or PETA since the 80's ended apart from their their usual drone about why whale hunting is wrong. As an aside, I've tried Whale and its actually not very nice (and this is by the standards relative to the rest of Japanese food) and as a result, the majority of Japanese certainly do not eat it and anyone saying otherwise is not telling the whole truth. I'm also pleased to say that fur is very firmly back in fashion (in the UK at least) so much so that crazy animal rights nutjobs don't know who to throw paint over first :)

Hopefully, Greenpeace find something genuinely worthwhile to protest against which the rest of us can take seriously, and not this non-event. It reminds me of that bit in the Simpsons when Lisa is desperate to be outraged by something. "And who would want to be a party to a sport played with a ball made from the skin of an innocent pig?!?"


RE: Electronic dumps
By BMFPitt on 12/13/2007 10:35:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This isn't an environmental propoganda website
You must be new here.


RE: Electronic dumps
By clovell on 12/13/2007 3:27:42 PM , Rating: 3
> Your claim about deciding based on looking at the FAQ is childish. Normally Greenpeace sends out questionnaires and tries to get answers where it demands proves of and then publishes the results. You can't be serious about a backlash when you don't even know how they work.

It sure doesn't seem like Greenpeace had any communication with Nintendo on this. Given that their methods haven't been exactly transparent, and that Nintendo's products are 'greener' in many ways than other consoles, It's very difficult to lend any credence to either their conclusions or their methods.

And thus Kris's point - these are gaming consoles, not public policy decisions. If Greenpeace cannot be even-handed and transparent in small matters, why should they be trusted in larger ones?

Greener electronics can be without the sensationalism and lack of rigor that Greenpeace has most recently displayed in this matter. This point is proven by their past actions, which have advanced their cause without resorting to such tactics.


RE: Electronic dumps
By derdon on 12/14/2007 3:09:03 AM , Rating: 3
If Nintendo didn't communicate (I don't know if they did) then it's legitimate to judge them based on whatever information they publish. It's Nintendo's duty to keep the information updated.

I think the real deal is that Greenpeace is raising awareness in an area that has received little and I think the E-cycling campaign is one of the most successful campaigns. They reached Apple, Dell, HP, Sony,... a lot of big companies and they all start their little internal machines to improve in that direction.


RE: Electronic dumps
By clovell on 12/14/2007 11:09:57 AM , Rating: 2
> If Nintendo didn't communicate (I don't know if they did) then it's legitimate to judge them based on whatever information they publish.

That's not exactly the case, see, Nintendo wasn't even afforded the opportunity to communicate. This was simply a Greenpeace driveby on Nintendo.

Sure, they're raising awareness, but they're doing by showing their ass. For that reason, the criticism they get is deserved. Welcome to the big leagues, GP - you may have all the right reasons in mind, but when you goof up, don't expect everyone to get a pass.


RE: Electronic dumps
By neothe0ne on 12/13/2007 3:48:04 PM , Rating: 1
I would agree with you that Anti-Greenpeace sentiment on this forum is "hurting", except that "attention-seeking lazy environmentalists" is the exact definition of the Greenpeace fools who compiled the November report of "green" companies. An outdated FAQ is NOT a reputable source of research, thanks.


RE: Electronic dumps
By derdon on 12/14/2007 3:11:23 AM , Rating: 2
A FAQ published on their website is information published by the company. If they don't maintain it, it's their fault and if they don't react to calls, then it's legitimate to take all published information from the company.
It's Nintendo's faulty communication policy that is to blame if they think they'd do better, why don't they show it?


RE: Electronic dumps
By Anonymous Freak on 12/12/2007 6:20:39 PM , Rating: 3
Hell, I'm an ultra-left-wing Liberal, who wants Al Gore to run for president, and I still think Greenpeace is just an attention-seeking sensationalist organization.

At least this study actually takes real activities into account, not just a company's web site-listed environmental policy.


RE: Electronic dumps
By derdon on 12/12/2007 7:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
Take a look at your mailbox and you'll find lots of companies seeking your attention in much more obstrusive ways... and when there's election year, you'll see a smiling wannabe-president from every corner. Getting attention is the way of achieving things or staying in business or winning an election. Getting public attention, getting support of people to achieve something is what democracy is all about, I doubt you can blame them for doing that.


RE: Electronic dumps
By Ringold on 12/13/2007 5:22:46 AM , Rating: 4
Have you ever heard of, say, Angel Flights?

http://www.angelflight.com/default.asp

Probably havent; I've never seen a commercial, nor a press release. Just a group of volunteers that do their work without seeking recognition or attention. A related group would be AOPA local airport volunteers, who without pay keep an eye on their local airfield and lobby on its behalf, thereby performing many of the functions a Greenpeace activist would do -- again, nearly silently and without pay. The only recognition they *might* get is a shout-out in AOPA magazine. The people that feed the homeless here in downtown Orlando? Asides from the college radicals getting themselves arrested, the other charitable groups would likely pass completely undetected.

I question the utility of Greenpeace whining and screaming about a lot of the garbage that they do. If they bothered to try to appear politically moderate and business friendly, I would think they'd have a wider audience. Greenpeace would do well to observe how Washington think-tanks operate and leave behind some of their radical elements.

That assumes, of course, that they ever want to be listened to anybody other than the 10-20% of America that happens to be.. not just liberal, but.. uber-liberals, or reactionary types. Until they chill out, I think you can fully expect a lot of people to react negatively to anything they do off hand. Even after they clean themselves up it would take time to rebuild respect, that's just human nature.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/nuclear

In cases like that, they've got a long way to go before they're living in the same world as many of the rest of us.


RE: Electronic dumps
By derdon on 12/14/2007 3:03:49 AM , Rating: 2
I can't see how an organization that doesn't receive attention is automatically better than one who does. Please explain to me why you think Greenpeace shouldn't receive attention.


RE: Electronic dumps
By NesteaZen on 12/31/2007 5:19:14 AM , Rating: 2
Dude, kudos to you.
It's really great, you try to withstand people's ignorancy. Though it is not that big at dailytech.com.
What most people don't realise is that we don't kill the planet, we just kill ourselves. The planet will regenerate -- don't worry about that. But once we make us disappear, it'll be hard to bring us back.
If we will go down, it is because we deserve it.
Greenpeace, does it matter if them or any other organization? I don't think so. Getting attention or not and therefor being judged a bad or good organization should be laughed at. Just because they are popular does not mean they're bad and even though they approach things directly. Better approach it with a roar than not at all.
Ringold , the only thing with Angel Flight is, they care about the people not the planet. There is nothing wrong with that, it is just different, it's help. Maintain the planet's biosphere to some degree is crucial for our survival.
What's the big deal anyway? It doesn't hurt any of you physically what Greenpeace is doing. They "attacked" Nintendo, Nintendo reacted and are trying to improve, I hope. Microsoft and Sony gave no response.
Again, kudos and thank you derdon.
It's the 31st so, Happy New Year.


RE: Electronic dumps
By FITCamaro on 12/12/2007 9:32:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm an ultra-left-wing Liberal, who wants Al Gore to run for president


Don't worry. Help is available.


RE: Electronic dumps
By mdogs444 on 12/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Electronic dumps
By SoCalBoomer on 12/12/2007 8:08:16 PM , Rating: 5
Anyone remember when Greenpeace was out to save the whales and do other really worthwhile things? They came up with a strategy, they executed that strategy, and did it well (well, mostly well. . .)

They seem to have dropped off the newspage and panicked and now, apparently, are doing anything they can to get back ON it again.

Unfortunately, they're mimicking Jack Thompson in order to do it. Not that they're lying and not that their cause is unjust (I happen to agree that we NEED to be doing e-cycling) but rather that it's sensationalistic and alienating rather than constructive.

Nice job guys. . .


RE: Electronic dumps
By derdon on 12/13/2007 3:23:00 AM , Rating: 1
So you say it's worthy to campaign in e-cycling, but Greenpeace of course is doing it all wrong. They publish rankings which give the companies a ground to compete on and use in marketing, they raise consumer awareness to these topics so that these issues flow into buying decisions, but I guess that's all worthless.

Greenpeace is in the news more than any other non-profit environmental NGO, I highly doubt they have an urgent need for sensationalism. Rather I see often the opinion: "What they do about whales is good (they're far away), but keep out of my backyard."
People get so touchy once they realize that there's lots of stuff that's running bad in your house. It's like the world has become already such a fucked up place that people have to talk them into believing it's not... when it's actually not. There are areas that need to be improved and Greenpeace is one organization that points these areas out. There's really nothing wrong with that.


RE: Electronic dumps
By marvdmartian on 12/13/2007 9:23:20 AM , Rating: 2
At the same time, isn't Greenpeace the folks that use a CO2 emitting, diesel burning boat to go out and protest against whaling???
If you're going to be as far left as Greenpeace publicly is, then you're either for the environment or against it. Honestly, until their double standards stop, they'll never be taken seriously by anyone but the radical left fringe groupies like themselves. If they want to impress people, they should be using solar or wind powered (sail) boats.

Otherwise, they just look silly.


RE: Electronic dumps
By derdon on 12/14/2007 3:00:20 AM , Rating: 2
As I already stated the "you're either for or against" isn't helpful in making progress. We have to accept that the world we live in, is as it is and we cannot make serious work without computers, paperprints, cars,... HOWEVER we can still work on making these technologies more efficient and greener, better, while using them and campaigning and lobbying for this to happen as well as prevent dangerous technologies from emerging or being applied without proper testing (GMO).

About Greenpeace' fleet, the ships have been refitted to be more environmental friendly than most other ships, the painting is environmental friendly, the engine is more environmental friendly, just google it...
If you think you can battle a modern japanese whaling vessel with sailing boats, you'll be super friendly in your impact on the environment, but at the same time you'll not save a single whale. They're operating in polar waters, freezing temperature, icebergs and such.

A lot of people don't seem to understand that the way to go is a middle way in the right direction and not the "either for or against" thing.


RE: Electronic dumps
By ChoadNamath on 12/12/2007 10:17:50 PM , Rating: 1
I agree that recycling electronics is important, and Greenpeace's message of trying to get rid of toxic chemicals is a good one. I can't agree with their tactics, though. They're one of the world's biggest attention whores. They constantly attack popular products because they know it will get them more headlines. I think they do as much to hurt their cause as help it due to their tactics and fanaticism.


RE: Electronic dumps
By derdon on 12/13/2007 3:29:47 AM , Rating: 2
They attack popular products, because nobody is interested if you campaign against something nobody knows. Big brands and big products have the biggest influence, it's common sense that you'll target these first and hope for a "trip-down" effect on smaller companies that follow suit once the big ones turn.

I mean, what do you do to move a bee swarm? If you try to catch all single bees and move them, good luck, you haven't achieved anything. But when you've moved the queen you've moved them all.


RE: Electronic dumps
By Chernobyl68 on 12/13/2007 12:10:33 PM , Rating: 2
attcking gaming consoles in particular is just silly. Cell phones turn over for more often. They'd have been smarter to bring attention E-waste recycling programs in general. nag the government about those.


RE: Electronic dumps
By derdon on 12/14/2007 3:34:13 AM , Rating: 2
The other quaterly report deals with electronic companies in general. To my knowledge Nokia is currently leading the list of environmental friendly products.


RE: Electronic dumps
By Moishe on 12/13/2007 8:20:22 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Those who are political conservative will most certainly lambast their intent.


This is absolutely not true. I am a "conservative". I think greenpeace has good intentions in general. I also know that intentions alone do not solve anything. Greenpeace is a joke because they made themselves a joke, not because conservatives are anti-recycling or anti-environment.

Most people I know, myself included, (with varying political/religious views) believe that it's wise to take care of the environment.

Conservatives generally get bashed because they don't just jump on the environmental bandwagon. I prefer cautious action based on sound science and planning. I reject penalizing people that aren't "all in" based on some extremist's opinion. It's more harmful than good.


RE: Electronic dumps
By Masterrer on 12/13/2007 8:32:16 AM , Rating: 2
Well I used to think that Greenpeace was a great institution, and that it really brought up valid points, and fought for good cause, etc... then I turned 18 :]

But seriously, the thing that makes me real mad, is that they are actively protesting against nuclear reactors (An incident in France comes to mind: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1469807.stm )

It escapes me how can they be fighting against, what I consider to be, the cleanest/cheapest source of energy today!?! (Don't give me bullshit about solar and wind being able to supply the demand for energy)

And yet I have never seen or heard a protest concerning coal plants which still are the main source of energy today, and which are probably the main contributors to air pollution to date.
And what about Uranium found in coal? Where do you think it goes? That's right, into the atmosphere, along with greenhouse gases and oxides responsible for acid rain...

I don't think anyone can argue that Greenpeace played a large role in stereotyping nuclear as very bad, dangerous and totally not "green".

I can go and on, but the point is: I'd rather live next to a nuclear plant, drive my electric car, and absorb the radiation (probably equaling one x-ray scan a year), rather that suffer from lung infections and poisoning caused by heavy metals accumulating in my liver...

Well, I don't know if oil companies really fund organizations that fight against nuclear, but I imagine that they are certainly interested in continuing to burning coal and oil as it is cheaper and more profitable for them... at least for now


RE: Electronic dumps
By TomZ on 12/13/2007 1:22:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please recycle your electronics through reputable vendors. It's costly, but worth it.

The net result of a lot of electronics "recycling" is essentially the shipment of toxic materials overseas to developing nations, where they are effectively concentrated to just a few locations, causing a large environmental problem.

I personally think it is more responsible, and the outcome more controlled and known, to send old electronics to the landfill. Landfills are very well managed these days and are more than adequately designed to safely and cost effectively store old electronic assemblies.


RE: Electronic dumps
By halbhh on 12/14/2007 12:31:12 PM , Rating: 2
While I've been buying ROHS for a while, now I wonder if ROHS is sufficiently stringent.

After all, when these products are "recycled", just what exactly happens?

Does that mean only that the landfill is in Africa or South America?


RE: Electronic dumps
By JoshuaBuss on 12/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Electronic dumps
By chrisld on 12/13/2007 12:10:45 AM , Rating: 3
As a PhD chemist qith many years of experience I can confidently inform you Green Peace have no idea what they are talking about. They don't understand enough about chemistry of the environment to inform us what's good and what isn't. Just ignore them.

As examples, no-one has ever shown PVC to be harmful. There are already strict regulations all this stuff has to comply to, they can't sell it at all until it does. There are already recycling programs in place and ever worse it can actually hurt the environment to recycle in some cases.

They need to go get some facts and some chemists then we can consider listening to them.


RE: Electronic dumps
By codeThug on 12/13/2007 6:21:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just ignore them.


That might be a bit difficult as they blast through your living room with a Zodiac boat.


RE: Electronic dumps
By robinthakur on 12/13/2007 10:21:41 AM , Rating: 2
So funny LMAO. Hopefully the latest fleets of Japanese whalers are armed with Torpedos!


RE: Electronic dumps
By Lazarus Dark on 12/13/2007 10:49:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did you guys ever wondered where all our cellphones, computers, printers, consoles, televisions, whatever electronic product goes?

No. They are all in my closet.
All of them.
I'm not a hoarder or anything, I just never throw away anything electronic. I like to make art out of them. If you spray paint a circuit board, it looks like a little city. :)


Hypocrites
By Flunk on 12/12/2007 8:03:28 PM , Rating: 2
I would like all Greenpeace members to eliminate their use of electronics entirely before they start lecturing others about their "dangers". I have yet to see one constructive thing that can be attributed to Greenpeace. Please, quit talking and start doing, I don't mean terrorism. I mean community work. Clean up parks, promote cost-effective environmentally friendly methods to businesses (and not with scare tactics), reduce your own personal impact to the planet, things like that.

If you would like us to give up all of our consoles, how about a token act on Greenpeace's behalf? Get rid of all your cell phones and never replace them. If you are not willing to give up things, how can you lecture others?




RE: Hypocrites
By jdun on 12/12/2007 9:25:28 PM , Rating: 1
Greenpeace is an attention whore. Lots of BS and lies.


RE: Hypocrites
By derdon on 12/13/2007 3:13:36 AM , Rating: 2
There are so many people who seem to know better how to do things and yet most often those who scream loudest are those who do lest about it.

There's no denying that we're all dependent on electricity and electronics, however that's unrelated to deciding between a huge negative environmental impact or going in a direction which is termed "greener".
If you're into "All or Nothing" you'll realize that you can't achieve anything in this world and if you think about it, you'll see that you can use products and still help to improve them by doing a campaign.
Because using something doesn't equal to having to accept all the consequences. I bet even you once complained about something and I hope nobody then told you to just STFU and EAT IT or throw it away.

Improving and helping to do things better, I'd say, is the duty of everyone in this world.


RE: Hypocrites
By Ringold on 12/13/2007 5:31:46 AM , Rating: 2
I already posted this link, but:

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/nuclear

"NO NEW NUKES"

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/fearing-us-reac...

"END WHALING"

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/genetic-en...

"Join us in saying no to genetic engineering."

Sounds like they're an all or nothing group to me! ;)


RE: Hypocrites
By derdon on 12/14/2007 3:25:16 AM , Rating: 2
They make compromises when the situation doesn't allow for more.
GMO might be a technology for the future, but there's a lot of bad things happening with it. It's not properly tested and given to the people in a way that people can't even tell if what they buy contains GMO or not. Customers don't have the freedom to decide, they're forced to eat what's handed to them and obviously some don't like that. A big part of the GMO campaign has been to make companies label the products that are produced with GMO sources. I think the customers deserve to know what's inside of what they buy.

Whaling is obvious that it needs to be stopped until the populations have strengthened again. Sustainable developement is a big part of what Greenpeace is trying to achieve, something that a lot of greedy companies have no idea of. Take the collapse of the cod fish industry in 1992. They would fish as long as no fish is there anymore and then abandon the whole thing leaving a deserted place. That's the result of uncontrolled and unregulated human action! This particular example has led me to the conclusion that if we don't care in the end we'll destroy ourselves. You'd believe fisheries would not fish beyond what's sustainable so that they're able to stay alive, right?
This doesn't mean we must stop fishery altogether, but that we must make it sustainable.

Is that all or nothing to you or is it just reasonable?


Anyone for some Halo 3...
By Micronite on 12/12/2007 5:27:52 PM , Rating: 4
Can I care about the planet and not care for Greenpeace?




RE: Anyone for some Halo 3...
By TSS on 12/12/2007 6:47:29 PM , Rating: 2
depends on what you belive. if you belive greenpeace is currently putting focus on very neccesary issues that need to be adressed with approriate means, then no.

if you belive that greenpeace had the right idea but has become a politically focussed group that have little care for anything *but* the enviroment and even there it's become lackluster, then yes.

what is the truth? thats very simple: the truth is debatable. all that matters is what *you* belive :P


RE: Anyone for some Halo 3...
By Moishe on 12/13/2007 8:23:09 AM , Rating: 2
so... "focus" is everything? Hardly.
Many nobles causes are shot in the foot by their own people who come out too extreme and uninformed. They make it a joke and then nobody pays any attention because the whole cause is pigeon-holed.

Let's face it, Greenpeace is working to gain it's own power and wealth using the environment as it's tool.


heh, heh, heh
By elpresidente2075 on 12/12/2007 5:52:58 PM , Rating: 2
I hope they get sued into oblivion for copyright infringement for using the likenesses of the characters in that picture. It's only fair that everyone get treated equally for copyright laws. It should not matter that they are greenpeace. They have broken the law and should pay many times what their means are for their indiscretions.

I recycle my recyclables. That's just the smart thing to do. But when I see greenpeace doing what they do best, it makes me want to put my soda cans right in the trash.




RE: heh, heh, heh
By tanishalfelven on 12/12/2007 5:58:06 PM , Rating: 1
thats what i was thinking. not just likeness they practically copied the characters the MS, sony and nintendo own. you can't do that without permissiion, and i doubt if they were given permission.


RE: heh, heh, heh
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/12/2007 6:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
You most certainly can. Parody is protected by the First Amendment here in the U.S. For now.


RE: heh, heh, heh
By Ringold on 12/13/2007 5:28:22 AM , Rating: 2
I suggest using parody quickly.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/14801929/detail.html?rs...

Lost the right to burn a flag. Now all they need to do is link parody to global warming by way of excess CO2 produces by laughing, and it's all over.


Recycle your electronics!
By munim on 12/12/2007 6:17:41 PM , Rating: 3
I pay no mind to Greenpeace, but I'm just going to chime in to say that electronic waste is terrible for the environment. People know how to recycle paper, metal, glass but most don't know what to do when it comes to their old cell phone, video card, or what have you. Awareness needs to raised about this matter because the effect of throwing out electronic waste is many times worse than throwing out some paper.




RE: Recycle your electronics!
By Tacoloft on 12/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Recycle your electronics!
By derdon on 12/12/2007 7:06:07 PM , Rating: 2
If it makes you feel bad that the world isn't as perfect and fair for everyone, then you're on the right track. But don't blame those who tell you that.


RE: Recycle your electronics!
By TomZ on 12/13/2007 1:29:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I pay no mind to Greenpeace, but I'm just going to chime in to say that electronic waste is terrible for the environment.

Being as informed as you appear to be, I'm sure that you're well aware that many electronics "recycling" programs are effectively just exporting the waste to developing nations, where they are disposed of in very uncontrolled, unmonitored, and environmentally damaging ways.

There's not much of value anyway in electronics that can be re-used. Unlike things like newspaper, aluminum cans, glass bottles, etc., electronic assemblies contain literally thousands of different compounds, and re-separating them is extremely inefficient. It's an entirely different situation compared to the typical stuff we use curbside and industrial recycling for.

Wouldn't it be more responsible to simply send them to the local landfill, which is well-designed to handle this type of waste?


Copyright violation
By dagamer34 on 12/12/2007 5:51:06 PM , Rating: 2
Couldn't GreenPeace be sued for using each company's property without their permission to further their own agenda?




RE: Copyright violation
By TomZ on 12/13/2007 1:31:23 PM , Rating: 2
I would assume that Greenpeace would appreciate the extra press attention a lawsuit against them would provide.


First Apple, now Nintendo.
By xstylus on 12/12/2007 7:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
Greenpeace picks on whoever's popular just so it can get free publicity. They'd complain even if (insert popular product here) was made out of sawdust and dirt.




RE: First Apple, now Nintendo.
By Tacoloft on 12/12/2007 7:16:48 PM , Rating: 2
Of course it would be bad---
because sawdust comes from trees and the dirt is from mother earth- heaven forbid you use up all the dirt! Sound the alarm! As sealevels rise dirt is the new endangered species! I can play the game too...


I'm sure Microsoft is rolling their eyes at this
By ZJammon on 12/12/2007 11:35:25 PM , Rating: 2
Switching to lead-free solder was a big part of the problem with their RROD failures and was done in the name of environmental protection. Especially when a study was released stating that lead free solders had more of a negative impact on the environment than lead solders.

http://www.edn.com/index.asp?layout=article&articl...

I agree that more effort is needed to recycle electronics. However, finger pointing like this is quite irresponsible of a large organization.




By TomZ on 12/13/2007 1:39:10 PM , Rating: 2
Good point. Removing the lead from solder is a classic case in environmental do-gooding gone bad.

First of all, there was never any evidence that the use of lead in PCB assemblies was a public health or environmental threat. Even its use during manufacturing is very easily mitigated - wash hands and/or wear gloves, use fume extractors, etc.

Then the decision to change was made without considering the impact of the change. For example, what is the effect on quality and longevity of PCB assemblies that are built lead-free. Evidence is now gathering that shows that PCB assemblies are not lasting as long, which causes negative environmental impact in terms of more consumption and more waste. While it is not clear whether this is part of the "learning curve" or not, what is clear is that the negative consequences were not factored into the decision.

I am personally not convinced of the value of recycling electronics, in any case. It's nowhere near economically viable in large scale because of the all the different compounds - there's not much that can be readily extracted and re-used. I think it's better to put it into the landfill - that's what landfills are designed for.


Does anyone find it odd
By Fenixgoon on 12/13/2007 12:17:22 AM , Rating: 2
that greenpeace complains about PVC in consoles ? i mean, it's the 2nd most produced polymer (behind polyethylene), so it's not *just* in consoles.




RE: Does anyone find it odd
By TomZ on 12/13/2007 1:42:02 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the lead that is often used to stabilize the PVC in many applications, e.g., Christmas lights. :o)


Game Consoles Toxic?
By teckytech9 on 12/13/2007 2:17:56 AM , Rating: 4
IMO this notice was written by Greenpeace to sound an alarm on the dangers of PVCs, its flexible "leaky" additive, Diethylhexyl Phthalate (DEHP), and the Dioxins it produces.

Indeed, it doesn't take a scientist to agree that environmental and consumer safety groups are looking out for the safety of the public at large. In this particular case, its the people who play these "hot" video game consoles.

The goal is to have manufactures eliminate the use of these PVC's in products, which when "operated in a household," or recycled in a "heated wok in China," can lead to toxic exposures for everyone.




Greenpeace's FLAWED research...
By Fallen Kell on 12/13/2007 3:28:52 PM , Rating: 2
Greenpeace's research consisted of looking at Nintendo's, Microsoft's, and Sony's websites for info. NO MORE!!! They didn't even CALL them, or their manufacturing plants. Nintendo was hit hard because their page basically consisted of "We do many things to help ensure the environmental safety of our products.", but no specifics. I would THINK that after reading that, you would call someone up and ASK, "So what do you do to ensure the environmental safety?"....

But that would require actually RESEARCHING them. Greenpeace didn't want to do that, they just wanted the headlines.




RE: Greenpeace's FLAWED research...
By Imaginer on 12/13/2007 5:26:15 PM , Rating: 2
And more importantly, they have yet to offer a solution to this or even the foresight of seeing that such an announcement from their loud mouths will cause a knee-jerk reaction to have any company that they claim in non-compliance will implement a green environmental issue that causes more harm long term than what is done now.

Really, with all of this finger pointing from groups, it makes me wonder even more if a policy should be forthcoming as with employees to a boss with a problem. If an employee points out a problem and complains then that employee should have a rough idea of a solution and both parties work it from there...

But no, we are all pointing fingers instead of actively working with one another.


Source
By Runiteshark on 12/12/2007 5:36:19 PM , Rating: 2
I must have the source of the Mario picture in the top of the article.




Greenpeace
By OdinX on 12/12/2007 5:38:25 PM , Rating: 2
I feel they truly have nothing better to do. However if I find a nail in my Xbox360 drive and when it spins up it flies out and kills my dog. I shall be quite put out.




Just a thought
By tjr508 on 12/12/2007 7:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe without all of this free publicity, they wouldn't make these stupid attacks?




By Vanilla Thunder on 12/13/2007 12:47:45 PM , Rating: 2
F*ck Greenpeace!!

Vanilla




?
By werepossum on 12/13/2007 7:06:46 PM , Rating: 2
Now I can add Greenpeace next to Don Imus on my "Good Lord, they're still around?" list.




ROHS
By halbhh on 12/14/2007 12:59:20 PM , Rating: 2
For those that find it interesting, here's a question:

Is the current ROHS protective enough for those that for instance use their computers constantly and are going to have kids soon, etc?

Anyone know?




"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki