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

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?


"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

Related Articles













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