Greenpeace singles out video game consoles

[Rob2600]

Greenpeace.org - Video game consoles tested positive for various hazardous chemicals (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/game-consoles-no-consolation)

"The game consoles (Wii, Xbox 360, and PlayStation 3) all contained high levels of bromine - used in circuit boards and plastic casings, brominated flame retardants do not break down easily and build up in the environment. Long-term exposure can lead to impaired learning and memory functions. They can also interfere with thyroid and oestrogen hormone systems and exposure in the womb has been linked to behavioral problems.

Components of the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 also contained high levels of phthalates, one of which – DEHP – is known to interfere with sexual development in mammals: including humans and, especially, males."

Okay, but what about every other electronic device and gadget in existence? Why single out video games, Greenpeace?

[koster]

In the words of Greenpeace co-founder and former member Patrick Moore (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120882720657033391.html), "Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas."

[diskoboy]

Greenpeace is also the reason I'm paying $4 a gallon, for gas.

Fuck Greenpeace.

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

Greenpeace is also the reason I'm paying $4 a gallon, for gas.

Fuck Greenpeace.
Umm...the reason you're paying $4 a gallon for gas is because the planet is just recently on the backside of peak oil and yet the demand for oil is still increasing globally. In fact, the only reason you're not paying a hell of a lot more than $4 a gallon for gas is because the U.S. government has a misguided philosophy of continuing to encourage foolishly high oil consumption by artificially keeping prices lower than they should be given all the real costs of oil extraction and refinement.

As for this Greenpeace report, I guess the take home message is, "Don't ingest your video game systems."


...word is bondage...

[Famidrive-16]

Well, considering how many gamers are virgins, not a surprise!






.....I'll be here all night, folks.

[Greg2600]

A. I read that on Yahoo first, and said that is one of the most idiotic things Greenpeace has ever done or said. I realize they are fairly over-reactive, but this is laughable. Please, the impact of Video game consoles is infinitesimal compared to other household products. And prescription drugs in our water supply is easily more harmful. As for the chemicals use to retard flames? As we saw in 9/11 at the WTC, these can be very dangerous, but the law requires consumer products like electronics to use them. Don't blame the games.

What GP should have said is what Ed Begley, Jr., says (I know, we talked with him). Which is to turn off the video games and the TV, and go outside and do something. That says money, energy, and pollution.

B. Greenpeace has absolutely nothing to do with the oil prices. The "reason" given is demand, and of course the conveniently ever-tumultuous Middle East. The real reason is that we've allowed commodity exchanges to run rampant. You want to blame someone, I'll say it again, blame Wall Street.

[Rob2600]

I care about our environment, but it bothers me that Greenpeace singled out and vilified video games. Why doesn't Greenpeace write a similar report about TVs, dishwashers, clothes dryers, air conditioners, mobile phones, computers, cable boxes, and other electronic devices?

I know...video games are "the hot new thing" and are an easy target. I'd take Greenpeace seriously if it stopped going out of its way to make headlines.

[jb143]

So...In other words, collectors are helping to save the planet by keeping video game consoles out of landfills.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

I mean I'm no tree hugger for sure... but Greenpeace may have a bit of a point. After reading the article on their website, they say that all the companies have made strides in reducing the amount of hazardous materials used in the consoles... but still have a ways to go. No language in their statement seems extremist or unreasonable.

If there are methods of manufacturing consoles that is more environmentally friendly, why not do it? Like the website pointed out... video game consoles are a major contributer to e-waste. How about Microsoft with their RROD issue? That's a lot of consoles that are going to be worthless. Look at all the lead and hazardous materials that tube TV's are filling our landfills with. People are paid miniscule wages in poverty stricken countries to strip e-waste of certain precious materials and at the same time are exposing themselves to chemicals and substances that cause cancer.

And I'm also not sure that Greenpeace is "singling" out game consoles any more than they've singled out other things in the past. Why is it a bad thing when organizations keep corporations in check? I'm also not a Greenpeace apologist, and I don't think they're a perfect organization. I just don't see a problem with what they're doing. If you look on their website there's links to articles concerning other companies that have fallen under their scrutiny.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/new-green-scorecard-includes-t

And here's the apple campaign from a year or so ago.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/green-apple-not-quite-ripe

And if you look around the internet a little more you'll find that Greenpeace has clashed with many a product and corporation before the video game industry.

[Rob2600]

I mean I'm no tree hugger for sure... but Greenpeace may have a bit of a point. ... If there are methods of manufacturing consoles that is more environmentally friendly, why not do it?

I agree 100%.


And here's the apple campaign from a year or so ago.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/green-apple-not-quite-ripe

This is exactly my problem with Greenpeace. It targeted Apple last year, as if Apple is more wasteful and environmentally unfriendly than any other computer company. Now, Greenpeace is targeting video games, even though other electronic devices contain the same components.

Instead of writing "video games contain components that are harmful to our environment," Greenpeace should write "all electronic devices contain components that are harmful to our environment."

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

Instead of writing "video games contain components that are harmful to our environment," Greenpeace should write "all electronic devices contain components that are harmful to our environment."
I don't believe that would be as effective. Human beings are much more responsive to small issues and specific problems. If GreenPeace had said "all electronic devices cointain components harmful to the environment" would anyone on this board have taken notice? Would we be discussing it? The more general (and hence, more accurate) you make your criticisms, the more people's eyes glaze over. The more specific and targetted, the more chance you have to catch an individual's attention. That's just a fact of human nature, which has unfortunately been compounded by a failing education system and thriving consumer machine. So GreenPeace is taking a more long term tactic to slowly bring the full and more general point to the public's attention piece-by-piece.


...word is bondage...

[PentiumMMX]

Jack Thompson will probably change the quote to read "Grand Theft Auto IV contains components that are harmful to our environment"

[Rob2600]

Human beings are much more responsive to small issues and specific problems. If GreenPeace had said "all electronic devices cointain components harmful to the environment" would anyone on this board have taken notice? Would we be discussing it? The more general (and hence, more accurate) you make your criticisms, the more people's eyes glaze over. The more specific and targetted, the more chance you have to catch an individual's attention. That's just a fact of human nature, which has unfortunately been compounded by a failing education system and thriving consumer machine. So GreenPeace is taking a more long term tactic to slowly bring the full and more general point to the public's attention piece-by-piece.

Good point.

[diskoboy]

Umm...the reason you're paying $4 a gallon for gas is because the planet is just recently on the backside of peak oil and yet the demand for oil is still increasing globally. In fact, the only reason you're not paying a hell of a lot more than $4 a gallon for gas is because the U.S. government has a misguided philosophy of continuing to encourage foolishly high oil consumption by artificially keeping prices lower than they should be given all the real costs of oil extraction and refinement.

As for this Greenpeace report, I guess the take home message is, "Don't ingest your video game systems."


...word is bondage...In a way, you're correct. The actual people to blame is Congress and OPEC.

But it's these neo-hippies like Greenpeace who convinced all the lefties not to let oil companies dig for oil in our own country.

I basically don't trust any political movement, or website with ".org" at the end.

[udisi]

Greenpeace is also the reason I'm paying $4 a gallon, for gas.

Fuck Greenpeace.

Get ready for $10 a gallon cause it's coming

International guys here should chime in. We've had it dirt ball cheap for way too long. Norway was like $11 a gallon a year ago, The UK was like $5 a gallon almost 10 years ago.

[Pantechnicon]

Greenpeace seems to be going for the subtle, yet underhanded, approach with the whole "video games make you impotent" angle. Once the snickering dies down, people look at Greenpeace's assertions here alongside the sexless gamer stereotype and start to believe it all on some bottom-feeding level.

Tell you what: The day I see video of the crew of Rainbow Warrior II throwing their laptops, Nintendo DS's, cel phones (to call Daddy from port, or whenever cash starts to run low) and iPods (full of Phish MP3's, I reckon) overboard is the day I might - might - consider listening. Let he who is without sin cast the first tofu ball.

[otaku]

Wow. Well thats why when disposing of stuff you don't put it in a landfill you take it to a proper hazardous waste place like I did my old big screen tv. I wonder if older consoles are more of a hazard than new ones? HOpefully they will correct this in future systems or future iterations of the current models

[jb143]

I wonder how greenpeace feels about CFL bulbs. On one hand they're better for the environment becasue they use a lot less power but on the other hand they have mercury in the easy to break glass tubes.

But back on topic. Many industries are converting their electronics to safer alternatives. Part of my job at work it locating parts that comply with the ROHS (Reduction of Hazardous Substances) directive to replace the ones we have been using. I'm not sure why the video game industry wouldn't be doing the same.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

Instead of writing "video games contain components that are harmful to our environment," Greenpeace should write "all electronic devices contain components that are harmful to our environment."

They kinda did in this article when they wrote:

As we’ve seen previously – with laptops and with mobile phones – if manufacturers only looked at each other’s products, they’d quickly see ways of replacing their own dirty components with toxic-free materials. A greener, cleaner game console is possible. There’s no excuse for playing dirty.

And again, they addressed video game consoles because the gaming industry is booming... more consoles are being made and shipped today than ever before. By their own words they've already gone after cell phones and laptops... video games was just a natural next step. Again, it seems like I'm an odd one out here, but I don't think this is unfair in the least. Greenpeace has taken on many an issue before they got to video games. I don't see how the wording of this press release could have been any nicer considering the issue.

I will agree with you on the Apple thing... and if you'll remember Steve Jobs responded directly to that with a message on Apple's home page. I think Apple has been doing quite a bit better than other manufacturers... and after the response Greenpeace backed off quite a bit. But I also don't think Greenpeace was out of line for questioning Apple. I mean with the sheer volume of ipods that are sold every month- and the way that every 6 months ipods are being updated, it was in my opinion a valid concern.


I disagree that blanket statements like "all electronic devices contain components that are harmful to our environment" have major impact. It's important to address specific issues, to institute any sort of change.

Electronics contain pollutants. Pollutants are bad umm-kay. All you companies who make them, clean up your act. Umm-kay?

Now what? Which ones? What parts are bad? Are there safer alternatives?



I wonder how greenpeace feels about CFL bulbs. On one hand they're better for the environment becasue they use a lot less power but on the other hand they have mercury in the easy to break glass tubes.


I've wondered the same thing. We've converted all our bulbs to CFL's, but I'm wondering which is worse... the mercury or the energy wasted on incandescent bulbs. Same goes with tube TV's vs. LCD panels. LCD panels use flourescent lighting too, and I believe they contain mercury. LED backlit devices are the way to go, but they're just being introduced to the market. I assume in the future all light bulbs will be LED's when the technology becomes cheaper and more efficient. Oh well, I guess Fluorescent lights are a stepping stone.

[NytroSkull7]

At the end it said that "at the end of a fullfilling gaming life they end up in the dump rotting away our environment."

LIES! They truly end up sitting on our shelves to be played for ever after the modern gamers are done with them.

[InsaneDavid]

No big deal, hell nearly every electronic anything in California has a tag on it that warns you it causes cancer. :roll: Yeah, I think I'll go eat a power cable.

[Dr. Dib]

Guys guys guys (and girl[s]?). The only person we should ever listen to about our environment is this guy:
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y254/DrDib/CP.jpg

[Rob2600]

I wonder how greenpeace feels about CFL bulbs. On one hand they're better for the environment becasue they use a lot less power but on the other hand they have mercury in the easy to break glass tubes.

Greg and I saw Ed Begley, Jr. speak at the Global Green Expo in NJ last month. He said that the amount of energy CFL bulbs save means that coal power plants will be used less, which means the coal plants will put less mercury into the air...so much less that it'll more than compensate for the small amount contained in the bulbs.

I didn't explain that well, but you know what I mean.