Greenpeace calls out Nintendo, Microsoft in 'Greener Electronics' report [Joystiq]

[DP ServBot]

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2010/01/gam_greenpeacescale_580.jpg
We were really hoping that Nintendo and Microsoft could rally after their near-bottom finishes in former annual iterations of Greenpeace's (http://www.joystiq.com/tag/greenpeace) green business practice rankings -- after all, we bet they're pretty sick of getting beat by Nokia. (Ewwww!) Unfortunately, this latest "Guide to Greener Electronics" report (http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/usa/press-center/reports4/greener-electronics-14.pdf) (.pdf link) looks a lot like all the previous ones: Nintendo finished dead last, and Microsoft finished not far behind. Sony, on the other hand, finished a bit closer to the middle of the road.

Nintendo gets bashed for its increased greenhouse emissions and for failing to control its e-waste recycling. Microsoft, which fell from 15th place to 17th since last year, lost points for not following the statutes set by the "Restriction of Hazardous Substances in electronics directive." Sony did relatively well in most categories, but also lost a few points for its e-waste management. You know what this means, right? Greenpeace is obviously just a shadow organization for PS3 fanboys. We knew it all along!
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/http://www.joystiq.com/media/feedlogo.gif (http://www.joystiq.com)Greenpeace calls out Nintendo, Microsoft in 'Greener Electronics' report (http://www.joystiq.com/2010/01/10/greenpeace-calls-out-nintendo-microsoft-in-greener-electronics/) originally appeared on Joystiq (http://www.joystiq.com) on Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds (http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/).



Read | Permalink (http://www.joystiq.com/2010/01/10/greenpeace-calls-out-nintendo-microsoft-in-greener-electronics/) | Email this (http://www.joystiq.com/forward/19310186/) | Comments (http://www.joystiq.com/2010/01/10/greenpeace-calls-out-nintendo-microsoft-in-greener-electronics/#comments)

More... (http://www.joystiq.com/2010/01/10/greenpeace-calls-out-nintendo-microsoft-in-greener-electronics/)

[skaar]

Screw Greenpeace and their dolphins :P

[portnoyd]

Screw Greenpeace and their dolphins :P

This.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

We're gonna go eat a dolphin Steve!

[JSoup]

I hear there is going to be a Mario Eats Dolphins for the Wii this Fall.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Screw Greenpeace and their dolphins :P

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i141/LittleSeth/JAPPRES.jpg

Funk you dolphin!

[badinsults]

Nintendo always gets poor marks because they never disclose anything to Greenpeace, so they just assume they are terrible. This is dishonesty and poor research on their part.

I mean, with the Wii, Nintendo's engineers actually focused more on reducing power consumption than improving hardware capabilities. The Wii uses far less power than the Gamecube as a result.

[Hawksmoor]

While I think Greenpeace does itself no favors by cultivating a reputation of extremism and fanatacism, their criticisms of Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony are totally valid. Why should corporations be given carte blanche to pollute and generally not give a shit about the environment? Frankly, I'm tired of the attitude many still seem to have which, either overtly or subvertly, says "I can consume whatever I want and as much of it as I want and not give a fuck about the impact that it has". That's just selfish.

It's time we realized that being Americans doesn't entitle us to consume vastly more than any other country on the planet and not give a shit about the fallout. Everything we do or do not do has consequences, and those consequences can't simply be ignored because we're apathetic, arrogant, ignorant, or whatever the case may be. The age of excess and consumerism needs to come to an end, and if calling out corporate polluters is a part of that process, I'm all for it.

[jb143]

Nokia makes devices that end up in landfills within 2 years. Nintendo makes devices that sit on peoples shelves for 20+ years.

Case closed.

[jcalder8]

Greenpeace is still around?
Wow it's been years since I last heard anything from them and I still don't give a rats ass.

[Breetai]

While I think Greenpeace does itself no favors by cultivating a reputation of extremism and fanatacism, their criticisms of Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony are totally valid. Why should corporations be given carte blanche to pollute and generally not give a shit about the environment? Frankly, I'm tired of the attitude many still seem to have which, either overtly or subvertly, says "I can consume whatever I want and as much of it as I want and not give a fuck about the impact that it has". That's just selfish.

It's time we realized that being Americans doesn't entitle us to consume vastly more than any other country on the planet and not give a shit about the fallout. Everything we do or do not do has consequences, and those consequences can't simply be ignored because we're apathetic, arrogant, ignorant, or whatever the case may be. The age of excess and consumerism needs to come to an end, and if calling out corporate polluters is a part of that process, I'm all for it.You Americans go on and on...

[Hawksmoor]

You Americans go on and on...

Do you have anything of substance to add to the thread or just a generalized insult directed at Americans?

[monkeychemist]

The PS3 is green because in the winter it doubles as a portable heater for your home.

[skaar]

Do you have anything of substance to add to the thread or just a generalized insult directed at Americans?

The only substance we need here is MORE DOLPHIN.

[jb143]

If you're going to eat a dolphin, just make sure it's not an intelligent one and instead one that blew all his money on instant lottery tickets.

[badinsults]

While I think Greenpeace does itself no favors by cultivating a reputation of extremism and fanatacism, their criticisms of Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony are totally valid. Why should corporations be given carte blanche to pollute and generally not give a shit about the environment? Frankly, I'm tired of the attitude many still seem to have which, either overtly or subvertly, says "I can consume whatever I want and as much of it as I want and not give a fuck about the impact that it has". That's just selfish.

It's time we realized that being Americans doesn't entitle us to consume vastly more than any other country on the planet and not give a shit about the fallout. Everything we do or do not do has consequences, and those consequences can't simply be ignored because we're apathetic, arrogant, ignorant, or whatever the case may be. The age of excess and consumerism needs to come to an end, and if calling out corporate polluters is a part of that process, I'm all for it.

You are just as guilty as Greenpeace for your failure to do your homework. Greenpeace's methodology to calculate their ranks are flawed, primarily because they give poor marks if they do not get the information they require.

The Wii uses less packaging and far less power than the Xbox 360 and the PS3, yet it is ranked behind them? That makes no sense at all.

I'm not saying I disagree with the fact that the rampant excessive consumerism needs to be toned down, but putting out misleading and false information does not help the cause of environmentalism.

[heybtbm]

I'm tired of the attitude many still seem to have which, either overtly or subvertly, says "I can consume whatever I want and as much of it as I want and not give a fuck about the impact that it has".

Who gets to define "impact"? Corporations? Eco-nuts? Governments? Science? They all have vastly different agendas.


It's time we realized that being Americans doesn't entitle us to consume vastly more than any other country on the planet and not give a shit about the fallout.

Except most of the companies in this discussion are not American.

Besides, automobiles are the biggest source of pollution/ecological damage on this planet, not electronics. Guess what country just took that crown (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aE.x_r_l9NZE) (hint: it's not "evil" America). I wonder what the emission regulations and gas milage requirements they have over there (hint #2: NONE).

[Hawksmoor]

You are just as guilty as Greenpeace for your failure to do your homework. Greenpeace's methodology to calculate their ranks are flawed, primarily because they give poor marks if they do not get the information they require.

What's your source? You may well be right, but I'd like to know where your information is coming from. The article itself stated that Nintendo's poor score in the report was based, in part, on greenhouse gas emissions and lackluster recycling. Is it your contention that Greenpeace simply made all that up because they lacked any real info?


The Wii uses less packaging and far less power than the Xbox 360 and the PS3, yet it is ranked behind them? That makes no sense at all.

It makes perfect sense. All you're considering is the energy use of the console itself and how much packaging it has. How about Nintendo's manufacturing process? How much waste do they produce from that manufacturing process? How much of the waste do they recycle? How many pounds of waste do they stick in landfills? It isn't just about the size of the console, the amount of power it uses, and how big the box it comes in is.


I'm not saying I disagree with the fact that the rampant excessive consumerism needs to be toned down, but putting out misleading and false information does not help the cause of environmentalism.

If you're going to say it's false then you need to back that up, and I haven't seen you cite any sources to support your position. However, I will agree that fear mongering and extremism don't do the cause any favors. It is a very, very worthwhile and important cause though, regardless of those that choose not to acknowledge it.

[LaughingMAN.S9]

Screw Greenpeace and their dolphins :P

fuck dolphins.

[skaar]

It makes perfect sense. All you're considering is the energy use of the console itself and how much packaging it has. How about Nintendo's manufacturing process? How much waste do they produce from that manufacturing process? How much of the waste do they recycle? How many pounds of waste do they stick in landfills? It isn't just about the size of the console, the amount of power it uses, and how big the box it comes in is.

I think Nintendo recycles more than any other company ever. They re-release their old titles every 2 years it feels like.

[Hawksmoor]

Who gets to define "impact"? Corporations? Eco-nuts? Governments? Science? They all have vastly different agendas.

True, but one thing I'm sure they would all agree on is that our choices as consumers, and the amount we consume, has a significant and measurable impact on the environment. For the most part we (meaning ALL of humanity) have existed with little to no regard for the enviornment(s) we inhabit. IMO that's something we can't continue to do.

If your aim is to maintain the consumeristic status quo, naturally you're going to downplay the correlation between our standard of living and resource use and environmental health. Not you specifically, but the multinational corporate conglomerates and those that are beholden to them.

I'm not one of those people that has no carbon footprint, lives without electricity, and wants us all to live like we did hundreds or even thousands of years ago, but by the same token I patently reject the notion that it's okay to make no changes in the way we've grown accustomed to living and expressing apathy or contempt for environmentalism.


Except most of the companies in this discussion are not American.

You're correct, but the majority of their customers are. The prices we are willing to pay for things affects the way companies operate. The lowest possible price is all most of us care about. That's the reason Wal Mart is the juggernaut that it is. People don't care how a product is made, where it's made, who made it, or what the tertiary costs of its production are so long as it's inexpensive. IMO this fuels a lot of the unscrupulous business practices of the majority of corporations.


Besides, automobiles are the biggest source of pollution/ecological damage on this planet, not electronics. Guess what country just took that crown (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aE.x_r_l9NZE) (hint: it's not "evil" America). I wonder what the emission regulations and gas milage requirements they have over there (hint #2: NONE).

Without clicking on the link I'm going to say it's China. It has to be. Unfortunately, there's little those of us that aren't Chinese can do about their rampant pollution. All we can do is take it upon ourselves to live in a more responsible way. To me that means recognizing and admitting that the things we buy and the resources we use DO have consequences; we need to make a concerted effort to use less, recycle more, and make more intelligent choices. And yes, I am doing all of the above.

[Hawksmoor]

I think Nintendo recycles more than any other company ever. They re-release their old titles every 2 years it feels like.

Ok skaar, I get it - you don't give a shit about the environment. Message received loud and clear. Being snarky, cynical, and apathetic about anything remotely serious = cool. Gotcha.

[badinsults]

What's your source? You may well be right, but I'd like to know where your information is coming from. The article itself stated that Nintendo's poor score in the report was based, in part, on greenhouse gas emissions and lackluster recycling. Is it your contention that Greenpeace simply made all that up because they lacked any real info?



It makes perfect sense. All you're considering is the energy use of the console itself and how much packaging it has. How about Nintendo's manufacturing process? How much waste do they produce from that manufacturing process? How much of the waste do they recycle? How many pounds of waste do they stick in landfills? It isn't just about the size of the console, the amount of power it uses, and how big the box it comes in is.



If you're going to say it's false then you need to back that up, and I haven't seen you cite any sources to support your position. However, I will agree that fear mongering and extremism don't do the cause any favors. It is a very, very worthwhile and important cause though, regardless of those that choose not to acknowledge it.

What's my source? Read the fucking report. If they don't have the information on their website, they give them a bad score. This report is a bunch of bullshit. It is pretty obvious you didn't read the report before spouting off.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

I think Nintendo recycles more than any other company ever. They re-release their old titles every 2 years it feels like.

Zing!

Looks like you ruffled a few feathers with that one. Pun intended!

[Garry Silljo]

Ok skaar, I get it - you don't give a shit about the environment. Message received loud and clear. Being snarky, cynical, and apathetic about anything remotely serious = cool. Gotcha.

Wow, take a pill. He made a joke about Nintendo that did actually fit with the discussion. If you have zero sense of humor I'd just back out now. It's going to get worse. We just had a big rabble over the environment recently so most of this is going to be retread anyway.

As for me personally, I can consume whatever I want and as much of it as I want and not give a fuck about the impact that it has.

[PapaStu]

What's your source? You may well be right, but I'd like to know where your information is coming from. The article itself stated that Nintendo's poor score in the report was based, in part, on greenhouse gas emissions and lackluster recycling. Is it your contention that Greenpeace simply made all that up because they lacked any real info?


Your proof good sir.

http://kotaku.com/5443216/green-cases-dont-do-much-for-greenpeace-rankings

And from Kotaku's comments on the article


Nintendo, I guess because it goes whaling in its spare time or something, again clocked in with a 1.4 on Greenpeace's scale o' ten - worst not just among game makers, but among all electronics makers surveyed. OK, it's actually because the company doesn't provide the kind of information Greenpeace needs/demands to build this list. The score was unchanged from last quarter.

[Hawksmoor]

What's my source? Read the fucking report. If they don't have the information on their website, they give them a bad score. This report is a bunch of bullshit. It is pretty obvious you didn't read the report before spouting off.

Sorry Evan, but you're wrong. I have read the report. They explain their overall criteria for ranking the companies as well as how they rank them individually based on energy use, e-waste, and toxic chemical use. The report also rates each company on chemical management, PVC and BFR phaseout timetables, voluntary take-back, amount recycled, use of recycled plastic content, and about a half dozen other criteria. I didn't just make all that up.

So, tell me, how is that bullshit? And how is that rating them solely based on the information they do or do not provide on their website? You apparently only read the one or two sentence blurbs listed on the tables in the report and missed this:

Nintendo remains in last place with the same score of 1.4 out of 10.

Nintendo scores most points on chemicals; it has put games consoles on the market that have PVC-free internal wiring. It has banned phthalates and is monitoring use of antimony and beryllium. Although it is endeavouring to eliminate the use of PVC, it has not set a timeline for its phase-out.

It continues to score zero on all e-waste criteria.

It scores points on energy criteria, for the energy efficiency of its low power AC adaptor for the Nintendo DSi, which meets the requirements on the external power supply in the Energy Star programme. It also retains a point on energy for disclosing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from its own operations. However, it fails to score for its commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, due to a second year of increases, despite a commitment to cut CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases by 2 percent over each previous year. Emissions in 2007 increased by 1.5 percent compared to 2006, following a rise of 6 percent in 2006.

Further clarification appears later in the report:

Disclaimer: Greenpeace’s ‘Guide to Greener Electronics’ aims to clean up the electronics sector and get manufacturers to take responsibility for the full life cycle of their products, including the electronic waste that their products generate and the energy used by their products and operations. The guide does not rank companies on labour standards, social responsibility or any other issues, but recognises that these are important in the production
and use of electronics products.

Changes in ranking guide: We first released our ‘Guide to Greener Electronics’ in August 2006, which ranked the 14 top manufacturers of personal computers and mobile phones according to their policies on toxic chemicals and recycling.

In the sixth issue of the Guide, we added the leading manufacturers of TVs – namely, Philips and Sharp – and the game console producers Nintendo and Microsoft. The other market leaders for TVs and game consoles are already included in the Guide.

In the eighth edition, we sharpened some of the existing ranking criteria on toxic chemicals and e-waste and added a criterion on each issue. We also added five new energy criteria. In this edition the criteria for the Precautionary Principle has been made more challenging.


It seems pretty obvious that you gleaned impartial/incomplete information from their report because you had already decided, prior to looking at it, that they, being Greenpeace, were totally wrong and full of shit. So be it. But to assert that it's all bullshit and Nintendo only scored badly because they didn't have full disclosure on their website is flat out wrong.

[skaar]

Wait... wait wait wait... Splashchick?

[Hawksmoor]

Your proof good sir.

http://kotaku.com/5443216/green-cases-dont-do-much-for-greenpeace-rankings

And from Kotaku's comments on the article

How does that constitute proof? It's an environmental organization chastising the business practices of a console and game manufacturer. I doubt Kotaku's position would be anything other than condemnation for Greenpeace's assessment regardless of what criteria it uses. That's like pointing to an article on FoxNews.com to validate a refutation or condemnation of Democratic policy.

Show me specifically where, in their report, it says Nintendo is given an abysmal rating entirely because they don't or won't provide enough information to Greenpeace via their own web site.

[badinsults]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2755/4267018350_759ebc7df9_o.png (http://www.flickr.com/photos/snescentral/4267018350)

I stand by my assertion. The above is taken directly from the report. Like I said, if the information isn't on their website, they give them a poor mark. The evidence of that is if you click on the "more information" links, which point you to Nintendo's website. This is dishonesty at best, and lies at worse. I have little doubt that Nintendo would give out information if requested, but Greenpeace can't even be bothered to do actual work.

[Hawksmoor]

Wow, take a pill. He made a joke about Nintendo that did actually fit with the discussion. If you have zero sense of humor I'd just back out now. It's going to get worse. We just had a big rabble over the environment recently so most of this is going to be retread anyway.

So if I didn't think it was funny I have no sense of humor? Really? I didn't realize humor was so objective. The second post in the thread was his incredibly insightful and enlightening comment of "Screw Greenpeace and their dolphins :P". At that point it was pretty clear what his position was. He then felt it necessary to flog a dead horse and make the same superficial point (that being fuck Greenpeace, screw the environment, etc.) again.

That is why I responded as I did, to let him know that his incredibly complex and multifaceted point came across loud and clear the first time he made it. It didn't need to be made again.


As for me personally, I can consume whatever I want and as much of it as I want and not give a fuck about the impact that it has.

Sure. Anyone can be a selfish, thoughtless dick. Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

[pseudonym]

Lighten up, dude. I thought skaar's comments were funny as hell.

[Hawksmoor]

I stand by my assertion. The above is taken directly from the report. Like I said, if the information isn't on their website, they give them a poor mark. The evidence of that is if you click on the "more information" links, which point you to Nintendo's website. This is dishonesty at best, and lies at worse.

Well, we can agree to disagree. I'm certainly not claiming Greenpeace's rankings are perfect, but it's disingenuous to write them off completely. I cut and pasted information directly from the report that shows pretty conclusively that the availability of information on Nintendo's site was not the SOLE criteria used to determine their rating. It may well have played a part, but it wasn't the single, solitary factor used to rate them.

I believe you honed in on what you wanted to because you had already taken a position prior to reading it. If another organization, like the World Wildlife Fund or National Resource Defense Council, issued a report chastising Nintendo and other console/game manufacturers, I bet you'd have the same response. What that says to me is that any critique of Nintendo, Sony, Sega, Microsoft, or *insert game publisher/developer here* will be met with hostility and will be deemed total BS.


I have little doubt that Nintendo would give out information if requested, but Greenpeace can't even be bothered to do actual work.

And I doubt that's true, but the fact of the matter is, neither of us knows conclusively one way or the other. So it's just conjecture.

[Hawksmoor]

Lighten up, dude. I thought skaar's comments were funny as hell.

Humor, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I'm all for jokes, but I do take some things seriously. If that's a character flaw here on DP, so be it.

[Gameguy]

I'm not one of those people that has no carbon footprint, lives without electricity, and wants us all to live like we did hundreds or even thousands of years ago, but by the same token I patently reject the notion that it's okay to make no changes in the way we've grown accustomed to living and expressing apathy or contempt for environmentalism.
So you just want to feel less guilty about your impact by saying it's slightly less than others? If you truly want to put the environment first then get rid of all your modern conveniences and go Amish, though they still tend to cut down trees so it's not really no impact. Even beavers kill trees, should we wipe them out to stop that from happening? No living thing has no impact on it's surroundings. Unless you stop using electricity, stop driving a car, and only buy local foods and products, don't complain to others about their environmental impact.


Without clicking on the link I'm going to say it's China. It has to be. Unfortunately, there's little those of us that aren't Chinese can do about their rampant pollution. All we can do is take it upon ourselves to live in a more responsible way. To me that means recognizing and admitting that the things we buy and the resources we use DO have consequences; we need to make a concerted effort to use less, recycle more, and make more intelligent choices. And yes, I am doing all of the above.
Sure there is, stop paying to have things manufactured there and they'll stop polluting as much. Of course, companies don't want to manufacture locally as it's more expensive so they won't be doing that, especially since nobody else cares and buys everything anyway.

[skaar]

Humor, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I'm all for jokes, but I do take some things seriously. If that's a character flaw here on DP, so be it.

I'm more of a humour man myself.

Is this argument an annual event for you? http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=111313

I'm still waiting for MOAR DOLPHIN

[scooterb23]

Think about this... the amount of electricity consumed because of all the computers used to argue in this thread led to the killing of another dolphin.

A DOLPHIN DIED FOR THIS THREAD.

What a waste.

[Hawksmoor]

So you just want to feel less guilty about your impact by saying it's slightly less than others? If you truly want to put the environment first then get rid of all your modern conveniences and go Amish, though they still tend to cut down trees so it's not really no impact. Even beavers kill trees, should we wipe them out to stop that from happening? No living thing has no impact on it's surroundings. Unless you stop using electricity, stop driving a car, and only buy local foods and products, don't complain to others about their environmental impact.

I see, so it's all or nothing eh? Either you live in complete harmony with nature and produce not one iota of pollution or it doesn't matter? I think that's absurd. Even small efforts, when made by enough people, have a huge cumulative effect.

I'm not here trying to defend Greenpeace specifically or say that their report is flawless. What I am doing is rejecting the notion most of you seem to be espousing, which is that we shouldn't have to make any changes in the way we live, so let's label anyone, or any organization, criticizing our lifestyle as full of shit and wrong.

You or anyone else can stick your head in the sand and pretend that there isn't an environmental crisis, but ignoring something doesn't make it disappear or be any less real, nor does trying to assert that it's all subjective and relative.


Sure there is, stop paying to have things manufactured there and they'll stop polluting as much. Of course, companies don't want to manufacture locally as it's more expensive so they won't be doing that, especially since nobody else cares and buys everything anyway.

Other people care, but not nearly enough unfortunately. It's chique to not give a shit about anything. If it's not furthering your own fun and self gratification, fuck it, right?

[badinsults]

Well, we can agree to disagree. I'm certainly not claiming Greenpeace's rankings are perfect, but it's disingenuous to write them off completely. I cut and pasted information directly from the report that shows pretty conclusively that the availability of information on Nintendo's site was not the SOLE criteria used to determine their rating. It may well have played a part, but it wasn't the single, solitary factor used to rate them.

I believe you honed in on what you wanted to because you had already taken a position prior to reading it. If another organization, like the World Wildlife Fund or National Resource Defense Council, issued a report chastising Nintendo and other console/game manufacturers, I bet you'd have the same response. What that says to me is that any critique of Nintendo, Sony, Sega, Microsoft, or *insert game publisher/developer here* will be met with hostility and will be deemed total BS.



And I doubt that's true, but the fact of the matter is, neither of us knows conclusively one way or the other. So it's just conjecture.

You can judge me all you want, but you have no idea what my political and philosophical beliefs are.

I think it is good to pressure companies into making their products have a smaller environmental impact. And if you read interviews with Nintendo's engineers (http://www.nintendo.com/wii/what/iwataasks/volume-1/part-1;jsessionid=0730706C770E136D25502D837FC434B5), improving the efficiency and reducing packaging were two of the primary goals of the Wii over previous consoles. In particular:


Iwata:

Looking back at all the development history of Wii, were there any particularly memorable turning points?
Shiota:

Let's see. When we were struggling to reduce the power consumption, there was a point in time when we simulated how power consumption would change in existing devices if we applied cutting-edge semiconductor technology to them. In the case of the GameCube, we discovered that the power consumption could be reduced to between one-third and one-quarter of the consumption of the GameCube's semiconductors. I was really impressed with these results. Of course, I was surprised by the data itself, but it was also the moment at which I was struck by the originality of Nintendo. Normally, when making new devices, companies compete with each other on the basis of “How much faster is the CPU, how much more memory is there, and how many more polygons can be displayed?” But Nintendo posed the question “How much can we decrease power consumption and maintain performance?"

I hate propaganda, no matter what subject or political wing. Greenpeace is just as guilty as the oil company funded anti-global warming groups.

[Hawksmoor]

I'm more of a humour man myself.

Is this argument an annual event for you? http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=111313

I'm still waiting for MOAR DOLPHIN

Maybe so. Is being snarky and apathetic the only way you know how to be? I guess if you showed that you cared about anything or took anything seriously you would lose some Internet cool points eh?

[Hawksmoor]

You can judge me all you want, but you have no idea what my political and philosophical beliefs are.

I think it is good to pressure companies into making their products have a smaller environmental impact. And if you read interviews with Nintendo's engineers (http://www.nintendo.com/wii/what/iwataasks/volume-1/part-1;jsessionid=0730706C770E136D25502D837FC434B5), improving the efficiency and reducing packaging were two of the primary goals of the Wii over previous consoles. In particular:

I hate propaganda, no matter what subject or political wing. Greenpeace is just as guilty as the oil company funded anti-global warming groups.

I'm not judging you at all. I don't even know you. I'm just reacting to what you and others are saying in this thread. The sentiment seems to be "fuck the environment". I also don't much care for propaganda, but again, it's not all relative. While Greenpeace has certainly been more fanatical and fringe than I personally like, their efforts are made toward worthwhile aims. The same can't be said for oil-company funded global warming denials. It's about ideology, and they aren't all equally valid.

[skaar]

Maybe so. Is being snarky and apathetic the only way you know how to be? I guess if you showed that you cared about anything or took anything seriously you would lose some Internet cool points eh?

Actually I take things seriously in the real world with how I operate my business and at home with how I manage my household. I've implemented several key energy and power saving initiatives for dozens of businesses and local government offices and saved them hundreds of thousands of dollars over the last 10 years in the process. We've also donated/recycled several thousand servers, monitors and workstations either locally or through outside agencies at our own expense as a courtesy to our clients.

That being said.... where's my fucking dolphin? :D

(hippie)

[Hawksmoor]

Actually I take things seriously in the real world with how I operate my business and at home with how I manage my household. I've implemented several key energy and power saving initiatives for dozens of businesses and local government offices and saved them hundreds of thousands of dollars over the last 10 years in the process. We've also donated/recycled several thousand servers, monitors and workstations either locally or through outside agencies at our own expense as a courtesy to our clients.

That being said.... where's my fucking dolphin? :D

(hippie)

Big kudos to you then. Seriously. That is fantastic. I'm a bit perplexed though, since the attitude you've taken in this thread seems inconsistent with someone that has made the efforts you have to reduce consumption and recycle. I get that you were trying to be funny; I guess it was lost on me.

Like I said before, there are some topics I prefer to take seriously. If, for example, someone started a thread about genocide in Darfur, and it was met with sarcasm and snarky jokes, I'd probably not find it too amusing either. More power to you if you can joke and laugh at anything and everything. I'm just not one of those people.

[scooterb23]

I'm more of a humour man myself.

Is this argument an annual event for you? http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=111313

I'm still waiting for MOAR DOLPHIN

Maybe it's his birthday? Like how Aswald always brings up the U.S.S. Liberty thing on his birthday.

So Happy birthday Hawksmoor! I hope nothing except for this message board gets filled with garbage today, just for you!

[skaar]

http://media.fukung.net/images/8201/105de08872d26db20fc5cf50edf9eaff.jpg

[PapaStu]

Maybe so. Is being snarky and apathetic the only way you know how to be? I guess if you showed that you cared about anything or took anything seriously you would lose some Internet cool points eh?


But I posted what I did, not because Kotaku is the end all be all (HAH!), but to point out that because GreenPeace didn't know the info (whether or not they asked Nintendo, got stonewalled, or Nintendo just doesn't release that info) and that GreenPeace then just ranked them with 0's instead of making it a NA, or not including them at all. Doing that is something that skews their results. Leaving a company off that 'list' because they didn't have enough info would do better to get it out there because they'd be off the list and the concerned consumer might pose more questions as to why MS and Sony are there and they arn't.

Personally, I care quite a bit about this stuff. Why? Because its what I do. I work for an Energy Consulting Firm. A firm that has been going strong for going on 15 years in its current form and another decade + before that under other names and other 'owners'. We help utilities around the country get their customers more energy efficient by designing EE programs, running EE programs for them and helping them in their projected Energy Use planning for the coming years and decades. Personally i've helped get hundreds of farms more efficient in the 14 months that I worked in the SCE Ag Efficiency Plus program, to the tune of 28 MILLION kWh (our program totals for 3 years) permanently off the California grid. We've got other programs that get 8 Million kWh off the CA grid a MONTH and have been doing that for years.

Who do I answer to here? My fellow co-workers and myself, because we're employee owned. We have no 'big business' corporate parent. Nothing forcing us along except our desire for our homes and lives to be less energy dependent and more efficient.

[Gameguy]

I see, so it's all or nothing eh? Either you live in complete harmony with nature and produce not one iota of pollution or it doesn't matter? I think that's absurd. Even small efforts, when made by enough people, have a huge cumulative effect.

I'm not here trying to defend Greenpeace specifically or say that their report is flawless. What I am doing is rejecting the notion most of you seem to be espousing, which is that we shouldn't have to make any changes in the way we live, so let's label anyone, or any organization, criticizing our lifestyle as full of shit and wrong.

You or anyone else can stick your head in the sand and pretend that there isn't an environmental crisis, but ignoring something doesn't make it disappear or be any less real, nor does trying to assert that it's all subjective and relative.
Oh I know it's better to use less resources, I just meant that you shouldn't have an overly condescending attitude towards others about it if you're still contributing to the problem. It's like dumping a bucket of oil a day into the ocean but yelling at others because they're dumping 2 buckets of oil a day into the ocean. You're still dumping a lot of oil so don't yell until yours is next to nothing. Be more polite about it. You're using electricity right now to keep replying to this thread, you're using you're computer right?

Are you aware that it actually uses more energy and resources to manufacture goods from recycled material compared to manufacturing it from new resources? Except for pop cans which are just about the only thing worthwhile to recycle.

Watch this in it's entirety and then post a reply about it;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzLebC0mjCQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wS1dv3iat8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fvz-z7CvsYA



http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/4963/dolphin.jpg

[Pantechnicon]

Maybe it's his birthday? Like how Aswald always brings up the U.S.S. Liberty thing on his birthday.

Ah, someone else noticed that too. Aswald's got the Liberty, and Hawksmoor's got the Rainbow Warrior.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_J-2eTHcnFr4/Rd0Bo91jJQI/AAAAAAAAAA4/F4AWlAWR7PQ/s320/IMG_9352.JPG
Mmm....dolphin steak :-P

[Enigmus]

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i141/LittleSeth/JAPPRES.jpg

Funk you dolphin!



http://i580.photobucket.com/albums/ss246/JDalpha22/South_Parks_Enola_Gay.jpg


Dolphin?

And Whale (Metaphor for old PS3 size)?

THIS IS OUTRAGE!

I now see this thread's future direction. And a possible thread nuking. ROFL

[diskoboy]

Greenpeace is one of the reasons why the economy is in the shitter.

This is what happens when you OVER REGULATE!

You're trying to appease a group that will never be content with what we do. And they will do all in their powers to stop us from doing anything.

And didn't we recently prove that climate change was a giant crock of shit, anyway?

[Oobgarm]

skaar is my new hero, I will admit.

Also, shit thread is shit.

[ScourDX]

Greenpeace, RIAA, PETA, MADD, WWF & many other non-profit organization are there to annoy us. I wonder how much donated money are going to their own pocket.

[Garry Silljo]

Sure. Anyone can be a selfish, thoughtless dick. Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

I can't tell. Did you miss the joke and take me seriously?

[gum_drops]

This thread has soured my stomach, who wants to buy my copy of Dolphin Hunter.

http://xs.to/image-3BB9_4B4C2C21.jpg

[GarrettCRW]

Hawksmoor's got the Rainbow Warrior.

So he's Queen Marlena?

[monkeychemist]

Greenpeace is one of the reasons why the economy is in the shitter.

This is what happens when you OVER REGULATE!

You're trying to appease a group that will never be content with what we do. And they will do all in their powers to stop us from doing anything.

And didn't we recently prove that climate change was a giant crock of shit, anyway?

Well, better the economy in the shitter than our planet...besides what a ridiculous and unintelligent statement. Greanpeace's requirements have NOTHING to do with our crash. It's more of the lack of regulation that has led to Enron-like scams, the inflation of the housing industry coupled by banks giving out ridiculous loans to people that can't pay them and a pointless war that has cost a trillion dollars leading us to borrow money from China and make the dollar worthless...(all in one fragmented sentence)

We did not recently prove that climate change was a crock a shit. We proved that one group that did a research showing there was climate change was withholding data and thus were a bunch of liars...

[Icarus Moonsight]

Goodbye, and thanks for the fish!

http://pythonline.com/sites/pythonline.com/files/irish_dolphin.jpg

[Hawksmoor]

Well, better the economy in the shitter than our planet...besides what a ridiculous and unintelligent statement. Greanpeace's requirements have NOTHING to do with our crash. It's more of the lack of regulation that has led to Enron-like scams, the inflation of the housing industry coupled by banks giving out ridiculous loans to people that can't pay them and a pointless war that has cost a trillion dollars leading us to borrow money from China and make the dollar worthless...(all in one fragmented sentence)

We did not recently prove that climate change was a crock a shit. We proved that one group that did a research showing there was climate change was withholding data and thus were a bunch of liars...

Careful monkeychemist, not completely and totally condemning every environmental organization here on DP is tantamount to saying you like raping and eating babies. Unless you throw them all under the bus (and probably any other charitable/activist organization) you're going to get flamed.

I'm honestly beginning to wonder if the vast majority here are Neocons......

[Icarus Moonsight]

No, I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist and I also think you need more dolphin in your posts. Prove you care!!!

I have better reasons for condemning environmentalist activism, but it has nothing to do with the thread topic. So you get South Park-Japanese-double-birds and dolphin pics.

[LaughingMAN.S9]

So if I didn't think it was funny I have no sense of humor? Really? I didn't realize humor was so objective. The second post in the thread was his incredibly insightful and enlightening comment of "Screw Greenpeace and their dolphins :P". At that point it was pretty clear what his position was. He then felt it necessary to flog a dead horse and make the same superficial point (that being fuck Greenpeace, screw the environment, etc.) again.

That is why I responded as I did, to let him know that his incredibly complex and multifaceted point came across loud and clear the first time he made it. It didn't need to be made again.



Sure. Anyone can be a selfish, thoughtless dick. Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

hey buddy, listen to me.....FUCK DOLPHINS BUDDY

[Hawksmoor]

hey buddy, listen to me.....FUCK DOLPHINS BUDDY

No thanks. Bestiality isn't really my thing.

[LaughingMAN.S9]

Dolphins have no souls, so as far as jesus is concerned, you're in the clear....its in the bible, towards the back somewhere if u dont believe me

dolphins are the new homeless people, you can kill em/rape em guilt free

[Nature Boy]

Leaving a company off that 'list' because they didn't have enough info would do better to get it out there because they'd be off the list and the concerned consumer might pose more questions as to why MS and Sony are there and they arn't.

I disagree totally. The idea behind putting the company on the list and giving them the zeros is to pressure them into divulging the information Greenpeace wants. Leaving them off the list doesn't accomplish that in nearly as good of a way IMO.

Personally I find the accusations that they're being disingenuous and lying about it are over the top. They are factually stating that Nintendo doesn't provide them what they want and how they want. It's Nintendo's right to comply or ignore, and it's Greenpeace's right to do what they want with that information.

It's up to the consumer to decide what to do with that information, if anything.

As a huge Dolphins Fan I'd like to ask everybody to stop talking about them dying. Pat White was release from hospital the day after the hit by Ike Taylor and attended the final team meeting of the year, so he's still very much alive. :D

[Robocop2]

Not Dolphin related but....
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/10/29/128697862331685728.jpg&imgrefurl=http://roflrazzi.com/upcoming/%3Fpid%3D3439&usg=__Fgc3lLQIQF-lLIicUPuseRbo1Uk=&h=454&w=485&sz=40&hl=en&start=33&um=1&tbnid=NyCNK6jYcAZj1M:&tbnh=121&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfunny%2Bcaptain%2Bplanet%26ndsp%3D17% 26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26sa%3DN%26start%3D17%26 um%3D1

[monkeychemist]

I disagree totally. The idea behind putting the company on the list and giving them the zeros is to pressure them into divulging the information Greenpeace wants. Leaving them off the list doesn't accomplish that in nearly as good of a way IMO.

Personally I find the accusations that they're being disingenuous and lying about it are over the top. They are factually stating that Nintendo doesn't provide them what they want and how they want. It's Nintendo's right to comply or ignore, and it's Greenpeace's right to do what they want with that information.

Exactly! What are they supposed to do if Nintendo doesn't comply, give them good scores? That would be much worse. There is a reason why Nintendo isn't giving out information, it's because they aren't trying and that's all. If they were, they would immediately give press releases and put that information out there to show the world how green they are. Since we care more about the environment these days something like that would not be omitted. I am happy we have organizations like Greenpeace to make examples about companies that don't care... And to the person who said that they are just as bad as exxon-mobil, you are an idiot, it's not even the same ballpark!

[JSoup]

This thread has soured my stomach, who wants to buy my copy of Dolphin Hunter.

http://xs.to/image-3BB9_4B4C2C21.jpg

How much?

[Cornelius]

Goodbye, and thanks for the fish!

http://pythonline.com/sites/pythonline.com/files/irish_dolphin.jpg

/me puts on "quote police" hat: I think you mean "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish"

[Icarus Moonsight]

What seems to be the problem officer? :p

I guess I just made the greenpeace shitlist because I didn't quote it 'right'...

Oh well, I got plenty of double-birds ready.

[badinsults]

I would be more impressed if Greenpeace actually did a physical evaluation of the products put out by the manufacturers. It should not be hard to measure things like power consumption, packaging, etc. If you compared power consumption of the Wii to the Xbox 360 or PS3, the Wii would easily come on top. From the link I posted earlier, Nintendo's primary goals when creating the Wii were to improve performance, reduce power consumption and reduce the size of the console, which are great goals from an environmental standpoint. According to Nintendo's engineers, they reduced power consumption of the Wii by 1/4 to 1/3 compared to the Gamecube.

But ultimately, the best change that could happen to video game systems is to lengthen the console cycle (which apparently is happening). Imagine the decrease in waste reduction by increasing the length of the cycle by 3-5 years over what it was in the past. Don't kid yourself, tons of obsolete consoles find their way to landfills.

Also, in most Canadian cities I have lived in, it is illegal to throw away electronics. You have to take them to designated recycling facilities.

Like I said in an earlier post, it is good that organizations are pressing companies to reduce waste. Nintendo is a very secretive company that is largely private and doesn't like their internal processes publicized. Nintendo responded to the report (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/nintendo-responds-to-greenpeace-report) with a typical PR response. Ultimately, rather than making sensationalist headlines, organizations should be pressing governments to make it mandatory to report their environmental impact, similar to financial reports.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Great, more books to cook...

[diskoboy]

Well, better the economy in the shitter than our planet...besides what a ridiculous and unintelligent statement. Greanpeace's requirements have NOTHING to do with our crash. It's more of the lack of regulation that has led to Enron-like scams, the inflation of the housing industry coupled by banks giving out ridiculous loans to people that can't pay them and a pointless war that has cost a trillion dollars leading us to borrow money from China and make the dollar worthless...(all in one fragmented sentence)

We did not recently prove that climate change was a crock a shit. We proved that one group that did a research showing there was climate change was withholding data and thus were a bunch of liars...


Oh, thats right.... It was Bawney Fwanks fault.

And yes... We cant drill for oil. We can't build refineries. We can't build nuclear plants, we can't buy CRT TV's anymore. We can't buy sports cars. We can't smoke outside our own homes.... Why, you may ask? One simple word: Enviornmentalists.

Enviornmentalists are the problem, and will ALWAYS be the problem. And good luck trying to convince me otherwise.

And yes. Climate change is BULLSHIT. If the science has been settled, why did ANYONE have to lie about it? Why won't ManBearPig openly debate anyone?

IT'S BULLSHIT.

[Hawksmoor]

Oh, thats right.... It was Bawney Fwanks fault.

And yes... We cant drill for oil. We can't build refineries. We can't build nuclear plants, we can't buy CRT TV's anymore. We can't buy sports cars. We can't smoke outside our own homes.... Why, you may ask? One simple word: Enviornmentalists.

Enviornmentalists are the problem, and will ALWAYS be the problem. And good luck trying to convince me otherwise.

And yes. Climate change is BULLSHIT. If the science has been settled, why did ANYONE have to lie about it? Why won't ManBearPig openly debate anyone?

IT'S BULLSHIT.

Do you actually believe the drivel you're spouting? You sound like a typical extreme right-wing zealot. Did you run to buy guns as soon as Obama got elected too?

This comes to mind....

http://www.forgottenoh.com/Counties/Coshocton/Pictures/cletus-simpsons.jpg

[badinsults]

Do you actually believe the drivel you're spouting? You sound like a typical extreme right-wing zealot. Did you run to buy guns as soon as Obama got elected too?

This comes to mind....

http://www.forgottenoh.com/Counties/Coshocton/Pictures/cletus-simpsons.jpg

ps: I think he was kidding.

[BHvrd]

Nokia makes devices that end up in landfills within 2 years. Nintendo makes devices that sit on peoples shelves for 20+ years.

Case closed.

I agree with this logic.

http://h1.ripway.com/BsheaH/BitmapinGraphic1a.jpg

[Hawksmoor]

ps: I think he was kidding.

pps: I don't.