After being ranked the least environmentally friendly consumer electronics company by Greenpeace, Nintendo offered up some pretty lame excuses to defend its position. The most hilarious was this little tidbit:
The Wii console is notably the most energy efficient of its generation, and we have improved the design of some of our latest products, such as the Nintendo DSi, to minimize their energy consumption when in use.
So let me get this straight — Nintendo should be lauded for being environmentally friendly by having weaker consoles than the competition? That’s rich. While I think it’s foolish to judge the quality of the Wii or the DS solely based on processing power, it’s even more foolish to claim that their relatively underpowered capabilities are a form of environmentalism. Ha!
Can we laugh out loud yet?
haha, gotta love PR spin.
What did Greenpeace use as criteria for their list? What was Nintendo graded down for?
my thoughts too larcenous, although, google could probably tell us
Nintendo's response is geared towards something else. Either they are misunderstanding the purpose of the Greenpeace test (which is looking for companies to take responsibility for their products rather then the people who buy them), or they simply don't care enough about the tree-hugging hippy watchdog organization and their test to change the way they do business.
I think the real question here should be: Is it a companies responsibility to provide recycling options for their products at their end of life, or does that responsibility fall to the consumer? If you were Nintendo, how much money annually do you think it would take to provide a recycling plan for every Nintendo Wii/DS currently out in the market?
interesting stuff larcenous. it seems harsh but if they want good marks they are going to have to play by the rules in some ways
it does seem like Nintendo didn't understand the purpose of the testing with a response like that. but since the average consumer doesn't understand the tests either it probably is smart for nintendo to say "hey, we have the most energy efficient machine" even if it is because of a lack of power.
Ultimately, recycling is a community issue more so than a corporate one. We don't have recycling in my neighborhood, but then again my neighborhood is mostly made up of right wing Mormon voters who don't give a crap about anything except going to church and having lots of babies. Chances are 80% of the families in my neighborhood own a Wii for a young child in the household, and none of them want to pay for a simple "bottle and can" recycling program. I know, because it comes up for vote in our HOA, and consistantly gets shot down. We often see old TV's and other things like them being left on the side of the road for large item pickups rather than taken to a recycling center, and half of these people own SUV's, so it's not like they couldn't just load the old machine into their gas guzzlers and take them away. Hard to hold Nintendo responsible for that kind of mentality.
Yes, I just defended Nintendo.
@Nightshade – and you are right. Reading even more into the report, Nintendo actually has corporate protocols in place and an answer in the report for nearly everything they are marked down for.
For example, Nintendo is given a "Bad" rating for the Precautionary Principle. In the report itself, it says that Nintendo outlines behavior that meets the principle, but because the principle itself is not listed, they are marked off.
@larcenous: I get what Greenpeace is trying to do here. If Nintendo is using chemicals or products that could be replaced with more environmentally friendly materials, than certainly somebody should shine a light on that. But any real negatives that should be addressed in the report will get lost in the details of a flawed process.
I doubt Nintendo is too worried, to me Greenpeace is about as obnoxious as PETA
@Nightshade – 100% correct
@Shockwave – I think that's the reason that in three years since they have been added to the report, they haven't added a simple paragraph regarding the main Principle. It's as subtle a slap in the face you can give without calling them out.
I can't stand left wing recycling nuts. Greenpeace is definitely the far out fringe, but nonetheless, left wing recycling nuts drive me crazy. They drive hybrids which are quite dangerous for the environment compared to a damn Suburban.
I don't pay for recycling pick up at my home because it costs twice as much per quarter than my regular garbage pickup. I think that is ridiculous.
Don't mean to step on any toes, but groups like Greenpeace, PETA, NAMBLA (lol), and Southern Baptists really rile me.
ROFL @Smartguy – While annoying, I think Greenpeace and PETA rank a bit higher on my scale then NAMBLA. I mean… they f*ck kids lol. I'll take researching a poorly processed recycling test then that any day lol.
@Smartguy: Lumping NAMBLA and Greenpeace together as Left Wing Fringe groups is somewhat absurd. I mean, wasn't it a Republican from Florida who was having sex with teenage congressional pages?
@Nightshade
I lumped them together because all of them are absurd. Disagree?
@Smartguy: Yes, I disagree. Greenpeace and PETA have pretty logical mission statements. It's simply their methods at times that travel into the realm of absurdity. NAMBLA and the Southern Baptists have absurd mission statements to begin with.
Greenpeace has a worthwhile goal. PETA is a bit absurd really, but they are no where close to the level that NAMBLA reaches. Southern Baptists… well they are just special. I would lump NAMBLA with the Westboro Baptists though.
I was actually thinking about the Westrboro Babtists. They are absurd. Southern Baptists as a whole are no more right or wrong than any other religious group. As with any group, there are exceptions to every rule.
@Nightshade
Mission statements? Really? How about what they actually do? That's what's absurd. Out of the groups I labeled, the Southern Baptists are the least annoying. That's saying a lot.
@Larcenous
Pentecostal Snake handlers have to be on the top of my list as far as those groups go. I chose Southern Baptists because well..I live in the south and there are plenty here. They aren't so bad when they aren't out in droves at events. Otherwise they keep to themselves.
@Samrtguy: Both PETA and Greenpeace do plenty of good things too. Have you ever seen the cruelty that goes on at some factory farms? Have you lived near a toxic waste dump? These are the groups that try to do something about those types of abuses. How is that nearly as absurd as wanting to have sex with children?
@nightshade
methods methods methods. Doesn't greenpeace run their boats into other boats in the open ocean? that is horrible.
FYI, I'm a huge dog lover. In fact, a person is deemed trustworthy to me damn near immediately if they are a dog owner and like the dog. I'm not against what they stand for, I don't care for the methods.
@Smartguy: I don't care for their methods sometimes either. The key word is "sometimes." But I'm never comfortable with a group that want to have sex with kids. That's why lumping them together isn't fair.
Sometimes people say that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." And sure, sometimes people with good intentions do bad things. But not everyone with good intentions does bad things. Pretty much anyone with bad intentions ends up doing bad things.
If you want to save the environment, you won't necessarily ram your boat into another boat in the open seas. If you want to have sex with little boys, you probably will. That's why it's different.
Evil always stems from the best intentions.
@Sandrock: No, it doesn't. Evil can stem from anything, both the good and the bad. That's why as a society we tend to treat premeditation a lot differently than those people who act out of passion or self defense.
@Nightshade386
Your post would show up after I posted mine. Anyway, "sometimes" isn't good reason to support something. Either do it the right way all the time or not at all. There is no point in trying save the world if all you do is destroy it. Plus, I'm sure there isn't only one group in the world trying accomplish the same things. One of them is bound to be doing it in a way you agree with so support them instead.
@SandRock – I dont think we are outright supporting Greenpeace… we're just saying that they are not as bad as a group formed to get rid of age of consent laws so they won't be arrested when the f*ck children.
@Nightshade
Nambla was in there because I disagree with them and for comedic relief in case anyone on here is a far leftwinger and would take exception to what I said. I disagree with Greenpeace and their methods. I disagree with PETAs methods and most of their propaganda. The southern baptists only bother me during Mardi Gras. I think it is too funny when they are heckling the gay/les community during Decadence Fest.
In all, NAMBLA is definitely the epitome of absurd in the 4 way comparison.
To be honest, Greenpeace has never won me over with any of their propaganda ever. I for one think the global warming "epidemic" is a sham. Look to the people selling your carbon credits….or let's have a massive class action against the people touting global cooling in the 70s. I'm sure what we did to offset global cooling lead to climate change.
@LarcenousLaugh
Both groups think they are right in everything they do no matter what harm it causes. One having a more morally accepted goal doesn't make them better. (I would be willing to participate in almost any form of protest against NAMBLA. I do agree it is wrong on more than one level, but they don't do thing that can kill people or put others' lives in danger.)
@Sandrock – I agree that causing the loss of human life for any of the purposes mentioned is doesn't make their stance any better. The main difference is that NAMBLA as a group represents an action that is morally and socially reprehensible while PETA and Greenpeace do not. Radical members of said groups do things that are bad, but the group itself can not be held responsible for the acts of a few.
By logical definition a member of Greenpeace would like to see people inpact the environment in a less destructive manner. By that same standard, the members of NAMBLA believe they should have the right to basically abuse children. Looking solely at the groups and their aims, one is most certainly worse then the other.
I love the tangents we get caught up in btw
@nightshade
repurpose? Have you ever been in a plant? I used to work in one, you can't just retrofit a unit. Also what would you produce? You don't turn a chlorine plant into a sugar mill. A good solution would be for other states to ease restrictions where these places are spread out instead of clustered in one area.
I wouldn't mind a nuclear plant or 50 built out all around in the US.
Not saying your idea isn't good, but not practical right now.
@Samrtguy: Yes, I have been in factorys. And just because something isn't easy doesn't mean it can't be done.
And as someone who lived in the shadow of Three Mile Island for roughly a decade, I'll pass on the Nuclear Power plants.
@nightshade
there is a tremendous difference between a factory and a chemical plant.
One accident? Just one? That one accident nullifies nuclear power? Its safe, clean, and super efficient. If you want to hold to arguments that were valid about 30 years ago then so be it. The tech has come a long way. France seems to be doing pretty good with it.
Thanks to the Google machine, apparently this has to do with the use of “toxic chemicals” in products, as well as the willingness to “pick them up for disposal after their life cycle.”
They are judged on 5 criteria:
1. A chemical policy based on the Precautionary Principle (The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.)
2. Chemicals management: supply chain management of chemicals (using banned lists, policy stated for identifying problematic substances)
3. Timeline for phasing out vinyl plastics
4. Timeline to phase out bromide flame retardants
5. PVC and BFR-free models of electronic products on the market
On the 2007 report, which was the first one run in which TV and Video Game console companies were included, ranked nintendo at 0/10 score for meeting the criteria.
Apparently for 2010, Nintendo scored a 1.4/10. Apple 5.1/10. Sony 5.1/10. Motorola 5.1/10. Microsoft scored 2.4/10.
Looking at the breakdown of the scores… honestly this test is completely ridiculous. Nintendo is taking a hit because of how broad their market share in the console area is. It’s basically holding that a company is responsible for the products they have sold being recycled once the product is out of it’s hands and in the customers. Nintendo is marked off for not mentioning specific protocols in it’s source material and not offering end of life recycling for the products they offer.
There are no more then two criteria in their test that speaks to harmful chemicals and most of that is again mentions of protocols to handle them.
I like the idea of geothermal power, but nuclear runs second.
And if anyone uses that N-acronym one more time, R Pad is gonna get alot of unwanted hits.
@Smartguy;
You may not be able to turn a chlorine plant into a sugar mill, but you could turn it into a salt factory. After all, you're already halfway there… all you need is to add some sodium.
Sorry, the smart-ass in me couldn't resist.
-M
@iceman
the smartass in me must retort. if a unit is built to handle one thing..just one thing…in your example chlorine, then it would need to be redesigned altogether to do salt. You might as well blow up the plant, and build a salt unit.
You have miles of pipe with a gradient built in, pumps calibrated just so..too difficult to treat it like the Ford assembly line and pump out planes instead of cars.
p.s. – I getcha.
@n8r
Geothermal is nice, but it just seems so inefficient by comparison. Is it even possible to power a large city on geothermal alone without the geothermal plant having such a large footprint that it would begin negatively affecting the environment?
@ Smartguy
Roughly stated, we could run the entire nation for 2000 years in what the Earth reproduces in 1 year. Do you think the environment is crappy in New Zealand because of it? They've had a plant since 1958.
The main people that slander geothermal is the coal and natural gas industry. They have quite a bit of pool to do a good job trashing it.
Economically, it truly is the best option.
I agree that groups should do things right all the time. But the idea of not supporting the things that they do do right out of principle is kinda dumb. That kind of absolutism is what poisons this country’s political process in general.
Smartguy: Greenpeace has published papers regarding the the flooding of the chemical plants along the gulf coast during Hurricane Katrina and it’s effect on the water supply in the NOLA area. I’d give that one a read if I were you.
@Nightshade
Yeah, a lot of places put out reports about that. There are chemical plants all along the mississippi staring in Baton Rouge (cancer alley). I don’t advocate shutting them down though. A lot of families would be worse off than they are now without them.
@Smartguy: You don’t have to shut down the plants to clean things up. That’s where other groups should step in and offer up plans for re-purposing the plants for a safer use that can still serve as an economic base for the community as a whole.
@LarcenousLaugh Agreed. This is an excellent tangent that’s informative and civil.
@N8R
I have never been to New Zealand, I have no idea what it is like there. I need to read up on geothermal energy and see how efficient it is. I agree, on paper it is the best option.
@N8R
I don't like the idea of taking energy from the planet directly. that just sounds dooms day stupid to me.
@Sandrock323 What would you rather use as energy then?
@Smartguy: While the nuclear power industry claims that there were no deaths or injuries from the TMI meltdown, lung cancer and leukemia rates were significantly higher downwind from that "one accident" than anywhere else in the surrounding area. Many of those cases would have been fatal. They also found DNA damage to plant and animal life in the surrounding area. And that was only a partial meltdown. The area around Chernobyl had a larger fallout than Hiroshima. Estimates are around 400X larger. Is that really worth the risk just so you'll be able to turn your TV on when there are plenty of other safer options for electricity?
@R-Pad
Solar energy collected in space away from the earth.
@R-Pad
Hopefully this new wireless tech can help reduce the issue of transporting the energy back to the earth (or maybe a mirror array that focuses more light on the panels here here on earth? hmmm) I don't see it as something that can, or will, be done now, but it is something better than what we have now.
@Sandrock323 How could you do that without expending a great deal of energy to harness it?