bit-tech.net | Nintendo and Greenpeace continue fighting

DarkLord7854 13th December 2007, 09:41

Some people really need to learn how to chill out.. I highly doubt the "pollution" problem is that bad. I'm more worried about vehicular pollution and industrial (like refineries and stuff) pollution honestly.

RotoSequence 13th December 2007, 09:45

Its Greenpeace's attempt to steal the limelight. All they're looking for is publicity.

mikeuk2004 13th December 2007, 11:30

They should attach chip makers and pc parts, because they cant be fully recycled.

D3s3rt_F0x 13th December 2007, 12:03

Recycling I think companies should make things as recyclable as they can, think under EU laws coming in cars need to be 90-95% recycleable in future so why cant cant games consoles over all be up to that level I understand theres certain parts which would be very hard to do but theres lots of parts they can make easily.

But why use highly toxic and dangerous checmicals in some products if they dont need to?

Nikumba 13th December 2007, 12:12

Because sometimes there is no alternative, it has been speculated that if MS was allowed to use leaded solder rather than the ROHS version the problems may have been much less

completemadness 13th December 2007, 12:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by D3s3rt_F0x
But why use highly toxic and dangerous checmicals in some products if they dont need to?

You seem to assume there is an alternative they are ignoring, I think a lot of electronics stuff need certain processes which are environmentally damaging and stuff

Cars are large chunks of metal, consoles are large chunks of electronics, its quite different

I think the real question is, are consoles less "recyclable" then computers?

TomD22 13th December 2007, 13:12

Nintendo's statement is quite funny though - you couldn't have a more classic example of 'greenwash' by making a big thing out of doing the very bare minimum as required by law.

JADS 13th December 2007, 13:44

When you consider Nintendo are pumping out no less than 1.8 million Wii consoles a month it is reasonable to hope they are doing everything they can to improve the environmental impact of their products.

Cobalt 13th December 2007, 14:42

So GreenPeace ranks Nintendo as last because it complies to all the regulations but does nothing extra. On the other hand, what about all those companies who don't even do that much? Why are they better than Nintendo?

LeMaltor 13th December 2007, 16:28

Demand for the other companies products are less, no one cares about what they produce because it isnt on (every :p) kids xmas list. I want a wii just to help kill the planet now, all this hippy crap annoys the hell out of me!

titanium angel 13th December 2007, 17:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cobalt
So GreenPeace ranks Nintendo as last because it complies to all the regulations but does nothing extra. On the other hand, what about all those companies who don't even do that much? Why are they better than Nintendo?

agreed

wolff000 13th December 2007, 17:18

Wow so many people with no clue how Greenpeace works yet they have so much to say about them. First Greenpeace has plenty going they don't need to make things up for headlines. Secondly they were only ranking major corporations not every business on the planet. Third doing the bare minimum is hardly helping the environment. If you think I'm wrong go to Tokyo during the summer and take a deep breath. Nintendo needs to clean up their act, plain and simple. With all the cash they are making from the Wii, they can more than afford it. They can't feasibly make the all products recyclable but they can do more to recycle and clean their own waste. They can also push part makers to do the same. Making chips produces some really nasty stuff. Most major PC makers offer programs where you can send your old box back and they recycle what they can for you. Nintendo could do the same.

anduril 13th December 2007, 22:14

go hug a ****ing tree. last thing i heard about greenpeace in my country was this very day at the train station.
they were asking people to sign a petition against nuclear energy so i entered a small debate with the man asking me this.
I asked him first why we should ban nuclear energy.then he was all like you know it makes nuclear waste and it isn't environmental friendly.so i asked them what they propose to make energy with instead of nuclear power plants. sohenamed solar enrgy wind energy and ofcourse water energy. I then explained that only 5% of our nationwide nuclear waste was produced by making energy and that storing and managing the waste is virtually without any dangers. then i woke him up from his fairytale wonderland by explaining thatonly 'clean' energy production ( wind water sun) is impossible in belgium. we don't have rivers to build dams on, the sun is out only occasionally in the summer let alone the other seasons and putting windmills would require entire belgium having a couple thousands of em. sothen i explined what would happen if nuclear energy was to be banned: it's production would be replaced by green energy and for 99% classic centrales that work on gaz and charcoal. i pointed out that this produces CO2 which is far worse than the CO2 free nuclear production. after all this he remained dead silent.
Imissed my train but i didn't regret it for 1second.
u green people should learn to see the big picture instead of freaking out about something small.same here. electronics can't do without toxins period. bashing on some company who applies to all legal standards is pointless and absurd.

The_Beast 13th December 2007, 22:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by anduril
go hug a ****ing tree hippy. last thing i heard about greenpeace in my country was this very day at the train station.
they were asking people to sign a petition against nuclear energy so i entered a small debate with the man asking me this.
I asked him first why we should ban nuclear energy.then he was all like you know it makes nuclear waste and it isn't environmental friendly.so i asked them what they propose to make energy with instead of nuclear power plants. sohenamed solar enrgy wind energy and ofcourse water energy. I then explained that only 5% of our nationwide nuclear waste was produced by making energy and that storing and managing the waste is virtually without any dangers. then i woke him up from his fairytale wonderland by explaining thatonly 'clean' energy production ( wind water sun) is impossible in belgium. we don't have rivers to build dams on, the sun is out only occasionally in the summer let alone the other seasons and putting windmills would require entire belgium having a couple thousands of em. sothen i explined what would happen if nuclear energy was to be banned: it's production would be replaced by green energy and for 99% classic centrales that work on gaz and charcoal. i pointed out that this produces CO2 which is far worse than the CO2 free nuclear production. after all this he remained dead silent.
Imissed my train but i didn't regret it for 1second.
u green people should learn to see the big picture instead of freaking out about something small.same here. electronics can't do without toxins period. bashing on some company who applies to all legal standards is pointless and absurd.

you're right, they need to think a little more

MrBurritoMan 14th December 2007, 00:38

That Greenpeace list is so full of fail it is ridiculous. not only do they omit exactly what a company has to do to get a good rank but they do this so they can change the requirements with no notice or documentation.

i fail to see where Greenpeace is an accurate ruler to measure anything but a person's gullibility.

for example, did you know that Greenpeace has unofficially determined that Chlorine is a pollutant. yes that is right, Chlorine. one of the elements on the periodic table is now considered to harm the environment. this one example is what caused one of the Greenpeace founders to distance himself from the organization that he started. they used to care about the environment, but now it is just a political machine or bandwagon for people to hop on so they can feel better about themselves or their company.

simple equation:
(Greenpeace + Environmental Concern) + Political Agenda = Fail

DXR_13KE 14th December 2007, 01:10

*i slap greenpeace with a rotten dead fish*

i used to like the guys..... now they have become extremists..... scr** them.

edit: on a side note:
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/51

Dreaming 14th December 2007, 03:06

Have you seen the video on youtube going round to activists getting them to sign the petition to ban dihyrogen monoxide :p it's funny. 'Too much can cause excessive urinating, feeling bloated, and in extreme cases death (drowning lol)'.

But seriously, yes and no. Every company needs to be responsible for itself, and that doesn't mean simply adhering to basic standards set out by governments. However, greenpeace aren't some unbiased source - they're activists with an agenda. Therefore you need to take what they say with a pinch of salt. When the royal society (does that still exist?) tells Nintendo to clean up their act I'll join in. (aha: http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278)

airchie 14th December 2007, 11:49

Its all very well following the laws to the letter but we all know how slow these laws are to change to reflect the damage we're doing.
Ninty was scored against other major corps like MS and SonyErricson and they scored the worst.
If the others can go 'above and beyond' the bare minimum of the law, I'm sure Ninty can too.

I just hope it doesn't lead to more failing products, like the 360 Ring of Death... :/

Log in

Nintendo and Greenpeace continue fighting

Related articles on bit-tech.net