|
|
Microsoft and Nintendo hate the world
Author: Joe MartinPublished: 28th November 2007
Do you do your bit to help save the environment, or are you too much of a Nintendo fanboy to care?
Normally the flak is all aimed at Apple, but this year the tide has turned and the hippies are angry at some different companies - especially Microsoft and Nintendo.
Companies are ranked on a 1 - 10 scale, with the higher the score the more environmentally friendly the company is deemed to be. Microsoft and Nintendo made it to the top of the list year, ranking as the most toxic and rainforest destroying companies in the industry.
Nintendo was the first company in the list to score a grand total of zero points, mainly because the company refuses to tell consumers exactly what substances and chemicals are used when manufacturing the Wii. Nintendo has also openly said that it has no plans to cut emissions or to reduce the number of hazardous chemicals used in it's products.
Other companies which made the list included Sony Ericson and Samsung, both of which scored 7.7 for their environmental policies. Whether or not you trust Samsung in this matter is an entirely different argument.
Nokia, which had previously been top-dog for it's conscientious policies, was slated for not living up to them this year and for failing to meet many targets.
What's your opinion on climate change and recycling? Do you bother to do your bit, or are you in Bill Gates' pocket too? Let us know in the forums.
Related
Comments (20)
Compare over 250 mobile phones &
52,000 deals!
Compare over 100 broadband & mobile broadband deals online!
- Site Links:
- About
- Email Editor
- Newsletter
- Privacy
- RSS
- Score Guide
- Our Other Websites:
- Auto Express
- Channel Pro
- Computer Buyer
- Computer Shopper
- Den of Geek
All content © bit-tech.net 2000-2009
© Copyright Dennis Publishing Limited licensed by Felden
in all fairness, nintendo should really be communicating this sorta stuff better. but for everyone to just blindly report 'omg greenpeace scored nintendo 0' shows unprofessionalism, at the very least.
edit: after actualy reading bit's article i take back some of what i said - you covered the fact nintendo didn't have any data. i just assumed it would be the same as what i've been reading everywhere else.
Next PETA will be up in arms about cruelty in Nintendogs.
\^.^/
I have hazardous chemicals in my Wee, dunno about your Wii tho
"Then they sat on their porch and drank beer all day."
"They're not all they're cracked up to be,"
"They do a little more than save fish from the sea."
....from a little known Punk ditty.
Greenpeace just deciding that Nintendo is terrible for the environment, simply because the japenese company won't release information to a group they almost certainly hate (Greenpeace ain't particularly popular over in the land of the rising sun) doesn't mean squat. And if Greenpeace are just deciding that Nintendo must be terrible, simply because Nintendo refuse to tell them about their business practises - then that's no more than petty sniping. They could equally choose to say "we don't know, so we'll assume they're the best", but they're being petty, chilidish, vindictive and no doubt anti-corporate too.
This sort of thing makes me want to go hunt whales.
edit: Actually, no, it doesn't. Whales seem pretty cool. This sort of thing makes me want to shoot stupid reprobate hippies in the face with harpoons.
why do the people at bit-tech keep on referencing this greenpeace list?
it not only is a very poor way of measuring a companies actual use of "toxic chemicals" but they fail to mention exactly what these chemicals are. this list is only good for those companies who are at the top of it to use as a PR campaign. greenpeace has turned from an organization who protected the environment in the 70s and 80s to a politically driven smear campaign under a flag.
i can't believe that people refer to their shady statistics as fact.
as far as that whole climate change fiasco read this:
http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=140113
I could call you an idiot, if it would make you happy? Just because the hippies are annoying as hell, and long term climate change being caused by humanity still seems debatable to an extent, there are some things that are clear.
Fuel is running out. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased significantly and still are, and this is probably bad. Fuel costs lots of money, the less we use, the more money we have.
I would exchange that car right now if someone where to do it with one of those hybrid's. Or that uber small compact car that (I think) Chrysler released just recently. I am dead serious. But you know what? No one would do that in their right mind because my old car is dated, and worthless to everyone but me. My car is completely paid for, done and done. I love not having a monthly payment in addition to gas. I care about the environment, but sociecty is blind to reality. I cant afford a $25k hybrid, therefore I drive what I can afford. When hybrids are cheap and used, then I'll get one. But thats a long way down the road. If you where to calculate out the monthly payment of a hybrid, the cost to drive it, maintinance and so on. I am sure it would be more then I have spent already on this car in its entireity (including gas). The surplus supply of low MPG cars is at a high, and the demand of cheap cars is at a high. 2+2 in my economics.
:)
Thats quite an assumption and, while I'm not saying you're wrong, you'd be better off doing the math before you made such bold and possibly foolish claims since you seem to care about the environment as much.
Everything requires sacrifice.
That was a typo (dyslexic) on my part, it *should* read. "I am sure it would be less then...."
I will also break down what I've spent on this car plus gas;
Cost of car: $900 Literally
Cost per month in gas: roughly $200-220
220x12months (about how long Ive owned it) + $900 + $120 title= $3660
Alot less, clearly, then a hybrid.
:)
also: insurance? tax? or does daddy pay for these things?
I call it my granny mobile. But looks on a car dosnt bother me anymore. Up until I smucked a deer with it, it was a really decent looking car. Buick Roadmaster, go look it up and educate yourself before making stupid comments. V8 5.7L aint nothing to "piss" about.
I pay for my stuff, and fixed my "piece of piss rustbucket" after I killed that deer. I should've put that price in there for that, my bad, add on $200.
:)
:)
it's not the size that counts!