Greenpeace Still Hates Nintendo
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
Why is Greenpeace bothering with this stuff? Wouldn't their cause better be served by spreading the word about recycling electronics? Around my area, Best Buy does this; I see hundreds of components piled up there every time I visit. Greenpeace could work with trash collectors to have certain days where electronic goods could be picked up and set aside for disposal. Mere scolding isn't going to fix anything.
Nooo, Greenpeace aren't like that. I think this announcement is a little bit nutty by Greenpeace standards. They are normally quite decent in what they do, protecting the environment and crashing expensive speedboats. Please dont confuse them with groups like PETA.Avashnea said:
Does Greenpeace ever do anything beside those silly protests like chaining themselves to trees -- and apparently, giving out scores for companies for what their public policy on biodegradable electronics is? Like, some research, conservation efforts, some positive action at all? Really, I get to wonder...
Precisely. Instead though, Greenpeace is mostly staffed by retards who just want to get in people's faces. Last time I was in a good mood and let myself talk to one and see if they could convince me that they are actually doing something useful, she told me "I can't wait to get arrested." Game, set and match.Veylon said:
This has to be true... from what I understand, Nintendo is a very environmentally strict company. For the press companies they use, for example. You need to be a "Nintendo Preferred Vendor", which is a bit of a misnomer: If you're not a NPV, then you don't do any work with Nintendo, period. If you *are* a NPV, then any time you introduce something new hardware/chemically to the print shop (a new, specific ink, a new machine, etc.), they want a sample of the chemical, or the specs on the new machine. They then check it against thier own environmental policy. If it doesn't meet thier standards, the company has two choices: don't use the chemical/machine, or lose Nintendo as a client. It's important to note, too, that this new chemical/machine doesn't have to have anything to do with a Nintendo project; if I designed something that required a specific ink that then got rejected, the printer would either ask me to change the ink, or get it printed elsewhere.vansau said:
If Nintendo is that strict with other companies that they work with (environmentally), then they have to have other, strict processes internally. The fact that they keep clam about the whole think is hurting them; they should just release the info. How is it gonna hurt any more than "they don't say anything, so they must do nothing about it"?
I don't actually know their names...but yeah, I assume that's one of them.Avashnea said:
I know one is basically a group of pirates.
Let 'em hate Nintendo. Why should Nintendo care? I thought the Japanese were sensible to the environment and last I checked, the big N was doing fine with that.vansau said:Greenpeace Still Hates Nintendo
In a move that surprises as absolutely no one, Greenpeace's Guide to Greener Electronics still lists Nintendo in last place.
The fifteenth edition of Greenpeace's Guide to Greener Electronics has been released for the month of May, 2010, and Nintendo sits in last place for the tenth time in a row. Of course, Sony and Microsoft didn't do much better on the list.
The report evaluates 18 major electronics manufacturers, assigning ratings based on the polices they have for toxic chemicals, the impact their products have on the climate, and their recycling policies. A 10 point scale is used, and Nintendo scored a dismal 1.8 for this month. This is, however, an improvement for Nintendo, seeing as how the company scored a 1.4 in the last report.
A large factor for Nintendo's repeated low performances is that Greenpeace scores a company based on stated policies. This, however, means that if there isn't any public information about a policy, then the activist organization automatically assigns a zero to that company for said category. Since Nintendo is incredibly tight-lipped about many of its policies, Greenpeace repeatedly slaps the game-maker with incredibly low scores.
Greenpeace has been publicly critical of Microsoft and Sony, as well; the Xbox 360's manufacturer barely did any better than Nintendo, placing 16th with a score of 3.3. This was, however, also an improvement from the January report, since Microsoft scored a 2.4 in the last report.
Sony sits much higher on the list, at sixth place. Of the three game companies in the report, Sony was the only one to have a score decrease from January, having dropped from 5.1 to 4.9.
Unsurprisingly, nobody's commenting on their scores in the Guide to Greener Electronics, which really isn't all that surprising. When you're a corporation like Nintendo, you tend to care more about public thinks; seeing as how the public keeps on shoving money into the company's hands, it's pretty obvious that these reports aren't affecting purchasing trends.
Source: <a href=http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/28728/Greenpeace_Flunks_Nintendo_For_The_10th_Time.php>Gamasutra
Permalink
The company doesn't have to tell the public anything, but Greenpeace is an activist group run by people who cannot afford to tell the truth. If they did, people would see just how foolish they are, and probably demand that they have their assets seized and their company shut down.
They hate nuclear power, which is very efficient and safe, and they fixate on energy saving bulbs which contain freakin' mercury, the same stuff they say is dangerous. And I can assure you that people will surely throw light bulbs into the trash before a console, which can easily be fixed if you know who to talk to. Hypocrisy, anyone?
But, as is the case with all "green" activists, they're only in it for the money, their true green treasure of the world, unless it's gold, silver, ect.
lol so true.JJMUG said:
The problem with greenpeace is they don't conduct themselves with a professional attitude. I'm pretty sure the whole world is aware of what is environmentally friendly and what isn't.
I'm not going to disown Mario because of the effect Nintendo may or may not be having on the Amazon rainforest. Similarly i'm not prepared to live like a primative, self sufficient community, to adhere to Greenpeace's idealoigies.
There's a reason sience (technocentric future) is realism and ecocentric sustainability is 'art'
I bet if Nintendo had named their one console the Dolphin, Greenpeace would have been all over them like flies to honey. Or maybe if it's been green and/or had the little "energy efficient" sticker on the Wii somewhere.
Honestly though, the only green things Nintendo seems to like is Money. It certainly isn't Luigi, poor guy...
Honestly though, the only green things Nintendo seems to like is Money. It certainly isn't Luigi, poor guy...