Nintendo Responds to Greenpeace Criticism
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Oh lol, the best part is a lot of people will fall for their statement and not take the crappy hardware into consideration.
If you didn't care you wouldn't have said anythingdanpascooch said:
Anyway as has been pointed out before Greenpeace has lied on these things before and gotten caught [http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2007/01/6507.ars]. Not that I'm saying Nintendo shouldn't improve on things, which they definitely should, I'm just saying that the white-knighting of a group like Greenpeace which will distort information just to try and get a point across comes off as silly.
Then again looking at the other half of posts in this thread are "hurr hurr the Wii's hardware is inadequate" it's obvious what tone this thread has already taken, i.e. the stupid one. If Nintendo is somehow the sole perpertrator of global pollution/warming that some are trying to paint it to be, well then I hope they do more of it so that the world ends a lot damn sooner so I can be done putting up with people who tout words and labels like "hardcore" and "casual" and parrot things said by Englishmen in nice hats since they (the people in question) are unable to generate their own thoughts without being told by distinguished personalities what to think.
And no that second paragraph isn't me refuting the idea that Nintendo should improve things, since the paragraph is using the logical fallacy of the idea that one company is responsible for all the environmental problems of the Earth, which it obviously is not.
Exactly no matter what we are going to kill ourselves be it greenhouse gasses, war, penguin invasion from mars (yes that is where they come from) or some other crazy thing. go nintendo finishing us off sooner instead of prolonging it WOOO. sorry nothing will make me change my opinion on how awesome nintendo is.GDW said:
I don't care, about the environment that is, I do care about hippocracy.AceDiamond said:
And so far, I don't see anyone white knighting Greenpeace at all, also, what motive would they have to single out Nintendo for their criticism, none, so what "point" are they distorting to get across? That Japanese game companies are dumb?
Also, those posts about Nintendo's lack of hardware are not stupid at all, they point out that the low energy consumption is NOT a product of environmental forethought and rather a side effect of cheap design. Which means that Nintendo should not be credited with this "environmentally friendly policy" since it was never their intention, just an unintended side effect, and that it doesn't mean that Nintendo will be environmentally responsible in the future. We cannot rely on side effects, companies need to actively think about about how they can lessen their environmental impact to have a long term effect. Until people see Nintendo do something environmentally on PURPOSE (and for the purpose of being environmentally friendly) we cannot expect them to be an environmentally responsible company going into the future.
Lastly, I don't see anybody saying that Nintendo is the sole perpetrator of anything, all I see is you blowing the opinions of these posts out of proportion.
Why are you being so defensive about this? Do you think this thread is stupid because it criticizes Nintendo? Because you are both calling the posts stupid AND simultaneously saying that we have an opinion that NOBODY here has expressed (that Nintendo is the sole perpetrator).
It is ok to like Nintendo, but try to be impartial about this.
Meh. Either way, the Earth will die, humanity will die, or humanity will go into space, abandoning the planet. In either three scenarios, I'll be dead, so what do I care? 
What does Greenpeace want Nintendo to do? Create some sort of air machine for us to play on, with discs made of dirt?
What does Greenpeace want Nintendo to do? Create some sort of air machine for us to play on, with discs made of dirt?
I thought the term "Environment Friendly" or "green" branded full of shit. Are there still companies who use this as a fucking excuse to cut costs?! Oh wait, it's the 21st Century. Anything to keep Eco-Nuts quiet long enough until they find something to ***** about.
Here is the problem with Greenpeace, they really do not like anything that uses any form of consumption of resources. I wouldn't matter if Nintendo made a system that ran off 1 AAA battery, They would complain that in order to make the console they had to still use plastic product.
OK we get it plastic is bat for the environment, but if using the most environmental efficient plastic known to man in this day and age doesn't make Greenpeace happy then what should they use? Wood? Well we would need to chop down trees! OK ummmm... Metal? The environmental impact on mining argument comes to mind. How about recycled newspaper and cardboard, will that appease the twits?
Also I'm sure there would be some rhetoric about the dangers of batteries because Nintendo is responsible for every person in the world who doesn't use rechargeable batteries.
It really doesn't matter what the gaming companies do. Ultimately people will complain about how the Playstation's New PSP battery cannot be properly disposed of due to this environmental concern or Nintendo's Wii motion bar has a small metal strip that was mined out of a place that was a rain forest 75 years ago and we are supposed to feel bad.
My point is as long as the company is atleast trying to be envirnmentaly sound then good for them, at least they are trying. It's a heck of a lot cheaper to release something made with plastic that has a terrible effect on the environment than to do research on the plastic and figure what is both useful and has the lowest impact on the world. I know many of these people are wanting the best for the Earth, (actually they want what's best for the Humans, the Earth can and will shake us off like a bad case of the fleas, The Earth isn't going anywhere. We are!) but it seems that they are really pushing it here with rating things like video game consoles. There are 1000000 other things that have a larger impact ont he environment than the Wii (Figi water pollutes 3 gallons of water for every 1 gallon they "purify" did you know that?)whats next toasters?
OK we get it plastic is bat for the environment, but if using the most environmental efficient plastic known to man in this day and age doesn't make Greenpeace happy then what should they use? Wood? Well we would need to chop down trees! OK ummmm... Metal? The environmental impact on mining argument comes to mind. How about recycled newspaper and cardboard, will that appease the twits?
Also I'm sure there would be some rhetoric about the dangers of batteries because Nintendo is responsible for every person in the world who doesn't use rechargeable batteries.
It really doesn't matter what the gaming companies do. Ultimately people will complain about how the Playstation's New PSP battery cannot be properly disposed of due to this environmental concern or Nintendo's Wii motion bar has a small metal strip that was mined out of a place that was a rain forest 75 years ago and we are supposed to feel bad.
My point is as long as the company is atleast trying to be envirnmentaly sound then good for them, at least they are trying. It's a heck of a lot cheaper to release something made with plastic that has a terrible effect on the environment than to do research on the plastic and figure what is both useful and has the lowest impact on the world. I know many of these people are wanting the best for the Earth, (actually they want what's best for the Humans, the Earth can and will shake us off like a bad case of the fleas, The Earth isn't going anywhere. We are!) but it seems that they are really pushing it here with rating things like video game consoles. There are 1000000 other things that have a larger impact ont he environment than the Wii (Figi water pollutes 3 gallons of water for every 1 gallon they "purify" did you know that?)whats next toasters?
weeeelllll... me being a member of Greenpeace, I have a feeling my opinion is kiiinda biased in favour of them... soooo yeah...
Boooo! Hisssss! Bad Nintendo!
Boooo! Hisssss! Bad Nintendo!
That would make you wrong in two threads then, they're unfriendly because of what they use in their products and basically not giving a crap about the environment. Nokia sell far more phones than Nintendo does Wii's, yet they top the list in terms of "green-ness". Greenpeace doesn't work on specific quantities either, they work on specific chemicals and measures of reduction. For example, Nintendo isn't phasing out a few bad chemicals, they'd not recycling shit and they're increasing their carbon footprint.coxafloppin said:
edit: Not to say I fully agree with the list, the criteria are horrible and it would be fairly easy to score high on Greenpeace's list just by publishing the right crap on your website and doing nothing, but Nintendo isn't ranking horribly because of politics, production levels or anything else, they're doing so because they don't give a crap about the environment. If you don't care about chemicals dumped into the environment, then that's fine. But if you're somehow trying to reconcile your love of nintendo while giving a crap about the environment, you're deluding yourself.
People still care about Greenpeace? This smells like another example of my parents' generation making up reasons why video games are bad.
When it comes right down to it, I want my gaming console to be made out of the best materials, not the greenest materials. You go, Nintendo. Keep using that PVC and making consoles that don't RROD.
When it comes right down to it, I want my gaming console to be made out of the best materials, not the greenest materials. You go, Nintendo. Keep using that PVC and making consoles that don't RROD.
The wii if sort of eco-friendly as since only crap is released on it, it is never switched on and uses no energy
