Greenpeace Says Microsoft and Nintendo Harmful to Environment
By Stephany on Tuesday, November 27th, 2007 at 10:41 AM PST In Game Related Science, Gamer Life, Games Industry, Microsoft, Nintendo, Nintendo, Sony, Sony
In their latest Greener Electronics Guide, Greenpeace has publicly deemed Microsoft and Nintendo irresponsible and lacking in environmental credentials in reference to electronic waste.Giving Nintendo a 0/10 rating for its policies and practices on toxic chemicals and takeback, Greenpeace has stated that
“”The Greener Electronics Guide is our way of getting the electronics industry to face up to the problem of e-waste, [and] Nintendo completely fails to show any environmental credentials and Microsoft and Philips do little better.” This is the first time that Greenpeace has included consoles and televisions in their report alongside PCs and mobile phones.
“Companies shouldn’t be under any illusions that we won’t check up on their claims of green greatness,” commented Iza Kruszewska, campaigner for Greenpeace International.
The environmental organization ranks companies on two different types of criteria:
- The clean up of their products by eliminating hazardous substances
- Takeback and recycling of their products responsibly once they become obsolete. The two issues are connected. The use of harmful chemicals in electronics prevents their safe recycling when the products are discarded.
According to Greenpeace, Nintendo has “no voluntary takeback of products, no information on banned products, no information on how the company communicates with its supply chain and no policy on use of vinyl plastics,”and that the gaming giant scored so horribly on these fronts that there is “infinite room for improvement.”
Microsoft faired better with a score of 2.7/10, due to the company’s chemical management status and the timeline they have set to phase out PVCs by the year 2011.
Want the full list to see how your electronics faired? I have posted the list for you after the break, and you can check out the full Greenpeace report by going to their website.
- 7.7 – Sony Ericsson – New leader due to improved takeback reporting, new models PVC free, but falls down on takeback practice.
- 7.7 – Samsung – Big improvements, with more products free of the worst toxic chemicals. Loses points for incomplete takeback practice.
- 7.3 – Sony – More products free of toxic PVC and improved reporting on recycling and takeback especially in the US.
- 7.3 – Dell – Unchanged since the last version, still no products on the market without the worst chemicals.
- 7.3 – Lenovo – Unchanged since the last version, still no products on the market without the worst chemicals.
- 7.0- Toshiba – Much improved on toxic chemicals but still lobbies in the US for regressive takeback policies.
- 7.0 – LGE – Unchanged since the last version, need better takeback for products other than phones.
- 7.0 – Fujitsu-Siemens – Unchanged since the last version, needs toxic elimination timelines, better takeback coverage and reporting of amounts recycled.
- 6.7 – Nokia- A steep fall! Strong on toxic chemicals but penalty point deducted for deficiencies in takeback practice in Thailand, Russia and Argentina during our testsing.
- 6.7 – HP – Finally provided timelines for eliminating worst toxic chemicals, though not for all products; needs to improve takeback coverage. More
- 6.0 – Apple – Slightly improved with new iMacs and some iPods reducing the use of toxic chemicals, takeback programme still needs more work.
- 5.7 – Acer – Unchanged since the last version, needs better takeback coverage and reporting of amounts recycled.
- 5.0 – Panasonic – Unchanged since the last version, need better takeback coverage and reporting of amounts recycled.
- 5.0 – Motorola – Big faller due to penalty point for poor takeback practice in Philippines, Thailand and India revealed by our testing. Still no timelines for eliminating the most harmful chemicals.
- 4.7 – Sharp – New to the guide – some plus points on toxic chemicals elimination but poor takeback policy and practice.
- 2.7 – Microsoft – New to the guide – long timeline for toxic chemicals elimination (2011) and poor takeback policy and practice.
- 2.0 – Philips – New to the guide – no timeline for toxic chemicals elimination and zero points on e-waste policy and practice.
- 0.0 – Nintendo – New to the guide – first global brand to score zero across all criteria
So there you have it. Sony are wonderful and Nintendo & Microsoft are scum who are trying to kill your children
I find this extremely interesting considering Nintendo’s claims earlier in the year that they were all about the environment. They definitely aren’t as bad as most corporation outside the gaming world though. It’s still interesting considering Nintendo has claimed to be a very environment oriented corporation in the past.
Keep in mind this is Greenpeace talking. To assign a list they’ve created any type of credence is using a very lenient definition of credibility.
true. I’d like to find out a little more about this.
I agree that anything you see should be taken with a grain of salt. I’d suggest people do their own research but lets be honest, its not gonna happen for most of us heh.
Related though, it is true that these e-wastes need to be considered since they are not on such a large production scale. I feel companies do a lot to ensure the perception of environmental responsibility, but this is not the same as proper actions. A key note i would remind people of is the lax definition of recycling. Often these devices are merely shipped abroad, to countries in Africa, Southern Asia, and for us in NA, Mexico. I think that right now, it is mostly a matter of figuring out exactly what we are dealing with, since technologies are often fickle and short lasting so environmental concerns ae often neglected during production.
I could probably do a whole paper on this…but i won’t
Ron Whitaker said: “To assign a list they’ve created any type of credence is using a very lenient definition of credibility.”
Do you have any evidence that calls into doubt what they say? Have any of the company’s taken legal action about these claims?
I assume the answer to both of those questions is no so with all due respect STFU.
They forgot to mention how Nintendo and Microsoft (and Sony) contribute to global warming and noise pollution as fanboys get all hot and bothered and sound off about their favorite systems.
“Do you have any evidence that calls into doubt what they say? Have any of the company’s taken legal action about these claims?”
Burden of proof rests on the initial proclaimers. Greenpeace proclaims certain companies aren’t green. The burden of evidence rests on their shoulders. If they prove it, then the burden of proof will lay on those who dispute their claims. So I submit that it is you, kind sir, who should STFU.
Though I did check their site just now, it appears that they did provide evidence, so I know when to say I should’ve done a little more research before opening my mouth. I suppose I should STFU eh?
Yeah beleive it or not, they can actually put togethere a decent report heh. The whole issue of burden of proof is a bit of a sticky topic right now. The impacts of actions are now ever more far reaching than before, with consequences both on global and prolonged scales. This has led some in the academic world to call for a reversal, that the producer must prove no harm will be done. In all honesty, it doesn’t matter with the current system in place. Companies and industries as wholes flood underfunded government agencies with applications and permits, find the loopholes and continue on the business as usual course. Meanwhile the public lacks the scientific literacy or even popular avenues for finding the appropriate information. I feel making the companies prove themselves, wouldn’t change anything. We have no one to back check them as it is now, what will change?
Oh the inescapable horrors of an Environmental Scientist’s life…
Greenpeace was given a 10/10 rating for gayness. Has anybody heard of this?
Scientists still can’t agree that global warming even actually exists, or if it does, what causes it.
Greenpeace (and other environmental organizations, it’s not just them) perpetuates these lists, and studies, and other nonsense for one reason only: THEY WANT TO REMAIN IN EXISTENCE. You see, if science is able to prove that global warming, and ozone holes, and all the other garbage they spend their foundation’s dollars whining about don’t exist or pose no threat, then all those Greenpeace folks are out of a job.
Until Greenpeace becomes an entirely volunteer organization that uses 95% or more of its donations for its stated mission, I won’t lend credence to anything they or their junk scientists say.
Ron, Global warming is a fact of life, recognized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established by the U.N. The whole idea there is a lack of consensus among scientists stating the existence of Global Warming, is downright wrong and dangerous. Those few scientist who ‘deny it’ are merely spokesmen for lobbyists groups for Petroleum and automotive companies! This is a global problem, well proven and observed, even if you hate Al Gore, you can find the literature yourself.
By no means do i suggest Greenpeace as the answer, for i do lend some credence to your argument about their motives. The same can be said for the American Petroleum Institute however. These groups are often useless simply because they can not promote real change since their funding comes from foundations which rely on the emplaced social norms and order.
There’s a lot more to consider than just if a company has a takeback program. I’m a ps3 guy but the wii takes less energy to produce, ship, and play. Albiet then you have to buy a seperate blueray player. I could go on back and fourth. Guess that’s my point though. They use 2 variables when there are hundreds more from the beginning r&d to the end customer service to how the customer utilizes the product. Not to mention product lifecycle times. It seems almost slander when I see a g4 tv show mentioning how good Sony is and how bad nintendo is environmentally, citing the greenpeace research,when you look into it to find the information is based on 2 factors.