Comments on: Greenpeace Says Microsoft and Nintendo Harmful to Environment

By: Nate

Nate — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:23:37 +0000

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.

By: lorgar

lorgar — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:37:26 +0000

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.

By: Ron Whitaker

Ron Whitaker — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:37:58 +0000

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.

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:34:24 +0000

Greenpeace was given a 10/10 rating for gayness. Has anybody heard of this?

By: lorgar

lorgar — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 02:19:05 +0000

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…

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:23:11 +0000

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?

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:06:02 +0000

“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.

By: Ldysabella

Ldysabella — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:03:25 +0000

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.

By: Norbit

Norbit — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:00:09 +0000

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.

By: lorgar

lorgar — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:42:24 +0000

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

By: William

William — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:39:12 +0000

true. I’d like to find out a little more about this.

By: Ron Whitaker

Ron Whitaker — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:31:09 +0000

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.

By: William

William — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:54:44 +0000

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.

By: Norbit

Norbit — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:38:23 +0000

So there you have it. Sony are wonderful and Nintendo & Microsoft are scum who are trying to kill your children