Want to save money on your electricity bill, and thus saving the country a big whopping amount of energy; Plus saving some of the coal used at your local power plant? According to the National Resources Defense Council you help by just enabling your power-saving auto-shutdown modes which come installed on your Xbox 360 and PS3.

Per the NRDC website:

More than 40 percent of all homes in the United States contain at least one video game console. Recognizing that all that gaming could add up to serious demand for electricity, NRDC and Ecos Consulting performed the first ever comprehensive study on the energy use of video game consoles and found that they consumed an estimated 16 billion kilowatt-hours per year — roughly equal to the annual electricity use of the city of San Diego. Through the incorporation of more user-friendly power management features, we could save approximately 11 billion kWh of electricity per year, cut our nation’s electricity bill by more than $1 billion per year, and avoid emissions of more than 7 million tons of CO2 each year.

According to the website, the Nintendo Wii (long blasted by Greenpeace) uses an average of just 16 watts in active mode and uses far less power to operate than any other console. Meanwhile, the Xbox 360 consumes an average of 119 watts in active mode, but offers users a built-in auto power-down option, even though the feature is disabled by default and buried within the system menu.

The biggest watt sucker of the bunch?  Why, the PS3 of course.
Read the full article

Going green is the latest fad in the US, and apparently its fashionable in the UK as well. It’s a given that gamers have ignored Greenpeace’s declaration that consoles are toxic waste. However, those who still want to play but be Earth conscious about it can take a few tips from this gamers guide to going green.

Given the current state of the economy – with all of us facing credit crunch and rising gas prices – combined with my huge sense of guilt for indulging in a pastime that isn’t always easy to justify as green, I have put together some of my top tips for greener gaming.

Handily, they should save you some money, too.

Enjoy the show,
Katharine

via ChannelFlip

“Going Green” is currently “in” and Greenpeace is taking full advantage of the trend by once again assaulting video game consoles. According to the environmentally friendly organization, all the game consoles on the market contain hazardous chemicals that can put your memory and sexual development at risk.

“The technology is already available for manufacturers to design out harmful toxics and produce cleaner game consoles now,” Greenpeace said in a report this week. (www.greepeace.org).

“A greener, cleaner game console is possible. There’s no excuse for playing dirty.”

Greenpeace claims it has found toxic chemicals and materials such as polyvinyl chloride, phthalates, beryllium and bromine in the latest next-gen consoles from all three of the major manufacturers. It also slams consoles for creating e-waste as dumps fill up with unsafe recyclables

All three companies have responded to Greenpeace charges in defense of their manufacturing policies.

“In line with these standards, Sony ensures globally consistent management of chemical substances in parts and materials,” said a statement issued by Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. “We are taking steps wherever possible to reduce and substitute these substances.”

A Nintendo spokesman said the company was in no position to comment on the Greenpeace tests, but added: “What we can say is that we only sell products that have cleared each nation’s strict standards.”

A Microsoft statement said the company’s products “exceed guidelines and regulations which aim to reduce the environmental impact of consumer electronics”.

I personally would like to see some unbiased studies on the toxicity of the chemicals and materials used in these game consoles. When you throw around accusations that playing video games may affect your sexual development, I want some proof to back that claim up.

via Reuters

Remember back in December when Greenpeace sent out a report of how environmentally friendly various electronics companies were? And remember how Nintendo scored a big fat zero on their scale, completely baffling both Nintendo and others alike? Well, none of that has stopped Greenpeace from releasing a new report this month, with Nintendo still bringing up the rear. This time the company has jumped up a bit to score a 0.3 on the scale, but Greenpeace still says they need to make more effort to “clean up their products by eliminating hazardous substances” and “take back and recycle their products responsibly once they become obsolete.”

Wait, let me see if I’ve got this straight: Greenpeace wants Nintendo to make efforts to recycle their obsolete products? Are they referring to the past generations of consoles, like the NES, SNES, N64, and Gamecube? Because most of the people who still have those probably have no intention of giving them up anytime soon. Nintendo doesn’t make HD-DVD players, Greenpeace; their stuff never becomes obsolete.

Via Game|Life

After all the fuss about Sony and Nintendo coming under fire from Greenpeace this summer, it shouldn’t be too surprising that the gaming industry is attempting to go greener.

To that end, GIGABYTE is launching an environmentally friendly line of motherboards. The new boards are reputed to save energy by using GIGABYTE’S Dynamic CPU Voltage Control settings combined with its Dynamic Frequency Control (CPU Throttling) which is engaged with the flick of a switch. For full details, read the press release after the break.

via FireingSquad

Read the full article

In a recent Greenpeace study, Nintendo was deemed to be harmful to the environment, a claim which the game company claimed it was “surprised” by. Ars Technica has already fired a shot at Greenpeace’s apparent sloppy investigation, but Greenpeace doesn’t seem to be phased. In fact, they’re sticking by their guns and are claiming they contacted Nintendo before releasing their study, so there’s no reason for Nintendo to be surprised.

They also contend that Nintendo didn’t even so much as respond, let alone attempt to do anything about it. On a Greenpeace blog, the following was posted: “We contacted the company by letter to their US, European and Japanese headquarters informing them of our guide … Before the ranking was published Nintendo received their ranking to correct or question anything we may have missed. No response was received.”

As Jonathan said when reporting on Nintendo’s response, just who are we to believe?

via Game|Life

You may remember a couple weeks ago when Greenpeace issued a report where they ranked Nintendo as the electronics company most harmful to the environment. And you may also remember soon thereafter when Ars Technica challenged the report and accused Greenpeace of pretty sloppy research. Well, now Nintendo has finally spoken up and given their two cents on the matter:

We were surprised by the content of the Greenpeace report, given that we take great care to comply with all relevant regulations on avoiding the use of dangerous materials, recycling, etc. For example, all Nintendo products supplied worldwide are designed to comply with relevant global standards.

In order to certify that Nintendo products comply with standards for hazardous chemical substances, Nintendo has established the Green Procurement Standards, which require our component suppliers to certify that any parts they deliver do not include hazardous chemical substances, and ensure that Nintendo fully controls its products internally.

We are always actively looking at ways to continue to increase our environmental stewardship and hold this as a corporate priority worldwide.

And now the crucial decision: who should I believe? The environmental agency who has employed numerous unorthodox tactics in the pursuit of their goals over the years; or the company who has brought me some of my most beloved games for almost the entire course of my life? Decisions, decisions.

Via GoNintendo

Earlier this week, Greenpeace released a report scoring companies on environmental responsibility. For the first time game consoles were included in the research. Microsoft scored low, but Nintendo was given an unprecedented score of zero.

Ars Technica asks whether consumers should take this score card seriously. Greenpeace reserves the right to deduct penalty points “if Greenpeace finds a company lying, practicing double standards or other corporate misconduct.” Greenpeace also judges companies based on whether they have substituted chemicals that are known to cause health and saftey problems, even if the evidence is rather ambiguous, for environmentally friendly alternatives without researching whether there is indeed an alternative to be had.

Ars Technica charges Greenpeace with sloppy or lazy data gathering claiming it based its scores on unreliable sources of information.

The research in general appears lazy. Nintendo’s failing grade appears to be based entirely on this entry in the corporate FAQ, which briefly summarizes some of the steps the company has taken to protect the environment. Anything that’s not covered there is simply rated “No Information.” Similarly, all of the information on Microsoft originates from press materials and corporate statements on the company’s web site. Clearly, Greenpeace did not perform an exhaustive evaluation of chemical use through the manufacturing pipeline.

This lack of research undercuts the report’s credibility when it comes to chemical use during manufacturing. That’s unfortunate, because Greenpeace applied the same approach  to recycling programs, a situation where it makes sense. Recycling programs have to do more than simply exist; to be effective, they have to be easy to learn about and use. As such, checking for easy to locate material on a company’s website is actually a reasonable standard to evaluate these programs by.

Overall, it’s hard to take this report as a serious indication of the progress companies have made in eliminating hazardous chemicals from their manufacturing processes. But, if some companies respond to the bad publicity by expanding recycling programs and ensuring that they’re easy to use, then it’s possible that something useful will come out of it.

I’m afraid I too would have to question Greenpeace’s methods of research. The organization is riding a fine line between trying to spur companies to become more environmentally responsible and accusing companies of unsafe practices without evidence.

via Ars Technica 

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:

1. The clean up of their products by eliminating hazardous substances
2. 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.

Read the full article