Nintendo has scored the bottom place slot in Greenpeace's latest guide to green electronics with a measly 0.3. The games console maker was behind the competition in the environmental pressure group’s latest guide to greener electronics. Greenpeace, which rates performance based on tech companies’ policies and practices on toxic …
Or in other words....
Nintendo felt that they had better things to do with their time than fill in Greenpeace's long, boring forms. Just like last time. That's the only way a firm operating in the developed world could possibly score zero without actually breaking the law.
Well that explains....
... why weird man-eating creatures and plants live down the sewers in Marioland.
I got a new Wiimote over weekend and the amount of paper work that came with it spouting where to dispose of it in a clean way was ridiculous. N cant wii-n either way.
Let me speak for the silent majority...
Who cares about "green computing"??? Can we please stop with the endless articles about which firms are doing what in the name of .environmentally friendly manufacturing methods?
Want a green solution? Turn your companies work stations OFF before going home for the day. On a global scale that will do more to reduce energy consumption and the pollution caused by generating all that energy than any of these other "green" computing solutions.ever will. Just think of the millions of workstations running 24 hours a day when there's only a user sitting in front of them 8 hours a day. All that energy waste just so maybe once per week a network admin can push updates after hours...
Oh god, not again
Stop reporting these.
Please. I'm begging you. These guides are based solely on the length of time the companies spend filling Greenpeace's forms and otherwise dancing to their tune. No more. Stop feeding the trolls. Report something more important. Has Paris Hilton gone to Rwanda yet? I don't care if you write a three page story around a 'no comment' from her PR agency, anything but more Greenpeace.
Paris Hilton because OH GOD STOP GIVING GREENPEACE THE OXYGEN OF PUBLICITY.
it's not even that - they don't even send forms by the sound of it.
"Each score is based solely on public information on the companies website. Companies found not to be following their published policies will be deducted penalty point in future versions of the guide."
The score is a measure of how much environmental information is on their website.
It might be low, but 0.3 is not the same as Zero. So you get an F for this class.
But Nintendo does recycle...
Think of all those Gamecube parts that they're now using in their Wiis!
The one with the Nunchuck and Wiimote, please...
.............Crystal clear proof that the PS3 is way better than the Wii
Why on earth do Greenpeace think they know how the world of computing and technology should be run? Surely an important criterion for being a member of Greenpeace isn't to be a world leader in technology, is it?
Hippy tree-huggers. Bah.
Rainbow Warrior is Powered by Rainbows
And they run their cars on wishful thinking and from the exhaust, comes sustainable rainforest.
So it may look like all they ever do is complain about stuff without making any solutions, but that's just not true.
Maybe Greenpeace could hook up with the U.S. Airforce synthetic fuel efforts - you could probably fly half the bomber fleet on the bullshit that Greenpeace produces.
Go and kill yourself
It's amazing how many of you seem to be quite contempt to work with hardware that possibly contains unnessary amounts of toxic materials.
So, to all of you with the evironment-I-don't-care attitude: This is not about dictating companies how they produce, but making customers aware of what is used in the production.
Anything wrong with letting you make an educated decision? Most of you wouldn't go out and buy a car based solely on a shiny brochure and the promises of the car dealer either.
Then again, some of you do. And you entirely deserve what you get.
Its nice to see
the Greenpeace have the time to look through this stupid and highly irrelevant forms.
I hope it stops them from approaching me in the street complaining that I am using a carrier bag lecturing me on how long it takes to decompose and that I need to be doing more. Funny enough they do not like it when I explain that all their ranting does is emmit more carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere than is necessary. Its better than telling them to ***k off.
Except in this case, as it was last time, the ratings are not a measure of "what is used in the production", and don't give the consumer any worthwhile information whatsoever.
It's based on the fact that they don't have any information. If Greenpeace actually had any data apart from what's published on a company's website, then it could be worth paying attention to the press release. As it is, it's an attention-grabbing big bag of nothing.
@Go and kill yourself
Right, because I'm sure nintendo make their consoles out of liquid mercury, have company cars that run on leaded petrol and generally just distribute heavy metals as far and wide as possible. After all, getting a 0.3 from green peace is definitive.
I'm willing to lay everything I own on the fact that the wii is no more or less bad for the environment than any other piece of computer kit with the bonus that it encourages people to be healthy and active which might eventually help reduce dependence on cars.
Do I have to explain the icon?
The word "possibly" is basically what everyone's laughing at. No-one's said it's unimportant, the problem is that a decision based on the study will NOT be an educated one. For reasons why that is, you need to bother to actually read the preceding comments.
I'd be surprised if the Wii was more wasteful than either of the other two consoles; I bet they draw far more power. They certainly sound as though they do.
Actually, I do care. And, for the record, Nintendo should publish this information. But Greenpeace is getting as bad for spin as most governments and coporations these days, and I have no doubt that this published research doesn't bother anywhere to mention that the reason that Nintendo got such a bad score is not because they are environmentally negligent, but because they apparently don't care about proving that they're not. Which is an odd approach these days, admittedly.
I'm not interested in what companies claim that they're doing, only what they actually ARE doing. And if they aren't interested in co-operating with Greenpeace, then Greenpeace should do some more thorough research to find out, not simply give them a low score and move on.
yeah but Marco
It's only poor folk in the Far East that suffer the toxic waste from computers.
Dirt-poor peasants don't read The Register and they don't buy computers. The opinions of bitter office workers are infinitely more important than birth defects over the other side of the world....
@Go and kill yourself
"Anything wrong with letting you make an educated decision? "
When Greenpeace didn't get forms back from Nintendo last time they gave them a zero score, indicating the number from Greenpeace is posturing rather than engineering.
A quick scan over the Wii, we know it has the lowest energy figure, it's the smallest box so likely the least plastic. Minimal PVC (connector housing looks like PVC) in there, similar chipset to the rest, just smaller, so likely less waste per item. SImilar packaging to the rest.
i.e. it's likely to be the greenest of the consoles. But if you wanted to double check they'd take one apart.
So if you want to get the greenest console buy a,.... wait, Greenpeace say 'Xbox'? Are they freeking nuts, that thing is huge, with acres of plastic, it gets real hot too as it sucks the juice down. And why did it score like that? Because Microsoft sent back the survey? Did they even check the number MS gave or did they just take it as wrote?
You see Greenpeace are just a joke right now, I expect to see a Pepsi sponsorship deal soon.
Dirt-poor farmers don't matter - who gives a toss about birth defects on the other side of the world - our biggest threat is overpopulation, so in reality we're the planet a favour by wiping the young out early
Didn't the fad of making nonsense words by placing E- in front of a perfectly valid term burn out already? Shouldn't it at least be iWaste nowadays?
This isn't about "I don't care". It's about a bunch of self-righteous twits running around telling people what THEY should (or more often, what they shouldn't) do without putting an ounce of effort into solving the 'problem' themselves. If you want to claim that their role, their contribution, is to 'make people aware' then they have outlived their usefulness and can shut up now (please).
From what I can see, Greenpeace is a business like any other. Their achievement seems to be that they can produce cash flow just by producing hot air... hmmm, I wonder if that's why the environmental 'movement' was attractive to a certain big name politician?
I'll save my respect for the people/companies that come up with AND PRODUCE real-world clean(er) solutions that allow people to carry on living their lives as they see fit.
Exercising encouraged by the Wii Fit is bad for the environment , humans eat food and Nintendo Wii owners will get this from a supermarket. If they move around a lot they burn up food, which takes lots of CO2 to produce, playing games on it is bad because it uses electricity, unless you would have done something active instead. Using a Wiimote is worse than a normal controller.
Staying as still as possible is the greenest thing to do, dancing is a very evil thing as it wastes energy like running, always walk or cycle at a low speed. We eat 20% fewer Calories a day than the early 1970's this has saved lots of CO2.
Wii vs PS3 vs Xbox
...under running conditions Wii uses least. Under standby conditions, Wii uses the most. It is actually very poor at being low power in standby.
Paris cause even she can read a power meter.
Oooh... feeling a bit sorry for Marco here. Hope he realises that the anger is really directed at the Greenpeace BSers.
Greenpeace? Don't make me laugh
Greenpeace is run by a bunch of power-tripping failed politicians and lawyers. If they gave a flying rat's ass about the environment, they'd be working on an eco-friendly way to get industry into orbit, where there's no environment to pollute and no ecology to destroy.
My engineer buddy tells me we have the ability *right now* to build a mag-lev launch system that could put a reusable 100-ton manned craft into orbit. It isn't being done because it needs to be built in Tibet or South America to take advantage of the combination of tall mountains and Earth's rotational speed.
What's Greenpeace doing about that? Not Jack shit, that's what.
Start using the Sun. Seriously, with a fraction of the money the USA spent on Iraq it could have built enough solar plants to power the entire country.
But no, we're capitalists...