1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Nintendo still most eco-unfriendly console maker

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 8 Jan 2010.

  1. CardJoe

    CardJoe Freelance Journalist

    Joined:
    3 Apr 2007
    Posts:
    11,343
    Likes Received:
    292
  2. l3v1ck

    l3v1ck Fueling the world, one oil well at a time.

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    12,942
    Likes Received:
    16
    I think you're confusing me with someone who cares.
     
  3. Boogle

    Boogle New Member

    Joined:
    8 Mar 2002
    Posts:
    282
    Likes Received:
    6
    Or you could just, y'know - not read articles you don't care about?
     
  4. yuusou

    yuusou Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    1,860
    Likes Received:
    207
    +1

    Tho they probably still rate Nintendo like this because Nintendo still don't tell them everything (nor probably does anyone else).
     
  5. eddtox

    eddtox Homo Interneticus

    Joined:
    7 Jan 2006
    Posts:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    15
    Maybe you should? Regardless of whether you believe that the world is heating up, or cooling down, or that it's a natural cycle, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if we dont take a greater interest in protecting our environment, it will come back to haunt us, sooner or later. I don't mean to preach, but the world we live in is everyone's responsibility.

    thanks
     
  6. freedom810

    freedom810 Member

    Joined:
    3 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    592
    Likes Received:
    2
    I care, but I think judging by nintendo's sales not many people do...I don't know why greenpeace even bother with these types of things, what is it achieving apart from telling us, the consumers that they are not a 'eco-friendly' business. Shouldnt they really be having a go at oil companies or governments?
     
  7. eddtox

    eddtox Homo Interneticus

    Joined:
    7 Jan 2006
    Posts:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    15
    By making (potential) customers aware of a company's green credentials, greenpeace enables said customer to make an informed decision about their purchases from an environmental point of view. Granted, many people may still chose to buy their products, but some people who are particuarly passionate about the environment may choose to take their business somewhere else. Secondly, there is a hope that by "naming and shaming" these companies, they might be persuaded to change.

    I agree that the oil companies and governments are "bigger fish", but at the same time, every little helps. Especially when oil companies are largely inclined to disregard/discredit green efforts as it directly affects their revenue stream.

    thanks
     
  8. Furymouse

    Furymouse Like connect 4 in dagger terms

    Joined:
    4 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    621
    Likes Received:
    22
    I actually go out of my way to not support those companies who would bend to greenpeace's will.

    Labelling someone eco-unfriendly just because they refuse to cooperate with you is just throwing a tantrum for not getting your way. " You won't give us the information? Well you're a poo-head."
     
  9. ch424

    ch424 Design Warrior

    Joined:
    26 May 2004
    Posts:
    3,112
    Likes Received:
    41
    The people who run/work for Greenpeace are so painfully stupid it's annoying. They hinder progress so much it's actually revolting. Their metric for 'eco friendly' is actually 'who tells us their recycling policy'. Electronics manufacturers are required by law to not use a blacklist of harmful compounds/chemicals in the manufacture of their products, and in Europe are required to have a recycling policy. The greenpeace ratings are pretty arbitrary, and scoring highly is more of a PR exercise than a fair representation of environmental policy, as Furymouse said above.
     
  10. eddtox

    eddtox Homo Interneticus

    Joined:
    7 Jan 2006
    Posts:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    15
    Greenpeace aside, why would companies not want to release information regarding their environmental policies? Surely it is in their (pr) interest to be seen as environmentally responsible?

    I am aware that there are legal guidelines/requirements for the various sectors, but they are not, in most cases. a complete solution but a (often small) step in the right direction. I am not saying that greenpeace is perfect and we should all go chain ourselves to trees, but the sooner we realise the we each have a responsibility to our world and to each other, the sooner we can start moving forward together.
     
  11. Ending Credits

    Ending Credits Bunned

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2008
    Posts:
    5,234
    Likes Received:
    210
    My dad actually worked with Sony about the PS3 as a consultant for proper waste disposal (i.e most eco-frienly parts to use).
     
  12. SchizoFrog

    SchizoFrog New Member

    Joined:
    5 May 2009
    Posts:
    1,574
    Likes Received:
    8
    The headline is such an understatment... of course they are eco unfriendly... they are Japanese. Now that is NOT a racist comment before you start. The Far East as a whole are very eco unfriendly. Just look at their whaling, shark fishing, manufacturing processes... etc. Green Peace have a continual prescence over there... although I did find this quite funny...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dXCR9LX-Kc
     
  13. TSR2

    TSR2 New Member

    Joined:
    19 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    160
    Likes Received:
    4
    I'm off to the Nintendo shop then...
    And Apple? Doesn't it mill MacBook cases from a single piece of aluminium, which obviously is rather wasteful? Even recycling takes energy. Greenpeace seems to be getting rather McCarthy-esque nowadays, even for a eco-organisation.
     
  14. TheUn4seen

    TheUn4seen New Member

    Joined:
    22 Oct 2009
    Posts:
    68
    Likes Received:
    2
    I just wonder who paid Greenpeace for that opinion. You must be foolish to believe them, Greenpeace are just eco-terrorists for hire.
     
  15. javaman

    javaman May irritate Eyes

    Joined:
    10 May 2009
    Posts:
    3,384
    Likes Received:
    68
    They had apple top according to HardOCP. Now you know the list is bull. Quite a few market survays put apple as one of the worse!!
     
  16. Farting Bob

    Farting Bob New Member

    Joined:
    21 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    469
    Likes Received:
    13
    I dont get this kind of response. They DO go after oil companies and governments, heavily. But that doesnt stop them releasing a list once a year on other things.
     
  17. dryrice

    dryrice Zestious Knight

    Joined:
    8 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    84
    Likes Received:
    3
    toxic consoles are the way to go
     
  18. N!ck

    N!ck ModMag.Net

    Joined:
    24 Sep 2008
    Posts:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    Greenpiss ;) is just making monez there own way.......
     
  19. l3v1ck

    l3v1ck Fueling the world, one oil well at a time.

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    12,942
    Likes Received:
    16
    You misinterpreted my post.
    The article is interesting, but I don't care which companies are green and which aren't. It has no baring on which products I buy. Greenpeace just annoy me with this kind of thing.
     
  20. LucusLoC

    LucusLoC New Member

    Joined:
    28 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    91
    Likes Received:
    3
    hey, time to go buy a wii!

    honestly why do we even pay attention to Greenpeace? they are morons who's polices are usually against the environment when you actually look at them. they used to have activists sit in fields up in Yosemite park to block control burns in the 70s and 80s. then half the park burned down because of too much undergrowth. . . . yeah, how is not managing parkland eco friendly again?

    and they actively encouraged bio diesel when it was the new fad, completely ignoring how much new land would have to be put to the plough to provide the corn and soy needed for the bio plants. oil is way better, since it takes up way less space, and the co2 released from the burning of oil is one of the greatest benefits to the environment that mankind has ever given. if only we could actually make the planet warmer and wetter, just think of how happy all the plants would be! co2 is nothing more than airborne fertilizer as far as plants are concerned. and the higher the concentration we can put out, the faster plants will grow and the happier the biosphere will be.

    now don't get me wrong, i don't like the sulfur in the air that some coal plants produce, and i am happy we banned lead in gasoline, but the war against co2 is retarded. we need to be putting *more* co2 in the air, and less of the other stuff.

    what we really need is more conservation, and less "eco" and "green" anything. if you want a good example of good conservation, look at pretty much any modern day hunting organization in the U.S. they have have wildlife and environmental management down pat. why? because they actually learned from their mistakes and have an honest motivation to keep the environment healthy. you can't hunt deer or turkey if they are all killed off now can you? also the hunters actually spend time with nature, and understand the woods and fields. unlike the vast majority of Greenpeace activists, who grew up in cities and have no idea how a forest actually works.

    i know most of this from personal experience, as i grew up in the sticks before i moved to the big city. most people, in my experience at least, who grew up in the woods hate "environmental" groups. they just plain don't know what they are talking about.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page