Greenpeace: Nintendo bad for the environment

by David Hinkle { Nov 27th 2007 at 11:30AM }

Greenpeace took a look at major companies and their output on the environment, recently. And, for all of us who love the Big N, it's sad that Greenpeace ranked them dead last. Yup, turns out Nintendo doesn't have favorable policies toward managing their toxic chemicals and recycling, according to Greenpeace's Guide to Greener Electronics.

Due to the addition of television manufacturers and gaming consoles, some companies are finding themselves on the list for the first time. Such a company is Nintendo, who also found themselves to be the first company to score a zero out of possible ten points. Nintendo's competitors in the gaming space fared a bit better, with Microsoft scoring a 2.7 and Sony scoring an incredible 7.3.

Tags: environment, green, greenpeace

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Dash @ Nov 27th 2007 11:46AM

What? They didn't count the Chibi Robo: Park Patrol as a "green game" in their score? Good, that whole "only at Walmart" thing was strange anyway.

And I guess the point from Eco Creatures was dropped by the fact that Mario has been killing turtles for the last 20 years and Pokemon is all about slaving animals for one-on-one-cock-fights (but who could resist when it's so fun?)

GumbyX84 @ Nov 27th 2007 11:48AM

I WISH people would stop posting about this stupid article!!! The only reason they got a 0 is that Greenpeace couldn't find any information on the topics they grade on on Nintendo's Environmental FAQ page. They state this deep within the article so no one sees it. That grade is invalid and Greenpeace should have never graded them without doing the proper research. I wish blog sites would do the research instead of just posting random topics like this.

velocitystrike @ Nov 27th 2007 12:10PM

Yeah, I saw on the pdf. It's ridiculous. Nintendo has always been a secretive company and all you see across the detailed "scoring" is "no information", which certainly doesn't mean Nintendo isn't taking part in these practises (practices?). They simply don't release information so openly about it. Anyway, as a company they've done feckloads to improve life in other ways.

This riles me, because it's such a short sighted and troll-type study.

Me no likey greenpeace atm kthx.

Brello @ Nov 27th 2007 12:51PM

No kidding, I keep seeing Greenpeace on all my favorite gaming sites. Don't support yellow journalism, dammit!

Ethan @ Nov 27th 2007 12:56PM

Yeah, who ever manages to get any information whatsoever out of Nintendo. Greenpeace sure threw this one together though, it's no excuse.

Mind you, a European release Date of TBA from Nintendo does definitely mean 'After Christmas.'

likedonduan @ Nov 27th 2007 9:51PM

I think I've read an article about how their office (at least the main office) use 70% recycled paper and your every single booklets/manuals they produce are using recycled paper too. Does it count?

Plus there's so many "no information" about Nintendo on greanpeace article.

TheCoats @ Nov 27th 2007 11:49AM

well at least us nintendo plaYERS will know how to deal with the monsters that arise out of the toxins

Byron Fortescue @ Nov 27th 2007 11:53AM

sure, previous posters are right, but they forget that Greenpeace does ask companies to give the information.. They don't, so that's their bad and why they score so low, they prolly will score low if they give the information, but not with zero points..
As it is crucial for information like this to be given to the consumer (see for example: Apple (http://www.apple.com/environment/ )), I think Nintendo is really to blame here..

GumbyX84 @ Nov 27th 2007 12:36PM

How?? Why?? Have you actually GONE to Nintendo's website and check it out yourself? Someone at Kotaku did and they actually have a section about environmental information (http://www.nintendo.com/corp/faq.jsp#environment) They do list some information, but not the information the Greenpeace was looking for. So they fail them? Please tell me how that makes sense, because I don't see it.

Brello @ Nov 27th 2007 12:57PM

I can't believe anyone listens to Greenpeace. They're unprofessional, unethical bastards. They've always been chocked full of misleading info and straight up lies. Support greener, cleaner practices, but do NOT support Greenpeace.

Ethan @ Nov 27th 2007 1:00PM

Reading the environment section, I remember when we stopped getting plastic shells for our gameboy games. I liked them.

nintendolover @ Nov 27th 2007 1:37PM

f Yay!... for Nintendo getting on the list.

RupeeClock @ Nov 27th 2007 2:36PM

Because green peace is a professional, unbiased and truthful organisation that doesn't have a secondary agenda of hating government control?

They're just fear-mongers that get caught up in the saving the world agenda and start pointing fingers to try and get attention, don't listen to this...

Jamesology @ Nov 27th 2007 2:38PM

LMAO... the Nintendo fanboys feelings get hurt.

Actually, it's you Nintendo Fanboys that are "short sighted and troll-type study." Why would a big company show how much they are made in profits but hide their environmental section? What's so important about the environmental section that they have to hide it.

Just like McDonalds; where's the nutritional facts on the food? Oh yeah, it's somewhere in a far corner where I can't even face it and read it. Oooh, let see how you fanboys justify this.

Here let me give you a head start,
"Well Sony doesn't make systems no more b/c they don't even sell it."

*cough ..denial*

GumbyX84 @ Nov 27th 2007 2:53PM

You DO understand most of us are pissed because they didn't do ANY research, right? Just because they don't post it online doesn't mean its not public knowledge. Also, as many posters on other sites have stated, Greenpeace only researched each company's website for their "environmental practices". If they wanted to do a truly unbiased article, they should have called the companies up personally to get the info, and leave the website as an extra point or two in the grading.

Jamesology @ Nov 27th 2007 4:59PM

Nintendo got the system, games, and even customer service all to near perfection. They even sent out "Free" Wiimote jackets ...
(yes I got mine, though very ugly but it was FREE)
...but from all those, they just can't add content in the environmental section; especially at this point of time where Global Warming is a HUGE issue.

With Al Gore running around preaching about global warming and the Kyoto Treaty up and running (may I add also started in Kyoto Japan in 1997). It's kinda hard to miss. For a company that only concentrates on Video Games, that is pretty weak in comparison to MS, Sony, Samsung, and Toshiba and/with their multiple sectors. LMAO and Sony has the lowest standards in customers service too (well in my opinion, and other physical proof threads in this site)

Hmmm... are you serious Gumby?

likedonduan @ Nov 27th 2007 10:01PM

Of course we felt hurts. You know why? because this is DSFanboy website where Nintendo fanboys gather together and will try to denial this.

Jamesology @ Nov 28th 2007 3:07AM

Well likedonduan, even though its a Nintendo fanboy site. A lot of these people still reject the fact that they are fanboys.

Famous fanboy qoutes:
"well, I own both systems (like most of us do) I know what's best, so this sucks...."
"Don't call me a fanboy just b/c I love to buy the best, ..... does suck"
etc.

And these ppl I find humor in bothering. But since the fact that you do admit at being a fanboy, likedonduan, well then, enough said.

Just like how PSP fanboys love to go into DS Fanboy site and vise versa. I love to bother just fanboys.

Xian B. @ Nov 27th 2007 5:13PM

So Nintendo gets NO points for purposely designing their new home console to save power? Whereas Microsoft and Sony make power-hungry machines with only token (if any) consideration towards power consumption?

Nintendo could and should create a component recycling program (if they have one, it's not advertised as far as I've seen), and they may deserve to be in last place, but they certainly don't deserve zero points. What an arbitrary study.

Macha88 @ Nov 27th 2007 5:54PM

I guess its because the wii uses so little power.

James @ Nov 27th 2007 9:09PM

Ugh, will somebody please explain to the stupid fucking hippies the difference between "null" and "zero"?

Anyway, they should be thrilled that Nintendo's flagship consoles both use vastly less power per hour than their direct competition.

eryk @ Nov 28th 2007 11:39AM

PLUS WHO IS RECYCLING NINTENDO GEAR ANYWAYS? Besides the 8-bit toaster oven, their equipment and games hardly ever gives out, and it doesn't become obsolete since there has always been a market for pretty much ANYTHING nintendo that still works

blueman2000 @ Dec 13th 2007 11:50AM

McDonalds actually has started to clearly label nutritional guides (with bar graphs in fact)

While it is possible that Nintendo is using toxic materials, its not like Greenpeace found toxic materials in the Wii or other hardware. The study is inconclusive, but since Greenpeace has always been sensationalist, they went ahead and gave Nintendo a zero, and hammered the other major electronic companies.

I do think that the press this has received is good. All they want is for companies to publicly reveal policies, not give away trade secrets. If Nintendo is not using toxic materials, it won't be hard for them to make something up and publish it, it won't change their manufacturing. And at least the public will know for sure then.

That being said, it is irresponsible of Greenpeace to publish a misleading article such as that. They score a 0 on their PUBLIC POLICY, not necessarily their product or policy.