Greenpeace Claims Nintendo Destroying Planet
Mario Factory scores 0 out of 10 for environmental sustainability!
According to environmental saviours (or tree-hugging, middle-class hippies) Greenpeace, Nintendo is doing nothing to help fight climate change (or global warming, depending on your Gore-rating).
We know this because the Mario maker has scored a miserable zero out of ten in a recent Greenpeace survey.
In terms of the main platform holders, in terms of planet protection the Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics puts Sony on top and Nintendo right at the bottom, with Microsoft trailing not too far behind with its tail between its legs.
Sony scores of 7.3 out of 10, a respectable score due to its efforts in recycling, 'takeback' and having massively decreased the number of products containing any form of toxic PVC over the last year. Well done Sony, you might be trailing in the console race, but at least you’re helping to conserve the planet!
Microsoft scored a miserable 2.7 out of 10, mainly due to its poor timeline for eliminating toxic chemicals, its poor recycling policy and practice. Rubbish, Microsoft. Literally, rubbish! SPOnG expects a better score next year please.
Finally, we come on to the Japanese planet killers, Nintendo. 0 out of 10. The first ever global brand to score nothing across all criteria, according to Greenpeace with "infinite room for future improvement."
For Nintendo to score zero in all nine categories - chemicals management, timeline for the precautionary principle (a chemicals policy), PVC phaseout, timeline for the phase out of brominated flame retardants (BFRs), PVC-free and/or BFR-free models, individual producer responsibility, voluntary takeback, information to individual customers, and amounts recycled – is nothing less than an abomination. The company should hang its head in shame.
If the Wii wasn’t so much fun, we’d probably urge you to boycott their products.
We know this because the Mario maker has scored a miserable zero out of ten in a recent Greenpeace survey.
In terms of the main platform holders, in terms of planet protection the Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics puts Sony on top and Nintendo right at the bottom, with Microsoft trailing not too far behind with its tail between its legs.
Sony scores of 7.3 out of 10, a respectable score due to its efforts in recycling, 'takeback' and having massively decreased the number of products containing any form of toxic PVC over the last year. Well done Sony, you might be trailing in the console race, but at least you’re helping to conserve the planet!
Microsoft scored a miserable 2.7 out of 10, mainly due to its poor timeline for eliminating toxic chemicals, its poor recycling policy and practice. Rubbish, Microsoft. Literally, rubbish! SPOnG expects a better score next year please.
Finally, we come on to the Japanese planet killers, Nintendo. 0 out of 10. The first ever global brand to score nothing across all criteria, according to Greenpeace with "infinite room for future improvement."
For Nintendo to score zero in all nine categories - chemicals management, timeline for the precautionary principle (a chemicals policy), PVC phaseout, timeline for the phase out of brominated flame retardants (BFRs), PVC-free and/or BFR-free models, individual producer responsibility, voluntary takeback, information to individual customers, and amounts recycled – is nothing less than an abomination. The company should hang its head in shame.
If the Wii wasn’t so much fun, we’d probably urge you to boycott their products.
Companies:
Nintendo
Read More Like This
Comments
DoctorDee 28 Nov 2007 18:27
1/4
What's shocking (to me at least) about this report is that over the time Greenpeace has been running it, the highest scoring companies have fallen back. In March 2007, Lenovo scored eight. In the latest report, the highest score is around 7.6. And Nokia, who a year ago scored 7.5 now scores 6.5.
I personally do not believe that Nokia has changed its environmental policy that much in the past year, so you have to assume that the scoring method is flawed.
Equally, giving Nintendo ZERO when they weren't even included in previous surveys seems like a pr stunt to garner some coverage for the report.
I personally do not believe that Nokia has changed its environmental policy that much in the past year, so you have to assume that the scoring method is flawed.
Equally, giving Nintendo ZERO when they weren't even included in previous surveys seems like a pr stunt to garner some coverage for the report.
GOSH 28 Nov 2007 18:53
2/4
The only reason ninty god a bad rating was because they couldnt get the info. I saw the Greenpeace thing and for every 0 it sadi info not avaible dirty liars!!!
more comments below our sponsor's message
schnide 29 Nov 2007 10:26
3/4
GOSH wrote:
The only reason ninty god a bad rating was because they couldnt get the info. I saw the Greenpeace thing and for every 0 it sadi info not avaible dirty liars!!!
Information not available because it isn't collected, because Nintendo don't do any of it, possibly?
And maybe the reason those companies have scored lower this time around, such as Nokia, is because the criteria have become more stringent, or the initiative has fallen by the wayside?
Let's not jump to conclusions - it's a worthy thing that Greenpeace are doing here, and it would benefit "our" industry to improve scores all round.
DoctorDee 29 Nov 2007 10:59
4/4
schnide wrote:
Let's not jump to conclusions
But that's EXACTLY what you did:
"because Nintendo don't do any of it, possibly"
"the initiative has fallen by the wayside"
Adding a question mark at the end doesn't turn your assumptions in to reasonable questions.
it's a worthy thing that Greenpeace are doing here, and it would benefit "our" industry to improve scores all round.
But Greenpeace are zealots. If what they are doing is intended to be worthy, it would behove them to undertake even the most basic diligence in their methodology. Awarding a company an "unprecedented" zero because they don't know how god or bad the company's record is is pathetic. I was a Greenpeace sympathiser and supporter, but this just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Not because it's Nintendo, I am pretty neutral about Ninty... but because it could have been ANY company. Because it's shoddy behaviour, and because they didn't even include Nintendo in the last five surveys, which leads me to conclude that their inclusion now is merely a PR stunt.