The Greenpeace "Guide to Greener Electronics" first included video game consoles in November of 2007 and awarded Nintendo the distinction of being the first company to receive a score of 0 out of 10. The next quarterly Greenpeace guide gave the Nintendo Wii system some credit for energy efficiency and awarded Nintendo 0.3 out of 10.
Between the two "Greener Electronics" reports, Greenpeace launched their "Clash of the Consoles" website which caricatured Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft's mascots and used creative prose to trash claimed toxic policies. Here is an example of Greenpeace rhetoric from the site: "Mario might be super but he's no hero when it comes to avoiding toxic chemicals. He gets zero recycling credits."
This May, the Greenpeace study used scientists at their research facility and two independent labs to literally dissect the current generation of systems: Wii, PlayStation 3, and Xbox 360. Their examination found traces of bromine and phthalates in all systems, as well as beryllium in the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. Interestingly, bromine is used for safety as a fire retardant and phthalates are present in plastics to make them more easily recyclable. None of the consoles contained toxins that exceeded legal limits for toys by EU guidelines. Nintendo has pledged to remove phthalates from their products in place of more efficient plastic softeners.
Greenpeace was quick to add the consoles are not dangerous to have in the home, but their afterlife as e-waste will have devastating effects on the environment. Zeina Al-Hajj, Greenpeace International Toxic Campaign coordinator stated: "Nintendo doesn't have any environmental policies."
Nintendo was quick to respond to the allegations of toxic culpability:
"Nintendo has not been badly rated by Greenpeace. Greenpeace chose to conduct a survey and produce a report, which graded companies upon the voluntary submission of information.
"Nintendo decided not to take part in the survey and were therefore 'ungraded' in the resulting report. Nintendo provides detailed information regarding our compliance to EU Directives via the Consumer Section of our website and therefore we felt it unnecessary to take part in the Greenpeace survey.
"Furthermore, we fully comply with all the necessary EU Directives on the Restriction of Hazardous Substances aimed at environmental protection and consumer health and safety. Furthermore, in order to ensure our products are safe for use by young children we also take into consideration the standards applicable to toys."
Mercury in drinking water is no laughing matter, GP.
Mercury in drinking water is no laughing matter, GP.
Here is an example of Greenpeace rhetoric from the site: "Mario might be super but he's no hero when it comes to avoiding toxic chemicals. He gets zero recycling credits."
Here is an example of Greenpeace rhetoric from the site: "Mario might be super but he's no hero when it comes to avoiding toxic chemicals. He gets zero recycling credits."
I call BS Greenpeace. Mario is a plumber with 25 years experience, his ability to handle all kinds of chemicals would be unmatched by any other mortal.
Greenpeace DOES have a point though, don't they? Nintendo isn't voluntarily doing anything to protect the environment. They're merely complying with laws... and doing nothing out of the goodness of their own green heart?
Greenpeace DOES have a point though, don't they? Nintendo isn't voluntarily doing anything to protect the environment. They're merely complying with laws... and doing nothing out of the goodness of their own green heart?
Greenpeace does not have a point. Obeying the law is all we can ask of Nintendo, because if that isn't good enough, why haven't we changed the laws so that it would be? It is incredibly stupid to set a standard and then criticize someone for "merely" meeting it. Picture the flair scene from Office Space.
Greenpeace is just too far up their own ass. I'm pretty sure there are bigger problems with the environment than people throwing their PS3s/broken 360s in the trash.
Furthermore, we fully comply with all the necessary EU Directives on the Restriction of Hazardous Substances aimed at environmental protection and consumer health and safety.
Great if you're in the countries in the EU, but what about US standards? Is the underlying assumption that EU standards are higher than the ones in the United States/Canada/Mexico?I'm not sure about Canada/Mexico, but I'm pretty sure that the EU's standards are generally more stringent than the US's.
