
Recently Nintendo
came under fire from Greenpeace, earning a big, fat zero on the environmental group's
Guide to Greener Electronics.
Go Nintendo reported yesterday that a company rep claimed the Wii manufacturer never saw the Greenpeace slam coming:
We were surprised by the content of the Greenpeace report, given that we take great care to comply with all relevant regulations on avoiding the use of dangerous materials, recycling, etc. For example, all Nintendo products supplied worldwide are designed to comply with relevant global standards.
In order to certify that Nintendo products comply with standards for hazardous chemical substances, Nintendo has established the Green Procurement Standards, which require our component suppliers to certify that any parts they deliver do not include hazardous chemical substances, and ensure that Nintendo fully controls its products internally.
We are always actively looking at ways to continue to increase our environmental stewardship and hold this as a corporate priority worldwide.
Ars Technica called Greenpeace's research methodology into question shortly after the November release of the critical report.
Comments
Don't they ever get tired of lying. Didn't one guy get kicked out for asking questions? Bjorn Lomborg or something.
Unless I'm misreading this statement.
No. What they are saying is that they have had "green" policies in place for several years and that Greenpeace are a bunch of idiots for not recognizing them.
Had Greenpeace done their homework and not been total ignorant morons they would have known that.
But it is understandable how you thought that. The comment regarding the Procurement Standards is worded such that it could have started yesterday. I believe it is much older than that, however.
This shouldn't even really be news. Greenpeace appears to have gone to Nintendo's website to find the information, and then gave Nintendo a 0 for not posting what they were looking for, rather than trying to contact someone within Nintendo. Anyone who does that kind of "testing" is simply going for reactions, not something worthwhile.
Exactly! I could support Greenpeace, because I'd rather the Earth not become a unlivable place, but all we seem to hear about is how they're actions are amoral, illegal, unethical, or just plain stupid. I can't support them at all.
That being said Greenpeace's record is getting worse. As Olvan said they used to be a LOT better at advocating for their agenda than they are now.
damn hippies
No. Nintendo got a zero because the Nintendo US website did not have any green policies listed on their website. Greenpeace did not even check the Nintendo Japan website or contact Nintendo directly.
Websites and the information listed on the websites were the only way they gathered their information. THey did not contact any company directly.
Greenpeace is a lot like PETA. They have an admirable cause, but they screw themselves over with their methods.
PETA has an admirable cause? As far as I can tell, it's to rid the world of the concept of domesticated animals, which is not what I call admirable.
Not to mention get rid of our instincts, which is to eat meat...
Anyways, I think Nintendo seems pretty green, relative to like auto companies and stuff. We've all pretty much established that Greenpeace cannot rate worth crap
Point noted. I was referring to the work against actual abuse of animals. Not the vege-nazism. To be honest theyre pretty crazy in most aspects.
Sorry if i was unclear :S
The thing about "reports" like this is the way they tend to just appear from out of nowhere and criticize the company. If you try to establish communication with a company and they choose to ignore it, that's one thing. Then you can say "Hey, there are serious problems here and they aren't doing a thing about it." On the other hand, if you blindly shoot your missiles all over the place with the intent of saying "Look! Look! An F is them!" you're the one who looks foolish.
PETA abuses animals, even if they try to paint it otherwise.
Only those who don't know of Greenpeace history of lying and making out of proportion statements. If they lie to get their point across, they are not worthy of any credibility (if they had any).
So when you say they aren't as radical as the ALF, just remember they're simply not doing it directly.
Point noted. I was referring to the work against actual abuse of animals. Not the vege-nazism. To be honest theyre pretty crazy in most aspects.
Sorry if i was unclear :S
What work against the abuse of animals? Last I checked they apparently considered keeping domestic animals to be abusing them, and had a habit of just killing animals turned over to them.
And... PETA is the number 1 killer of stray and abandoned animals in the United States of America. Says so right their in their publicly-filed animal corpse disposal record.
I'd rather wear nothing...
PETA does jack shit for animal rights and animal abuse. They just posture. It's the ASPCA that does the good work for animals. PETA's just their to attention whore and pretend to care, which is a great trick.
You see, the problem is that Greenpeace is made of a bunch of jackasses with a political agenda.
As for Nintendo, I'm suprised at them. Really, I would have told Greenpeace to fuck off and go chase after some other idea than global warming.
Seriously, has anyone looked at the places they put those devices they use to detect temperature? In California, they're all on top of metal roofs by the exhaust vent, which is how you get all these bits of data that say things like 146 degrees Farenheit.
That's a real good study, the ones that Al Gore talks about. And by real good, I mean complete bullshit.
Seriously, Global Warming is a crock of shit. Remember when everyone was freaking out about 'Global Cooling??'. The new ice age that was coming about? Yeah.
I have never laughed so hard. I sometimes think PETA favors animals to people.
Some of you said they believe domesticating an animal is a form of abuse. So maybe they think that if an animal has already been domesticated, it can't really live in the wild properly, and can only survive by being taken care of, aka "abused", so it's best to just kill it and put it out of it's misery? Or something like that.
I mean, I haven't had much respect for PETA ever since I heard about their "got bear" campaign, which coincidently enough was timed right around the time when various articles were reporting on how binge drinking was at an alltime high, but even so, I'm a bit surprised to hear all this about them, assuming it's true.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
Ingrid Newkirk (founder and president of PETA) has said numerous times they're opposed to pets. They're also opposed to zoos, medical testing, and guide dogs for the blind. And as previously stated, their tax records show a history of paying bombers like Rodney Coronado shortly before a major bombing.
A really good thing to watch is the episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit on PETA. While much of their show is biased as hell, this is a very no nonsense episode.
Wow, I'm impressed. You apparently know more about climate change than actual climatologists, who say the Earth is warming.
Well dern, I thought we had a pretty good explanation for millions of tons of melting glaciers at the polar icecaps, but I guess we're back at the drawing board.
Off the main topic, but thought you might enjoy the links below. There are an equal number of adherents to GW as there are skeptics, but the skeptics are never featured in the media. Regardless of your belief in GW, you should know what both sides have to say.
BTW, how do I prevent a URL from being a mile long???
Global Warming Scam
1. "Well, Greenpeace is calling attention to the environmental problems and calling for transparency. Why are you upset that they are calling out a company which doesn't have the facts plainly visible?"
2. "Nintendo did have the facts visible, it is just Greenpeace didn't do any real research. Greenpeace is doing more harm than good for the environmental movement by blatantly lying and crying wolf when there is no problem. If they keep it up, no one will believe anything any environmental group says, due to the fact that Greenpeace was a leader for so long."
1. "Well, I don't see why you are so upset with Greenpeace, there are so many more deserving groups."
2. Shake head, sigh, walk away.
That is what I get for arguing with someone more stubborn than I am (I was number 2 btw).
type them this way.
<a href ="your URL here"> Text to display </a>
(if there is an x on href, don't type it. It keeps coming back.)
if you start lying you will go to hell says so in the bible if you believe in it
Not helping.
I don't believe in it, a lot of people don't, and it's not even the point of the topic.
@ JQuilty
Can't say no to Penn and Teller- they might have people do their own homework, but at least it's factual.
I would have figured that industries in general would have had the nutsacks to give these special-interest/environmentalist groups the finger and tell them to munch on what their shoveling, particularly when all they're doing is just kicking sand in someone else's face and causing more problems instead of providing a logical means to solve them. Giving into these pricks is giving false credibility to such groups in public eyes, allowing them to push an agenda they needed push.
@Kajex
i was just going off of what Anonymous said as posted here
Greenpeace’s methods get bitch slapped again.
Don’t they ever get tired of lying. Didn’t one guy get kicked out for asking questions? Bjorn Lomborg or something.
Maybe they're boycotting Japanese sites until the whaling stops?
im just makin a statement and agreeing with some one dont shoot the messenger
I looked it up (prompted somewhat by Austin Lewis' post). Turns out i have been attributing some of ASPCA's work to PETA.
/head desk
Im just gonna slink away. Sorry for dragging this off topic.
I don't see the relationship between what Anonymous said:
And what you said right above my comment:
Which your statement was what I was responding to. That's why what I posted was, y'know, directly below it.
Well, find me a place in California where the temperature hits 145 degrees farenheit on a regular basis (during summer months) and I'll be willing to take the information they glean from their poorly collected, biased, and absolutely faulty data.
They're very commonly confused.
Mainly, PETA throws paint on people and postures and demands things that are irrational.
The ASPCA is the group that fights against abuse, takes care of dogs in pounds, and provides funding to certain pounds. They are also the people who gained pet-shops the right to confiscate your dog if it has signs of abuse (I'm serious, I have SEEN this happen).
Thanks for clarifying. :)
By the way; wasnt there a tv show about the ASPCA once? "Animal Police" or something? I remember it like a "COPS" spinoff with animals.
@ JJmug
They have been known to burn down research facilities and labs; without the leaders of the organisation condemning it. I guess technically they are.
Animal Hospital was, I believe, funded by the ASPCA, as was Animal Police, which was actually probably the single most depressing thing I ever spent thirty minutes watching on TV in my life.
I agree. Still, it was somewhat satisfying when they actually caught one of the scumbags.
Thank you!! I'm glad there are some people on here talking sense!!
Well, Greenpeace is alright and all. But they got their flaws too. there's quite a numerous number of things I really disliked about them. But also some things I like.
I recall the Sea Shephard writing an article on what Greenpeace has turned into in the process.
So here's hoping Greenpeace gets their practices repolished.
(Only thing that perplexes me is that my Wii materials are said to be made in China..hahah)