Greenpeace: Nintendo Stills Ranks Worst on Environmental Issues

With Earth Day on this month’s calendar, environmental group Greenpeace has issued its latest Guide to Greener Electronics. The report documents how well consumer electronics manufacturers perform in relation to the environment.

In Nintendo’s case, nothing has changed; the Wii and DS maker remains dead last. Apparently, the phenomenal success of the Wii has contributed to an increase in Nintendo’s CO2 emissions.

Among other console makers, Sony showed improvement, while Microsoft regressed, according to Greenpeace. The organization dinged MS for poor handling of e-waste.

From the report:

Nintendo remains in last place with a pitiful 0.8 points out of 10, scoring zero on all e-waste criteria. The company has banned phthalates and is monitoring use of antimony and beryllium and although it is endeavouring to eliminate the use of PVC, it has not set a timeline for its phase out.


Nintendo discloses carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from its own operations and commits to cutting CO2emissions and other greenhouse gases by 2% over each previous year. However, Nintendo admits that an increase in business led to a 6% rise in CO2 emissions in 2006.

Grab a PDF of the Greenpeace report here.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. Snipzor says:

    I’m sorry, I’m trying to think of a time in which Greenpeace was relevant. But I can’t because I, nor do many others, do not give two shiats when it comes to them. A bunch of whiny ass hippies and hipsters who think they are so self-important but honestly don’t know shiat about anything


    //Hates Environmentalist Douchebags and Hipsters.

  2. axiomatic says:

    Cause you know, the Greenpeace boat is a hydrogen fuel cell powered boat so they have no contribution to hurting the environment with CO2 emmissions.

    Oh SNAP!!… its just a regular old boat with just as many emmissions as any other boat.

    Here is an article on the hypocritical Greenpeace boat the "MV Esperanza" a Soviet-era ship that relies on diesel to power its engine:

  3. Austin_Lewis says:

    Any organization that pays for a boat used to ram fishing vessels sounds like a terrorist organization to me.  Of course, if someone were to ram MY sailboat, I’d probably board their vessel and kick the shit out of the captain.  Nevermind that it’s okay for Greenpeace to have a big-ass freighter that runs off of diesel, the rest of us should use sailboats, because we’re less important.

    Here’s a quick tip on how to identify greenpeace being full of shit; they refuse to release any hard statistics on anything, instead spouting anti-corporate slogans.  It’s not even about ‘helping the planet’ anymore, its about being anti-capitalism.  That’s why one of the founders left.

    Plus, global warming is bullshit.  That’s why they changed the name to climate change; it hedges their bets.  The world gets warmer, they were right.  The world gets colder, they were right.  The whole thing is based on some of the flimsiest science and statistical analysis I have ever seen, and it’s all about making certain groups rich while attempting to further kneecap real corporations.  Which, in all fairness, they don’t need; Obama’s already trying his hardest to do that.

  4. TBoneTony says:

    Plus it is not Nintendo’s fault that the have had to bost production.

    At least they are not dumping waste into the environment…

    Perhaps we should need to look at the facts and not look too much into the sensationalism that fuels the debate.


  5. TBoneTony says:

    Nintendo is doing well at the moment, so Greenpeace has someone to attack.

    It is because of things like those people is the reason why I don’t bother with mainstreem news at all.

    These people are only digging their own graves by trying to attack businesses who only just want to entertain people and the Greenpeace guys are also been attacking whale boats which does not do them any good even though they believe they are fighting for the right cause.

    Kinda like a contradiction of a few other things that we gamers have known about for a long time.


  6. The Hangd Man says:

    I understand what you’re getting at, and you’re right, that in many regards, one should consider the message before shooting the messenger. But, and this is a fairly large but, when the messenger has proven on many occassions to be deceptive in its methods and at other times outright wrong in its statements, one tends to shoot that particular messenger on sight.

    I’d agree with you that mass consumerism is bad for the environment, but that’s what the modern economy is based off of. You can’t exactly blame a company for being sucessful, that’s what it’s intended to be, correct? Nintendo themselves have stated that they are working in reducing co2 emissions, but increased business has raised those emissions (in the year 2006, who knows about other years) We also don’t know the rate of production compared to the co2 increase. It could’ve been that had Nintendo now had such a large increase in business it would’ve lowered its CO2 production signifigantly. We don’t have the numbers at hand, so we don’t really know. On the other hand, Greenpeace as usual goes out half-cocked and gives out reports like this without the full information.

    As to your comments about gamepolitics, it still is a good idea. Yes there are several immature people on here who lash out against anyone who says anything bad about games, there are many on the other side who lash out against our hobby for seemingly no particular reason and they call themselves researchers, lawyers, and politicians. The latest study posted here on GP seems like it will be worth looking at, but several of the other "research" papers that have been published looking for correlation between video games and "aggression" have more holes than the ones I had to review as a TA back in high school. There are, and always will be, reactionaries on both sides of the fence, and the GP forum is not immune to them either. You just have to ignore them and look to the calmer voices of reason. Like Mark Shurtleff 🙂


    P.S. Using immature doesn’t make you a narc. It just means you’re getting older. Welcome to the club.

    P.S.S. You might want to look into some of the things that greenpeace has done. I wouldn’t call the entire organization terrorists, but there are a few members that the label seems to fit.


    I hate broccoli/ and think it totally sucks/ Why isn’t it meat?

  7. Im_Blue says:


    Although im no greenpeace fan boy I can’t beleive how instantly dismissive everyone is about a fairly serious issue…… calling them terrorists? I must be missing something.

    Despite how misleading these figures may be, at the end of the day mass consumerism IS bad for the environment, and as a conseuqence Nintendo’s increasing unit sales are not good for the interests of the worlds population (apart from the console being fuck fun to play.) I love video games as much as the next person here, but we need to be self critical at times and recognise the braoder implications of our hobbie and ways to lessen any harmful side-effects.


    I used to think the idea of game politics was a really good idea…. debate and discussion about the wider world around gamming, and ways to improve the hobbie as a whole. Instead it’s begining to look like a conservative hive, for people so in love with their hobbie they can never even concede that MAYBE there are some bad things about it, and drill whoever suggests so in a largley immature way like  this thread is turning out to.


    God, I can’t believe I actually said immature…….. turning into a narc.

  8. Conejo says:

    Greenpeace and all other terrorist organizations can suck a dick.

    Here are we — and yonder yawns the universe.

  9. Wolvenmoon says:

    Greenpeace : "Waaaah, you don’t cave into our ridiculous demands. We rate you poorly!"

    Nintendo : Our console is the greenest one in existence. Go shaft yourself.

    GP should really stop publishing articles from domestic terrorist organizations. (Oh, I used a buzzword! But it’s true. They’re just idealogical terrorists that don’t believe in suicide bombings, no differant than the ones in the middle east.)


    I will not buy securom games. and

  10. The Hangd Man says:

    Nintendo discloses carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from its own operations and commits to cutting CO2emissions and other greenhouse gases by 2% over each previous year. However, Nintendo admits that an increase in business led to a 6% rise in CO2 emissions in 2006.

    Ummm, aren’t we a little past 2006 right now? What about current figures Greenpeace? Also this one’s from their website

    Each score is based solely on public information on the companies website.

    So if a company has information but doesn’t post it directly on their site they essentially get no score? How about doing a little basic research instead of going, "well they didn’t post it, so it doesn’t exist".

    One last thing, I’ve got a gripe about.

    takeback and recycle their products responsibly once they become obsolete.

    When do game consolse go obsolete? Still seeing NES’ and Master Systems on ebay makes me think that gaming systems have much longer shelf lives than the crappy throwaway phones Nokia and Samsung like to make.

    I’m no fan of the Wii, but could it be possible that one could produce a whole lot more of a product but do it in a more efficent way to reduce greenhouse gasses? If Nintendo made 50% more products in 2006 but only had a 6% increase in CO2 emissions, I’d say they did a pretty good job.

    /end logic rant


    I hate broccoli/ and think it totally sucks/ Why isn’t it meat?

  11. ZenAndNow says:

    Isn’t the reason why Greenpeace always gives Nintendo a shitty report card for this because they really couldn’t give a fig what Greenpeace says and never release their data to the group? Therefore the idiots give them a horrible score card in order to ‘shame’ them into cooperating.

  12. Wormdundee says:

     Why would man-made crops be bad for you? It’s simple genetic modification.

    Unless they’re genetically adding arsenic to the plant I don’t see why it would be bad for you. This is the same reason that ‘organic’ foods are stupid as hell. "Why yes, we choose to have lower yield crops, that are half the size of sprayed crops."

  13. Mabui says:

    They always have cute girls with sign up sheets walking around in the summer time. It’s too bad that all these once helpful, and righteous organizations have been assimilated by political grandstanding.

    I doubt man made crops are healthy for you, but, in the end probably more healthy then death.

    They keep crying about Nintendo though, but I’m pretty sure the main issue is that Nintendo won’t release the specifics of its business to them.

  14. TK n Happy Ness says:

    And yet, we still don’t give a fuck about Greenpeace or PETA or any organization that does something illegal to get their point across.

    When Jack Thompson runs his mouth, does anyone really care what he has to say anymore?

  15. Dragoon1376 says:

    Part of the issue with the global warming/environmental protection crowd is they believe that over population is one of the major causes, if not THE cause, of all the planet’s ills.  It doesn’t matter if you come up with a GMO crop that is hardier than other varieties and can grow in sub-optimal regions.  By allowing a population to continually expand, you’re looking at an increased consumer base which will then lead to more CO2 emissions and what not.  Basically, they can’t advocate mass killings of the population to reach their "sustainable" levels (which I believe some have said is 2 billion tops so 4 billion of the world’s population need to cease existing) so they stymy other advances that will have a similar effect.  And we thought video games caused more harm to the general populace.  

    First secure an independent income, then practice virtue. -Greek Proverb

  16. Kajex says:

    No. When part of your campaigning to save the planet results in destroying a crap-ton of coral reef irreversibly, or persuades starving nations from acquiring potential life-saving GMO crops, then there’s little about them to actually take seriously.

  17. Shadow D. Darkman says:

    Slick PETA reference. Speaking of which, what are those fools up to these days?


  18. Freyar says:

    Greenpeace’s agenda is not about environmentalism. It’s anti-capitalism vieled with stupidity.

    —- There is a limit for both politicians against video games, and video games against politicians.

  19. Vake Xeacons says:

    This isn’t about the Wii this time. They’re bashing Nintendo on how much their factories put out. I can hear Mario shout, “Bite-a me!”

  20. Austin_Lewis says:

    And no one gives a fuck, still.  Greenpeace is really more anti-corporate than anything else, so this should come as no surprise. 
    Good for Nintendo, I’d ignore them too.

  21. MaskedPixelante says:

    In other words


    —You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.

  22. ZippyDSMlee says:

    and how much time energy and waste went into plugging 30% of 360s? oy…..


    Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.

  23. Cerabret100 says:

    Cutting back on emissions is great and all, but how the hell are they supposed to stop emission increase due to increased business…just stop selling and making Wii’s.

    yeah, they’ll get right on that one.


    By the way this statement is assuming that the fact that they made more was the only factor (not outdated production means or anything).

Comments are closed.