Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Greenpeace Decries Lack of Environmental Progress From Console Makers

Soulskill posted about 5 years ago | from the it's-not-easy-being-green dept.

Earth 143

SwiftyNifty writes with an update to Greenpeace's 2007 criticism of game console manufacturers over environmental concerns. Their claim was that some of the chemicals used to make the consoles were toxic, and that the manufacturers' recycling practices were not up to snuff. Two years have passed, and Greenpeace now says that progress is either slow or non-existent. "... Nintendo has little plan to remove PVC and almost no plans to remove [brominated flame retardants]. Slightly further up the scale, Microsoft was again awarded a poor ranking due to the use of toxic waste materials. And Sony, who rank rather well in their mobile phone partnership with Ericsson (scoring 6.5 out of 10 for improved toxic waste and efficient energy usage) didn't perform as well in the console category, failing to eliminate PVC or BFRs from their gaming products."

cancel ×

143 comments

Screw Greenpeace (5, Insightful)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | about 5 years ago | (#28803757)

Greenpeace have pulled this nonsense before. They lambasted Apple for not being "green" enough then came out and admitted they didn't really have a beef with Apple, they just went after them for the publicity as they were such a well known corporation.

Greenpeace are barely one level above PETA in the asinine self publicity stakes.

Re:Screw Greenpeace (5, Informative)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | about 5 years ago | (#28803799)

Greenpeace's own founder is against Greenpeace. It's time to stop letting insane left-wingers threaten everybody into living the way they want them to live.

Re:Screw Greenpeace (1, Flamebait)

Jurily (900488) | about 5 years ago | (#28804769)

It's time to stop letting insane left-wingers threaten everybody into living the way they want them to live.

"We have classified them on the imaginary political spectrum, so their arguments are invalid."

Are you implying your right to live as you please is more important than the continued survival of the global ecosystem, and the human race depending on it?

Screw this hippie bullshit. (3, Insightful)

MikeFM (12491) | about 5 years ago | (#28805051)

Why live at all if you're going to live by some crazy rules set down by some nuts that don't even know what the frick they're talking about? Most greenies are hippies that don't know any actually science and it's all about being nice and in tune and that kind of crap. Then you get the second layer that just do it because it's politically correct and kind of cool right now. Obviously we all need to live within limits. That doesn't mean we can't use plastic, eat meat, or actually behave as human beings have a right to act like human beings (the most successful species ever to our knowledge).

Green living isn't going to do shit for mankind. It's to late to go back - the only way left is forward. We need to use chemistry, genetics, nanotech, and all those other 'evils' to leapfrog our own path of destruction. This is just one planet - we can make others habitable if needed.

Re:Screw this hippie bullshit. (3, Informative)

tolan-b (230077) | about 5 years ago | (#28805129)

I'm guessing you saw the 'Green' in their name and just thought 'damn hippies'.

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/about/how-we-work/scientific-research [greenpeace.org.uk]

Greenpeace aren't saying we can't use plastic, they're saying that companies can use less polluting materials and processes.

Electrical appliance waste is a serious problem, many of the materials used are extremely toxic and causing serious problems where they're dumped.

That's why Europe has the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment directive for example:

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/waste/32084.aspx [environmen...ncy.gov.uk]

Re:Screw this hippie bullshit. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28805155)

Penn & Teller's bullshit did a good episode a while ago: Environmental Hysteria [milkandcookies.com]

Many of the followers are mindless zombies. You see them pretending like they care about the environment, while sipping $4 plastic bottles of water paid for by their rich parents.

Re:Screw this hippie bullshit. (4, Insightful)

John Nowak (872479) | about 5 years ago | (#28805267)

I've thought "damn hippies" ever since seeing the hysteria they try to throw people into [youtube.com] over nuclear power.

Re:Screw this hippie bullshit. (4, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | about 5 years ago | (#28805831)

> I'm guessing you saw the 'Green' in their name and just thought 'damn hippies'.

Nope. A lot of us have personal firsthand experience with these people or know
people who have. It's quite common for groups like Greenpeace to shout down anyone
with anyone with any real technical expertise or experience or anyone that doesn't
buy completely into the groupthink. This is not merely limited to Greenpeace and
also afflicts a lot of other sort of "activist" groups.

This also is true for "gooder" parts of the government like the EPA.

Re:Screw this hippie bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28807583)

The problem is that the people that "use chemistry, genetics, nanotech, and all those other 'evils' to leapfrog our own path of destruction" work for companies. That's even more dangerous because the sole goal of a company is to get the most money. Yes, there are patents for genetically modified plants, living things... please look into Monsanto, there's a nice video that goes along with that.

Re:Screw Greenpeace (5, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about 5 years ago | (#28805277)

That thinking is where it gets dangerous.

There is a balance that is needed to maintain. Enviromentalism and Personal Freedom. It is not one or the other. It is getting a good balance between the two. Greenpeace wants to dictate how people live, and make a huge fuss about any resistance, even if it is relatively minor.

The way that environmentalism works the best is threw education and marketing. Don't give the people these worst cases of dooms day scenario. This will only get a small group of people and when it doesn't go as plan they drop away and don't believe you any more. (Eg. Durring the 1970 they had predicted Global Cooling, that didn't happen so a lot of people won't believe in global warming. (Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me)) I like the trend that we are going in now for environmentalism. Put effort in research to make current technology more energy efficient. Implementing other sources of power, showing people that they can be green without breaking the budget.

If they are able to influence my Father to get a win turbine for his house (a staunch republican who still doesn't believe in global warming) then I think we are going in the right direction. Forcing people will only give push-back, showing them alternatives and good cost/benefit information will move to your goal much faster.

Re:Screw Greenpeace (0, Troll)

m0s3m8n (1335861) | about 5 years ago | (#28805451)

Hey Greenpeace, kiss my hairy yellow ass.

Re:Screw Greenpeace (3, Insightful)

fredrik70 (161208) | about 5 years ago | (#28805163)

yeah, but that's because he though Greenpeace wasn't radical enough and went and started Sea Shepherds - now they are nuts. I know a few people who work for greenpeace and they come from the whole political spectrum, just so you know. What they are trying to do here is teh gool ol' carrot and stick. make sure the comapiens that do good gets highlighted (cue Nokia) and the at the bad ones gets som bad publicity for it. What's wrong with that? Personally I find it a very civilized way of getting companies to clean up their act, far better that the nutters going burning down offices or simiar in some stupid effort to make their point heard

Re:Screw Greenpeace (-1, Troll)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 years ago | (#28805961)

yeah, but that's because he though Greenpeace wasn't radical enough and went and started Sea Shepherds - now they are nuts.

Visited their site and I love it [seashepherd.org] . Frankly, I would be in favor of mining/torpedoing whaling vessels, if not for the environmental impact of sinking a ship full of fuel. I don't see a problem with killing people bent on genocide of intelligent species. By and large I am against violence, but what these people do hardly qualifies.

What they are trying to do here is teh gool ol' carrot and stick. make sure the comapiens that do good gets highlighted (cue Nokia) and the at the bad ones gets som bad publicity for it. What's wrong with that?

The idea that Nokia is a "good company". Until Nokia gets to 0% output (e.g. every ton of everything that they emit gets fixed somewhere; every ounce of product material is accounted for one way or another on the recycling end, et cetera) then they are just another planet-raping bastard enabled by a clueless populace.

Personally I find it a very civilized way of getting companies to clean up their act, far better that the nutters going burning down offices or simiar in some stupid effort to make their point heard

Yes, when the fuck will they learn that the only thing that will work is bringing consequences to decision-makers? If you are going to engage in an act of terrorism, by god make it an effective one. Nothing is more offensive than a pointless act of destruction that simply leads to more of whatever you were railing against. If you're going to burn something down, burn down the guy who made the decision that you have a problem with. Arson only results in an insurance claim, a new building, and a lot of pollution.

Moderation still sucks (-1, Flamebait)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 years ago | (#28806289)

And "Troll" still does not mean "Something with which I disagree."

I meant every word I wrote above. You may not like what I have said, but that doesn't make me a liar, nor does it make me wrong. (I may not be right, of course.)

Re:Moderation still sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28806705)

And "Troll" still does not mean "Something with which I disagree."

That's true, but unfortunately we can't mod you "Batshit Insane" so we have to settle with "Troll". Seriously, if you advocate killing someone because they aren't able to attain a 0% footprint you are either batshit insane or a troll.

I want to say more, but I would only be feeding a troll or trying reason with a crazy person.

Re:Screw Greenpeace (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | about 5 years ago | (#28805941)

I'm not agreeing with them, but what on earth do views on economics have to do with this? I don't see that this issue is dependent on being left or right wing.

Re:Screw Greenpeace (1)

hey! (33014) | about 5 years ago | (#28807067)

Oh, come now. "Threaten"? Greenpeace just said unkind and poorly supported things about these manufacturers' products. If that's a threat, then marketing ought to be banned.

One thing that would be nice is if this lead the manufacturers made their products easier to recycle. This would certainly address Greenpeace's concern about the breakdown of plastics in landfills, and then some. The best documented health concerns over PVC are the use of plasticizers, but that probably doesn't apply to consoles. Concerns over the health effects of flame retardants is just silly.

But it would be nice if things were designed to be be recycled.

Re:Screw Greenpeace (3, Insightful)

Shag (3737) | about 5 years ago | (#28803803)

I'm glad to see Greenpeace finish griping about Apple's failure to publish the "precautionary principle" (in Greenpeace-approved wording) on its web site, like every good environmental NGO does... and get around to pointing fingers at the real purveyors of plastic junk. :)

Re:Screw Greenpeace (5, Funny)

ErikTheRed (162431) | about 5 years ago | (#28803951)

Greenpeace has not only jumped the shark, they're now in geosynchronous orbit above it.

Re:Screw Greenpeace (1)

rts008 (812749) | about 5 years ago | (#28804309)

Too bad the shark they jumped does not have a frikken lazer mounted on it's head to take them completely out of the universe.

Re:Screw Greenpeace (0, Flamebait)

Magic5Ball (188725) | about 5 years ago | (#28803989)

Don't be so hard on them. The current mode of global resource allocation requires a Greenpeace to permit us to continue to consume at unsustainable rates. If the consumptive "first world" were faced with how to redress the the vast injustices we cause through consumption, instead of simply buying indulgences through slightly more expensive environmentally-friendly labeled goods, we might slow down to think about why 2/3 of the world's population must struggle through inhumane living conditions so that we can enjoy our dozens of Energy Star appliances.

Also, I don't think the glitter-starved masses would pay attention to lifecycle analyses, total energy equations, comprehensive resource requirements and all that science which would rationally price our disposables based on their impact on fellow humans, as opposed to what some database thinks we're worth.

In what ways does it make sense to ship flavorless but dent- and parasite (life!) resistant fruit from nutrition-deprived regions half way across the world for routine daily consumption, regardless of how its transported when most parts of the world have provided adequate nutrition for hundreds of thousands of years?

Re:Screw Greenpeace (2, Interesting)

Shihar (153932) | about 5 years ago | (#28804877)

The current mode of global resource allocation requires a Greenpeace to permit us to continue to consume at unsustainable rates. If the consumptive "first world" were faced with how to redress the the vast injustices we cause through consumption, instead of simply buying indulgences through slightly more expensive environmentally-friendly labeled goods, we might slow down to think about why 2/3 of the world's population must struggle through inhumane living conditions so that we can enjoy our dozens of Energy Star appliances.

Right, because what that 2/3 of the rest of the world REALLY needs is for first world to set up trade barriers and tell them to fuck off with making stuff for us. The RAPID RISE in living conditions around the world is because the first world decided to farm out more of the manufacturing to places where they were scratching at dirt to keep themselves on a filling starvation diet. China is probably the best example. A few decades ago they were busy bleeding off percentage points of population to mass starvation. Now, the the idea that China could face famine again is considered absurd. There are other places that have done the same thing and better. Taiwan and South Korea come to mind.

I'm not saying that globalization does not have its issues. Environmental concerns in the third world are very much real. That said, the answer isn't to pull out of these nations and tell them to have fun with seeing how subsistence farming treats them.

Re:Screw Greenpeace (1)

Magic5Ball (188725) | about 5 years ago | (#28806235)

On the other slide of the coin, globalization is a symptom as much as it is a cause. If we didn't consistently demand new and cheaper ("green" or not) cell phones, cars, PCs, t-shirts, etc. to replace our perfectly functional ones of those every 6-18 months, it wouldn't be necessary for China specifically to commission a new coal electric plant or two every week. They specifically would not need to build a new factory city of a million people every month. There wouldn't need to be 80-year-old ladies melting down electronics waste to recover metal scraps without protective equipment.

Surely, dumping waste from all of those activities directly into their fresh waterways will have no negative consequences on any of their grain production in the future, since the country can just keep on increasing its import quotas. And the drive to produce ever more and ever cheaper goods for both domestic and international markets have only resulted in fatal tainted and fake food scandals every six months or so for the last decade, only affecting hundreds of thousands of people each. The last time the Yangtze River did something funny and caught international attention a decade ago, only 20 million people (roughly the size of the urban population of Canada) were at imminent risk of starvation, while only 80 million had to overwinter with food shortages. Progress.

But hey, as long as we don't have to see or directly deal with all the human sacrifice that goes into our current lifestyles, it's morally acceptable, right?

Of course, it's unfair to blame the West alone for China's situation since their culture's desire to westernize have created more middle-class people with western consumption patterns than the US or EU have people. But why should we care if they don't shed a tear for their own rural population of 200 million living in a 19th century lifestyle whose families must choose between literacy and education for their children or sending them to the factory six hours away so that they can afford to put food on the table.

Trade barriers aren't a solution here since, as you point out, the domestic and regional first worlds within Asia are already much larger than the US and European markets.

Re:Screw Greenpeace (2, Funny)

nick_davison (217681) | about 5 years ago | (#28804153)

I was previously in favor of Greenpeace until the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior [wikipedia.org] in 1985. Once it became obvious that they hated rainbows and fought with them, it led me to some serious questions about their real love for the environment. When even the French secret services have step in to stop you killing rainbows, it's time to accept you hate nature.

Re:Screw Greenpeace (1, Informative)

Ragica (552891) | about 5 years ago | (#28804221)

Doing a bit of research on your post. Greenpeace's archived website [greenpeace.org] makes no such admission. I did find some people on the net claiming what you claim above, but when I read further to find the basis for the claim I find none.

For one shameful example is this gizmodo article [gizmodo.com] which ranks highly on google. It's Fox News-like way they use the headline of an admission. The arcile is long, and Greenpeace sounds quite reasonable in it. At they very end of the article the gizmodo author bolds a bit of Greenpeace's words as the basis for the "admission" in the title. But it it no such thing. It's a pathetic stretching of context worthy of Fox news. (But perhaps you are a fan of Fox news?)

At any rate, Greenpeace took the time to rebut [greenpeace.org] the criticisms on several [greenpeace.org] official lengthy pages [greenpeace.org] .

The gizmodo article makes reference to another article where an "bromine industry group" dismisses googles claims. This is like the tobacco industry dismissing claims of tabacco's harmful elements. It's like oil companies denying global warming. (But perhaps you deny that too?)

Do you have any other references for this claim? You might want to look into them a little deeper.

Re:Screw Greenpeace (2, Informative)

jo_ham (604554) | about 5 years ago | (#28806427)

Quote from Greenpeace:

[quote]Apple has not responded directly, but we check our mailbox every day for some sign from Steve that he's listening. We don't actually mind if he *never* answers us, just as long as he does the right thing and greens Apple.

Apple has made a few reactive comments in the media when questioned about the campaign. Often it refers to the environmental section of its website which our ranking already highlighted the lack of timelines and transparency in that section. Also it has made a pretty lame references to its ranking from the US EPEAT tool.

US Environmental Protection Agency's new electronic product environmental assessment tool (EPEAT):

But Apple is patting itself on the back with a kid glove. The EPEAT criteria are less stringent than the Greenpeace criteria. EPEAT does not require elimination of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) or Brominated Fire Retardants -- two types of toxic chemicals that other manufacturers have already agreed to phase out. [/quote]

Right, except for the fact that on those very website pages from Apple they have *already stopped using* BFR's and PVC, and have been phasing it out for years. Nothing like being deliberately obtuse eh, Greenpeace, and making it look like Apple are merely holding themselves up to a "weak" standard when in reality they're doing much more. But that doesn't make for good rampant technology bashing.

I am a green-loving, save the planet, renewable energy, recycling, reduction in pollution, kind of guy, but Greenpeace is only hurting the rest of us.

And Apple was "greening" itself very effectively all on its own - it's not any reactive move due to Greenpeace, as much as they'd like to infer.

Re:Screw Greenpeace (1)

jo_ham (604554) | about 5 years ago | (#28806439)

Goddamn, bring back the old fucking slashdot edit boxes. lameness.

Re:Screw Greenpeace (2, Informative)

SBFCOblivion (1041418) | about 5 years ago | (#28804245)

I agree. After their last stunt [keloland.com] I really don't see why anyone should listen to them.

Good job, Greenpeace. Get everyone's attention by defacing [scoopthis.org] a public monument.

Re:Screw Greenpeace (-1, Flamebait)

Xest (935314) | about 5 years ago | (#28804595)

I see, so because Greenpeace used the kind of tactics needed to get heard in the modern world just like any other organisation they're not worth listening too? Why wouldn't they be after publicity? Publicity helps further their cause.

It seems dishonest to suggest Greenpeace had no beef with Apple, they did have a beef with Apple: http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/ [greenpeace.org] . In fact, Apple still ranks quite badly according to them: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/how-the-companies-line-up [greenpeace.org] hardly a company they "have no beef with" then.

Greenpeaces biggest mistake was probably not realising how bad the worst zealots in the Apple community can be, these are people who would rather spread propaganda and defend Apple than realise that Greenpeace has a point, and that they could still have their iPods and iMacs but have them greener too. Unfortunately this would mean accepting that Apple and it's products aren't the most perfect entities in the universe, something that is beyond the most rabid of Apple fans.

But here's a question, if Greenpeace had singled out Microsoft instead, would we still be seeing these blistering attacks here against Greenpeace? I'm guessing the answer is almost certainly not.

Yes, Greenpeace has some nuts, but so does any large organisation. It's not like other political movements from the British Labour party to the US Democrats and Republicans don't also have more than their fair share of nuts and extremists - I mean, George Bush got into power and Sarah Palin was a VP candidate, it takes some pretty extreme views to think that either of them were a good idea and amongst the talk of Greenpeace dishonesty how many other large organisations aren't also guilty of the exact same thing to make their point from Microsoft to Apple to the Democrats to the Republicans.

That doesn't stop them having a point, just as despite the fact Bush and Palin are probably two of the biggest laughing stocks in politics in the last 50 years, McCain was mostly pretty reasonable and had some good points and good ideas. Most the work they do is done in a relatively mature manner - their work against whaling is fairly tame compared to Sea Sheperd which rams Japanese ships with their boat called the Steve Irwin whilst flying the jolly roger and throwing acid on the deck of the Japanese ships. Greenpeace on the other hand just gets in the way whilst being sprayed with water cannons by the Japanese whalers.

My point is this, I'm not defending fringe nutcases, but I'm pointing out they exist everywhere, and we shouldn't let them detract from more moderate, sensible people and the good work that they do. Suggesting Greenpeace shouldn't exist anymore is really stupid because at the end of the day they do still do a lot of good work. After all, Apple did change their policy in the end:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/tasty-apple-news-020507 [greenpeace.org]

Realise that even if Greenpeace went, the fringe nutcases amongst the Greens would still exist regardless, just as with any organisation or political movement. You'd still have them lobbying against nuclear power without understanding it's actually probably our best option for green energy and bad policy being made as a result of that.

The biggest worry if anything should be the fact many people are more interested in shouting down Greenpeace than accepting that there is a lot more we could do to produce more green electronic products. Finally, for those decrying Greenpeace's lack of scientific method, see here, most the points raised in the comments are covered:

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/makingwaves/archives/2007/12/nintendo_ranking_creates_a_sti.html [greenpeace.org]

They state quite clearly that they accept the process isn't perfect, but that companies wont allow them to do full fledged reviews of the chemicals and so forth used in manufacturing because they keep these processes secret.

No, let's just keep villifying Greenpeace instead, I mean, god forbid we accept that the devices we consume and the manufacturers who make them could do better right? It's easier to just cover your ears, close your eyes, and pretend the problem doesn't exist I suppose...

Re:Screw Greenpeace (1)

loki_tiwaz (982852) | about 5 years ago | (#28805695)

well they are in the business of promoting a particular view, and i don't think they are nearly as batsh*t crazy as peta.

and i am particularly interested to see chlorinated, brominated and fluorinated hydrocarbons all banned as there is very good reason to suspect them of being involved in damaging reproduction, causing cancer, and disrupting human and many animal endocrine systems. the evidence is mounting and i doubt that these chemicals will be legal to use in any commercial product within 20 years.

Re:Screw Greenpeace (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28806485)

Greenpeace are barely one level above PETA in the asinine self publicity stakes.

Maybe, but at least PETA has hot chicks who protest nude.

The Greenpeace chicks I've seen I'd rather they not get nude, thank you very much.

Re:Screw Greenpeace (1)

smd75 (1551583) | about 5 years ago | (#28807085)

I believe the proper response from the console makers should be: "We don't negotiate with terrorists."

Incoherent Propoganda (5, Insightful)

MrMista_B (891430) | about 5 years ago | (#28803769)

The incoherent propoganda, lies, and lack of science that Greenpeace shouts to the world does very little benefit, and very much harm to actual, real enviromental concerns.

They're as mindless, cultlike, and factually wrong as PETA.

Which is terrible and unfortunate, because they are wealthy and powerful, and if Greenpeace actually cared for the enviroment, at all, in any way, they have the capability to actually do enviromental good.

Re:Incoherent Propoganda (5, Funny)

routerl (976394) | about 5 years ago | (#28804009)

I heard this story once and I absolutely love it. Sadly, no sources, so it may be apocryphal.

The story goes that Greenpeace's latest publicity stunt was to try and protect seals in the arctic from getting poached, so they decide they would make their skins worthless to the poachers by spraying the seals with bright green paint. As it turns out, however, the main defense of arctic seals against their natural predators (polar bears) is to lay perfectly still, with eyes closed, hoping to blend into the snowy/icy background to evade detection. Thanks to Greenpeace, these seals were now visible from miles away and, not knowing they were now targets, would just lie perfectly still while polar bears raced towards and devoured them.

Hooray for Greenpeace.

Re:Incoherent Propoganda (4, Funny)

MrMista_B (891430) | about 5 years ago | (#28804079)

Not to mention, the green paint poisoning the polar bears!

Sadly, that seems an entirely accurate metaphor for what Greenpeace does in the world today. Anti-enviromental bastards.

Re:Incoherent Propoganda (3, Interesting)

Mopatop (690958) | about 5 years ago | (#28804903)

Re:Incoherent Propoganda (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28807421)

That they dyed seals is true, but what else is true? I see nothing in that link to confirm that the Polar bears were killing seals that were dyed more than they were killing seals in general. Even if they were, were they eating more seals than they normally would?

Polar bears would probably eat seals anyway, and I don't see Greenpeace being stupid and trying to make the bears into pure vegetarians. Nor do I see evidence that the paint was toxic to the bears.

Sorry, but the full facts do not follow from your evidence.

To sum this up... (1)

wasmoke (1055116) | about 5 years ago | (#28803775)

*YAWN* What was I saying?

The only thing that (4, Insightful)

twostix (1277166) | about 5 years ago | (#28803801)

Greenpeace cares about is more money for Greenpeace.

Just like any other multinational.

Re:The only thing that (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28804353)

greenpeace = piece of the green

stop yelling greenpeace (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28803813)

Actions speak louder than words.

greenpeace fighting for relivance (4, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | about 5 years ago | (#28803817)

in a lot of ways they are a victim of their own success. after all the lobbying in the 80's greenpeace won most of their battles that they were going to win, so now they are in a position where they really should just go away, but won't ever be able to bring themselfs to do so.

people are waking up to them now, but they still have enough of an ignorant support base to keep them in stunt dollars for a while...

Re:greenpeace fighting for relivance (5, Interesting)

Martin Blank (154261) | about 5 years ago | (#28803931)

I grew tired of listening to them about a decade ago. Back when they were in the thick of things (like getting rammed by a French warship or bombed by French intelligence), I had some respect for them. But over the years, they began to look more like the Luddite fringe groups that would seem to rather see the collapse of civilization than to harm a single insect. I think much of the world has come to agree with what they were talking about 25 years ago, but as the radicals have gained power, they have been more willing to bend the truth (or outright lie) and so many people no longer trust what the organization has to say. Thus, by attempting ever harder to push their agenda, they may be doing more to derail it than any corporation could do.

greenpeace fighting for relivance. KING COMBO! (3, Insightful)

TiggertheMad (556308) | about 5 years ago | (#28804237)

Like most things in life, the Environment is neither in danger as the radicals would have you believe or as healthy as the conservatives would have you believe. But I digress. Are game consoles really worth talking about in the grand scheme of things? I would think that figuring out how to transport people and heating homes without emitting carbon would be SLIGHTLY more relevant.

Re:greenpeace fighting for relivance (5, Interesting)

twostix (1277166) | about 5 years ago | (#28804313)

It's a depressing cycle, that every fringe philosophy that gains mainstream support, money and power quickly gets taken over by the radicals who then purge the original soft and usually more pragmatic visionaries and then quickly turn the movement *against* them, making the founders appear to be traitors against their own cause.

Every single time.

Environmentalism
Communism
Conservatism
Liberalism

Examples of movements that started out so well then largely went sour leaving societies stuck trying to figure out how to achieve the aims of the original movement *in spite of* the groups who lay claim to being the "movement".

Hopefully with such a swath of historical examples the next great "movements" will somehow figure out a way of protecting themselves from the power hungry radicals.

Western democratic political systems seem to have largely got that figured out so a model based on that may work.

Re:greenpeace fighting for relivance (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about 5 years ago | (#28805519)

Hopefully with such a swath of historical examples the next great "movements" will somehow figure out a way of protecting themselves from the power hungry radicals.

There's an easy and simple solution to that. These movements would be just fine if it wasn't for all the damn people.

Western democratic political systems seem to have largely got that figured out so a model based on that may work.

Wow. I'm sure I've never seen anyone's tongue penetrate his cheek and emerge outside his face before....

Yeah hippies, shut up and eat your e-waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28804113)

after all the lobbying in the 80's greenpeace won most of their battles that they were going to win, so now they are in a position where they really should just go away, but won't ever be able to bring themselfs to do so.

Yeah, cuz the earth is doing just fine, and e-waste [wikipedia.org] is no problem at all.

Well, (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | about 5 years ago | (#28803843)

It's not like they come out with a new console every few years. Oh, wait, they do. Whatever happens to the old ones, and where will they be a few decades from now? I hope console makers make a conscious decision to do better.

Re:Well, (1)

timmarhy (659436) | about 5 years ago | (#28803857)

in one of our many well run landfills, doing no one any harm.

of course that isn't as alarming or profitable for greenpeace so they will neglect to tell you this.

Re:Well, (2, Funny)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | about 5 years ago | (#28803897)

That's a good thing though. It will give future robots something to do while they clean up the planet.

Re:Well, (1, Troll)

cliffski (65094) | about 5 years ago | (#28804667)

actually a lot of stuff you assume goes to landfill gets stuck on a ship and exported to some third world country where it becomes 'someone else's problem'.
the west are great and dumping our crap on poorer countries. We brits got caught doing it with 1,400 tonnes of toxic waste a few days ago:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6719508.ece [timesonline.co.uk]

Of course we are all better off just not knowing about this ro giving a fuck about how our actions affect other countries, so I'm sure its evil of greenpeace to even draw attention to it.
bastards eh?

Re:Well, (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | about 5 years ago | (#28806619)

Every gamer I know keeps their consoles indefinately. With newer ones not being 100% backwards compatible, you need to keep your old consoles in order to play your older games. I'd bet very few ever get tossed into the landfills.

New games are still being developed for some "old" consoles as well, e.g. PS2.

Re:Well, (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | about 5 years ago | (#28803867)

Whatever happens to the old ones, and where will they be a few decades from now?

Usually end up at my house, I have consoles around here older than I am.

The worlds most toxic consoles? (3, Funny)

bertoelcon (1557907) | about 5 years ago | (#28803851)

So all the major consoles are supposedly toxic?

Not a surprise in the least. Nothing can be fun and safe anymore.

Re:The worlds most toxic consoles? (1)

idamaybrown (584881) | about 5 years ago | (#28805359)

So I guess we shouldn't eat them?

Re:The worlds most toxic consoles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28805683)

Nothing has ever been fun and safe.

Re:The worlds most toxic consoles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28807039)

Boobs.

I know, I know, this is slashdot.

Maybe true (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | about 5 years ago | (#28803893)

Maybe consoles are toxic, but I don't know for certain just from the article. I don't think I can trust Greenpeace to evaluate these things accurately given their track record as a hostile quasi-terrorist activist organization.

I'd like to get a report from the EPA or Consumer Reports. I'd even take the Sierra Club over Greenpeace, even though they have a history of less than accurate reporting of situations.

PVC is useful stuff, and there are ways to manufacture it so it is less hazardous. But Greenpeace is typically unwilling to compromise once they have made up their mind.

Th French (4, Funny)

Fengpost (907072) | about 5 years ago | (#28804001)

Where is the French Navy when you needed them!

Re:Th French (2, Funny)

bky1701 (979071) | about 5 years ago | (#28804141)

Busy surrendering to a German cruise ship?

I No Respect For Greenpeace (5, Interesting)

bky1701 (979071) | about 5 years ago | (#28804061)

Greenpeace is largely to blame for our current energy problems. Their vilification of nuclear power has greatly hindered its adoption (politicans are already irrationally afraid of it, because of BIMBY and "terrorists"), and their pushing of so-far dead-end technology like wind and solar has caused us to be stuck with coal and oil. If they, and the average environmentalist, had enough of a brain to understand the concept of the lesser evil, we would probably not be so worried about global warming. But, logic never stopped them from crying about things.

Now we have everyone against the rational answer to the problem, and everyone shelling out billions to try to develop what simply isn't coming. Solar and wind have been around for a very long time; short of a massive breakthrough, it is never going to be as economical as the CO2-creating alternatives. Meaning, we're stuck with them until some sort of government regulation comes along... and we all know how much THAT usually helps.

Our economy is being run into the ground by power costs, and peak oil means it will just get worse. Wind and solar are not becoming more economical, and the government's answer of taking even more money out of the system is just going to make a bad situation horrible. If global warming turns out to even be half as bad as claimed, we'll be in essentially a second dark ages.

We could have built enough nuclear plants to power the entire world, and thus avert all these problems, with the money Obama threw away; but here we are, the construction of a single plant is news-worthy.

Sometimes I wonder if it would really be so awful if humanity killed itself off. We're not really getting any better... perhaps we shouldn't go and pollute space with our stupidity.

Re:I No Respect For Greenpeace (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28804095)

Gah, typo in title. "I have no", not "I no".

Re:I No Respect For Greenpeace (3, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | about 5 years ago | (#28804215)

ahh what comedy. I would agree with you that nuclear is better than *, and I sure hope that fear of the global warming bogey man causes the ridiculous regulation preventing the creation of new plants to be freed up, but boy, are you brainwashed.

There's no evidence that shows that human activities are the cause of global warming. There's correlation data, but correlation != causation. You know this, I know this, but whenever talking to the drooling public we're required to forget about it because they don't *care*. They see correlation evidence as proof, especially if it's a lovable idiot that is presenting it to them.

Besides, there's easier ways to point out why the global warming hoopla is bullshit. No-one has a working model of the weather of this planet. No-one has any more the ability to predict the global temperatures for next year than they do to predict the best stocks to invest in for next year. It's guess work, and not very good guess work.

And even if you believe the bullshit guess work, does anyone actually read it? No-one but the most craziest people are saying global warming will have any effect on human life on this planet within the next 50 years. The legitimate scientific community unanimously agrees that any effect that global warming will have will be gradual.

Predicting disaster is the hardest of all predictions to make. You literally have to be psychic.. because any avoidable disaster will be avoided. You're not going to get up one day and find sea levels have raised 200 feet and we're all going to drown. It can't happen like that. What may happen is that waterfront property will sell for less as the square footage goes down.. and maybe, eventually, the property will be abandoned or, more likely, they'll buy some sandbags. Not as sexy as "we're all gunna die" but hey.

Re:I No Respect For Greenpeace (3, Informative)

bky1701 (979071) | about 5 years ago | (#28804291)

While this is not really the place for another pointless discussion on global warming, I would say we have plenty of proof it is indeed going to happen. It is a fact that CO2 in the atmosphere increases global heat. It is also a fact humans are adding massive amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. We cannot predict the outcome, but there will certainly be one. It's not just going to go away.

It will be gradual, and perhaps even reversible with better technology. However, we're still betting a lot on that by doing nothing. If it turns out to be less gradual than expected (and as you say, we've never observed this happening before, so we cannot be sure how fast it will be), we could be looking at a disaster, as we won't have time to come up with ways to mitigate the damage.

I've never seen anyone suggest that water levels could rise astronomically overnight. But the fact is, we can only guess how fast they will rise. 50 years before major land losses? 30? 10? How long will it take to prevent mass death from flooding, starvation, exposure? How much will it COST?

Like so many else, you only look at here-and-now. Like a CEO running a company into the ground for short-term profits, unchecked CO2 will, in some form, hurt the human race some day. And for what? Cheap gas, air conditioning, and irrational fear of the alternatives?

It's not a happy situation, that's for sure, but hiding your head in the sand and yelling "hoax" is not going to do anything to help people when it happens. I for one am glad there are enough people out there that don't ignore facts because they are inconvenient.

Re:I No Respect For Greenpeace (0, Redundant)

timmarhy (659436) | about 5 years ago | (#28804643)

"It is a fact that CO2 in the atmosphere increases global heat"

no, it doesn't. the sun is the source of heat. and no CO2 does not act like a green house, heat reflection is an effect of water vapour. CO2 is a very poor heat absorber, so even if humans added significant amounts the effect would be very minimal.

Re:I No Respect For Greenpeace (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28805161)

Maybe you should look at the absorption bands of CO2 in the infrared. Then come again and tell us that you don't know the first thing about physical chemistry.

The sun is indeed a heat source. However, the greenhouse effect is about heat _retention_. CO2, H2O, Methane and other organic molecules are _all_ greenhouse gasses due to their absorption spectra via vibrational / rotational absorption (and subsequent emission).

Re:I No Respect For Greenpeace (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28804715)

It is a fact that CO2 in the atmosphere increases global heat.

I challenge this assertion. Where is your experiment showing causation? Furthermore, where is your experiment showing this this alleged increase in heat is significant compared to other factors?

It is also a fact humans are adding massive amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere.

I challenge this assertion. I do not deny that we are adding some CO2 to the atmosphere, but where is your data showing that it is "massive" compared to other sources?

We cannot predict the outcome, but there will certainly be one.

I challenge this assertion as well. You have no experiments or data establishing any kind of causation.

What ended the last ice age 11,000 years ago?

Explain why median temperatures on Mars are increasing as well.

Explain the global cooling trend through the 1940s to the 1970s.

It is insane and incredibly arrogant to think that our observations over the last 30 years are the be-all and end-all showing that somehow we are responsible for all of the Earth's climate change.

Re:I No Respect For Greenpeace (1)

mdarksbane (587589) | about 5 years ago | (#28805457)

The frustrating part about global warming is that we are presented by our leaders with two solutions: either drastically increase government power and regulation and cripple the economy (and pretend like it won't hurt the economy), or stick our heads in the sand and say it won't happen.

No one wants to talk about tradeoffs, about cost-benefit analysis of what we can do to control (control, not stop) global warming. The world has always been changing temperatures - there is some level of fluctuation that will *not* be more than we can handle. What about market-driven solutions? What about just moving people in FLorida inland a bit? How are we *actually* going to deal with the fact that most of the world doesn't give a shit if the sea level rises five feet if it means that they get to have an energy-driven economy that allows them to eat three times a day?

This false argument of "massive crippling government taxes (or false government taxes that actually end up being a subsidy to energy companies, a la Europe's model)" versus "completely deny that it might exist" isn't helping anyone. There is pretty strong evidence that it is getting warmer. There is decent evidence that it may be impacted at least partially by our output. But no one really knows how bad it's going to be yet... so let's drop the panic attack and see about finding some interim solutions that will only slow down the economy, not slam the brakes so hard we all fly into the windshield.

Re:I No Respect For Greenpeace (1)

sesshomaru (173381) | about 5 years ago | (#28805837)

Actually, in the American model, the taxes are a subsidy for Goldman Sachs [rollingstone.com] .


The new carboncredit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that's been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won't even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.

Here's how it works: If the bill passes, there will be limits for coal plants, utilities, natural-gas distributors and numerous other industries on the amount of carbon emissions (a.k.a. greenhouse gases) they can produce per year. If the companies go over their allotment, they will be able to buy "allocations" or credits from other companies that have managed to produce fewer emissions. President Obama conservatively estimates that about $646 billion worth of carbon credits will be auctioned in the first seven years; one of his top economic aides speculates that the real number might be twice or even three times that amount.

The feature of this plan that has special appeal to speculators is that the "cap" on carbon will be continually lowered by the government, which means that carbon credits will become more and more scarce with each passing year. Which means that this is a brand new commodities market where the main commodity to be traded is guaranteed to rise in price over time. The volume of this new market will be upwards of a trillion dollars annually; for comparison's sake, the annual combined revenues of all electricity suppliers in the U.S. total $320 billion.

Re:I No Respect For Greenpeace (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28805935)

"It's OK if the world is destroyed" - Illusions

On a more serious note, it would be nice to know where the "0" line on the global temperatures came from. I'm sure they're focusing on short-term changes (such as temperatures in the last 200-ish years) rather than factoring in much older conditions (say, the Jurassic period). Even focusing on say, 1000 years (1) shows we aren't really that high up and recovering from a mini "ice age".

  If temperatures rise a tiny bit over the next 50 years, the human influence is negligible compared to other larger-scale activity - we can spend the next hundred years getting "green" tech and end up smashed by a meteor. Unlikely, right? but possible. We should be using what we have now to get up to something better. Supposing fusion is finally developed 50 years from now, with everyone having invested billions in green tech, that would be seen as an extreme waste of resources.

If we do output a ton of CO2, we'll find a way to clean it up later, using current resources to start up new tech will pay off more than this slow conservative development.

On the topic of greenpeace, this is absurd. I'm sure even they have better things to do than go after console makers.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png (can't get hyperlinks...)

Re:I No Respect For Greenpeace (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28807665)

"While this is not really the place for another pointless discussion on global warming,"
[blah blah blah blah blah blah]

Then cut it out of the argument, since it's unnecessary.

We need energy. We want energy. Gasoline vehicles spew noxious gasses. Coal plants are cleaner than gasoline plants, and coal plants are pretty damn dirty, as well as have nasty non-gasseous side products that are usually dumped into huge pits covering acres upon acres of land.

Nuclear is clean. Nuclear is safe. Nuclear regulations need to be changed, not for waste storage, but for waste burning, which has been shown to work pretty well and that's with our current understanding.

Whether you believe in global warming is irrelevant--there are huge reasons for us to move away from our current system. Forget carbon credits, just consider the cost and benefit of pollution versus disposal and it's pretty clear and cost competitive, and gives reason to reduce nuclear arsenals as well; new plants reduce proliferation in burning potential material and getting rid of current material.

btw, while I hate the editors of the mag because of their liberal bent, the actual articles in Scientific American are quite impressive summaries that are usually quite accurate as well as excellent launching points to better sources. Read it for a year and you'll get a good understanding of the pluses and minuses of nuclear power.

Re:I No Respect For Greenpeace (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28807777)

Maybe if it hadn't been billed as the most dramatic crisis in the whole existence of the human race, it wouldn't be so attractive to 'hoax' callers and populist cynics. Too late now of course, the idiots the cried wolf! on the basis that there's bound to be one along soon, drew the battle-lines. Now it's little more than a fad; its only hope for credibility is to have it's worst fears realized, and to otherwise be condemned to the list of "causes that will get you lynched if you mention them in company".

Re:I No Respect For Greenpeace (1)

hamburgler007 (1420537) | about 5 years ago | (#28807467)

You're not going to get up one day and find sea levels have raised 200 feet and we're all going to drown. It can't happen like that.

Not extreme as the hypothetical situation provided, but look at Katrina. Consider all of the Jews who decided to remain in Germany when the shit was about to hit the fan. I would even go so far as to argue that it is human nature to choose to remain blind to a problem lying before them until they can do so no longer, at which point it may be too late. ps this isn't an endorsement for GreenPeace. They are a bunch of mindless drones trying to push mindless policies on the rest of the world.

Nuclear not an alternative (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28804361)

Sadly,

Like most people you didn't read up on Nuclear power before you posted.
Nuclear power isn't available in abundance.
The TOTAL amount of Nuclear fuel on this world can sustain the current energy hunger for about 3-5 years.
Problem with this is that mining and processing the stuff actually cost lots of energy (and creates greenhouse gases).
So a big part of the fuel will actualy cost more than it produces

Combined with the massive amount of energy needed for building a Nuclear power station is neither green or any sort of real alternative.

It is not without reasen the government needs to put in massive amounts of money for a Nuclear station it cannot compete on costs.
(so it probably neither can on energy efficiency compared to fossil fuels)

Re:Nuclear not an alternative (3, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | about 5 years ago | (#28804451)

Breeder reactors can not only extend the life of fuel substantially, but also decrease waste to almost nothing. Nothing is a permanent option, but nuclear is by far the best currently. Believe me, I've read much more on it than your average slashdotter.

Re:Nuclear not an alternative (1)

jo_ham (604554) | about 5 years ago | (#28806513)

You didn't read up on nuclear fuel either, since your entire post appears to be bullshit. I guess that's why you posted AC. Good job eh?

Re:Nuclear not an alternative (2, Informative)

FireFury03 (653718) | about 5 years ago | (#28807885)

Like most people you didn't read up on Nuclear power before you posted.

Seems you didn't either...

Nuclear power isn't available in abundance.
The TOTAL amount of Nuclear fuel on this world can sustain the current energy hunger for about 3-5 years.

Utter bullshit. The currently known reserves of U235 are enough to last around 80 years at current rates of consumption. Reprocessing the waste can greatly extend that, and those figures ignore reserves which haven't yet been discovered.

Those figures also ignore U238, which can be bred into Pu239. Known reserves of U238 are enough to last us tens of thousands of years.

Problem with this is that mining and processing the stuff actually cost lots of energy (and creates greenhouse gases).

Like most other power generation technologies. Did you think that mining coal took no energy?

In the short term this is a problem for most technologies. In the long term, much of the energy used for mining can come from nuclear power itself.

So a big part of the fuel will actualy cost more than it produces

Complete rubbish.

Combined with the massive amount of energy needed for building a Nuclear power station is neither green or any sort of real alternative.

Compare it to the amount of energy needed to build thousands of wind turbines, or enormous hydroelectric projects. Pretty much any large scale power generation project uses vast amounts of energy for construction - if you're going to damn nuclear on these grounds then you can damn pretty much everything else too and we'll all go back to living in caves.

It is not without reasen the government needs to put in massive amounts of money for a Nuclear station it cannot compete on costs.

Finally, a point with some truth. Yes, nuclear can't currently compete with the cost of fossil fuels. So the choice is that we either keep burning fossil fuels (potentially trashing the environment until they run out and then we'll have no choice anyway) or bite the bullet and decide that we can no longer afford to keep plugging away at the cheapest option.

(so it probably neither can on energy efficiency compared to fossil fuels)

I don't even know what you mean by this point. Efficiency of what exactly?

Re:I No Respect For Greenpeace (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28804649)

what fucking drivel.
this place is more like digg, full of anti-environmental prop-piracy retards every fucking day.

Re:I No Respect For Greenpeace (1)

cluke (30394) | about 5 years ago | (#28805731)

To say we "Pollute" is entirely subjective. There is no Gaia entity that is crying over all the bits of discarded plastic floating in the oceans. The only people who care are US. So, to fantasise about humanity killing itself off to "save" the universe from being ruined is ludicrous, as if we weren't here there would be no-one to even care. The Earth has no perfect state save for any we would project onto it, born from our own sensibilites.

Re:I No Respect For Greenpeace (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 5 years ago | (#28806365)

To say we "Pollute" is entirely subjective. There is no Gaia entity that is crying over all the bits of discarded plastic floating in the oceans. The only people who care are US. So, to fantasise about humanity killing itself off to "save" the universe from being ruined is ludicrous, as if we weren't here there would be no-one to even care. The Earth has no perfect state save for any we would project onto it, born from our own sensibilites.

That is an interesting philosophical argument, that "if a styrofoam cup is dropped in the forest and no one cares, is it bad?" That is a rather human-centric view of things, but also myopic. "Ruining" the universe (or at least our universe) isn't just an aesthetic concern. Even if we are the only entities that can put a value on things, we depend on nature to provide us a lot of useful stuff. Degrading its ability to provide us with stuff could also result in a lower standard of living for us. Perhaps not substantially in our lifetimes, though.

Sticking with the assumption that we are the only entities with value judgment, different individuals could 'project' a different perfect state on the universe than you or me. So we're back where we started. There may be no prefect state save what we project, but we are all projecting our own perfect states. These values aren't all mutually compatible. Thus you and I and Fox News and Greenpeace and everyone else can and do argue over what a perfect world should look like. It may be an abstraction in the grand scheme of things, but that makes it no less important to us and no less debatable.

Nuts to Grenpeace (4, Insightful)

SirDrinksAlot (226001) | about 5 years ago | (#28804121)

Their rating system is entirely biased and is not even remotely objective. Their admitting in the past that they will still give failing grades to some companies even if they are the greenest around just because they think it might influence them to do better. Basicaly saying regardless of how well you do you'll never be good enough.

Effectively they invalidated the entire program of rating companies meaningless. You cant hold everyone to wildly different standards and still expect to be taken seriously.

Re:Nuts to Grenpeace (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28805127)

Their admitting in the past that they will still give failing grades to some companies even if they are the greenest around just because they think it might influence them to do better.

Hmm. I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this is prima facie evidence of bias in the rating system...

I mean, it could be, but it doesn't have to be. "Greenest" doesn't mean "green", and I think it's entirely conceivable that everyone fails to meet a certain standard, even though there's still gonna be someone who fails by the smallest margin.

Re:Nuts to Grenpeace (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about 5 years ago | (#28805529)

Their admitting in the past that they will still give failing grades to some companies even if they are the greenest around just because they think it might influence them to do better.

Hmm. I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this is prima facie evidence of bias in the rating system...

I mean, it could be, but it doesn't have to be. "Greenest" doesn't mean "green", and I think it's entirely conceivable that everyone fails to meet a certain standard, even though there's still gonna be someone who fails by the smallest margin.

It's not evidence of bias. When combined with a non-zero list of companies that "pass," however, it is evidence of uselessness at best, corruption at worst, and the GPs point holds.

The Same Products Are Still Much The Same?!?! (4, Insightful)

nick_davison (217681) | about 5 years ago | (#28804123)

The console industry works on five year cycles with a ten year lifespan for each product, a new version turning up halfway through its lifespan.

We're currently about two and a half years in to the current cycle for the PS3, a little more for the XBox360.

So, amazingly enough, the manufacturers didn't dump their hundreds of millions of dollars of investments, six months in to their ten year lives, just because Greenpeace told them to? Why that's just crazy.

Or, alternatively, it would've been blatantly obvious to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the console industry to know there couldn't be any significant change by this point (with the exception of the PS3 slim on the horrizon) and Greenpeace are simply showboating, picking something they know can't be changed but is mainstream culture enough to draw them column inches if they attack it.

It's cheap politics like that that lead me to ask, getting daily acosted by them to save the whales, "Why? Do they make good sushi?" When they can treat me with respect and stop trying cheap manipulation, I'll return the favor.

Re:The Same Products Are Still Much The Same?!?! (1)

amorsen (7485) | about 5 years ago | (#28804163)

So, amazingly enough, the manufacturers didn't dump their hundreds of millions of dollars of investments, six months in to their ten year lives, just because Greenpeace told them to? Why that's just crazy.

Other manufacturers have managed to change their then-current products. E.g. the ROHS program, which forced manufacturers to remove lead (and other things) from their products -- for a while it was fairly hard to get the WRT54GL, but a month later that was all cleared up.

Changing the way you produce a motherboard or replacing brominated flame retardants (nasty stuff, by the way) with something safer doesn't require a product redesign.

Answer In The Question? (2, Informative)

nick_davison (217681) | about 5 years ago | (#28804223)

E.g. the ROHS program, which forced manufacturers to remove lead (and other things) from their products

How many companies changed their product, midcycle, to comply before they were legally compelled to?

My guess is new product cycles may have been changed in anticipation and those that were midcycle when forced by law did so - but that no one suddenly tossed out a working design simply because they felt it was the nice thing to do.

Microsoft had their reputation trashed with the red ring of death issue. The last thing they need for the 360 is to tweak some design component that doesn't save them money, doesn't allow them to put out a cheaper product and introduce a new flaw that hammers an extra nail in their coffin of perceived reliability.

That being the case, every change to their design needs to be tested and not just tested in a few cases. They need to be absolutely certain that their new design won't warp more easily, won't overheat more easily, won't damage discs over time and thousands of other risks.

At that point, each change is hardly a cheap one for them to explore. That change is merited if they can knock more off in manufacturing costs than the new testing cost on average per unit sold (a cheaper chipset for example). That change is not merited if they save nothing but incur a huge expense in terms of either risk or testing.

So, whilst new designs, when broadscale testing is happening anyway, make financial sense to introduce changes and whilst laws will ultimately force anyone that wishes to remain in the market to make changes, my guess is very few companies ever simply risk an estabilished product line, mid cycle, simply because it's a nice thing to do*.

*unless there's a heavy marketing angle in it.

Re:Answer In The Question? (1)

amorsen (7485) | about 5 years ago | (#28804441)

How many companies changed their product, midcycle, to comply before they were legally compelled to?

Some did, but obviously not enough, or RoHS laws would not have been necessary. We can still criticize the companies for gambling with our safety.

*unless there's a heavy marketing angle in it.

That's what Greenpeace is trying to accomplish. I'm sure that Greenpeace wouldn't mind having a law forbidding brominated flame retardants, but in the meantime they have to work with what they have.

Anyway, now is the time to complain anyway, because it's at this time that decisions for the next console are being made. So far none of the manufacturers have announced anything related to improved product safety for their next consoles, so blindly hoping that it will be better is probably naive.

Re:Answer In The Question? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28807563)

Anyway, now is the time to complain anyway, because it's at this time that decisions for the next console are being made. So far none of the manufacturers have announced anything related to improved product safety for their next consoles, so blindly hoping that it will be better is probably naive.

None of the console manufacturers have announce *any* information about their next generation or products. So why bother creating straw men for your case?

I can't trust greenpeace (1)

lyml (1200795) | about 5 years ago | (#28804197)

Whenever greenpeace says anything I simply cannot beleive them because of their practice to make shit up.

It is possible that consoles are hazardous and that it is a real problem but when greenpeace says so, I simply do not beleive them. Had this come from a coherent not-making-shit-up-routinely organisation then I probably could have listened. So far though, no such organisation has spoken out.

Preying on fear (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28804349)

It's interesting to see how the green propaganda machine is specifically targeting the high-tech industry. A length of drain pipe probably contains more PVC than a hundred game consoles, but you don't see Greenpeace decrying the lack of environmental progress in the plastic pipe industry. They're just preying on peoples' fear of technology.

Re:Preying on fear (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about 5 years ago | (#28804399)

Maybe its because they have a bigger profile and more money. Does anyone even know the name of a company that produces PVC pipe?

Re:Preying on fear (1)

rwjyoung (674310) | about 5 years ago | (#28804771)

I do now! [google.com]

Re:Preying on fear (2, Funny)

cliffski (65094) | about 5 years ago | (#28804653)

I don't know about you, but I don't replace all the drainpipes in my house every few years. In fact I've lived in this house 10 years and not touched the ones that were here when we moved in.

Re:Preying on fear (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 5 years ago | (#28805931)

See all of those home improvement stores littering the landscape?

See all of that new home construction?

See that house being renovated?

All of that represents plenty of PVC that's a lot more signficant than what the game industry generates.

The other day I saw a big pile of it stacked next to a road being rebuilt. It looked like it was ripped out of the ground when they dug out for the road.

Baby Seals (1)

XB-70 (812342) | about 5 years ago | (#28804465)

GreenPiece* is all about viral marketing and 'causes' without really looking at the deep implications of their actions. For example, the TOTAL carbon footprint of trolley buses, due to line loss, is actually larger than diesel. Nuclear power kills a lot less people and is less environmentally damaging** than coal mines, coal dust and the resulting carbon emissions.

Combined with whining and pouting, gaming consoles keep kids from being driven to soccer, baseball, hockey or other organized sports, thus reducing the carbon footprint. Let's make an FPS for these kids that comes with a club so that we can kill baby seals.. or a whaling harpoon, or, better yet, make us French Marines trying to blow up a GreenPeirce boat. It's important to consider that gamers generally prefer FPS. They don't give a flying fuck about how the console was made. They just want to kill... Kill... KILL!!!

NOTE: Fat kids are lazy kids and will be less and less likely to get up and go somewhere when they can sit and twiddle their fingers for self-satisfaction. As you can see, the comparative impact of some chemicals in a console is far outweighed by the reduction in emissions that result from gaming. Longer term, due to lifestyle, they will die sooner and, again, reduce their lifetime carbon footprint.

If GroanPiece were an organization that was balanced instead of being activists without a clue, I would give them credibility. Once again, they are full of shit.

*Gun - get it?!! **You might disagree if you're from Kiev!

Greenpeace are like the HR department of the Earth (2, Funny)

PaganRitual (551879) | about 5 years ago | (#28804997)

For the most part pointless, they apparently spend most of their time trying to come up with new crap in order to try and justify their existence, and are often only noticed when people mock the next stupid thing they've come up with.

And yes, I was so gutless I waited until I got home to post this, just in case someone else from the ^H^H^H ... ahhhh, you nearly got me there.

6.5/10 (1)

usul294 (1163169) | about 5 years ago | (#28805521)

I wish that getting a 65% on a test in college would have qualified as "rather well", thought I guess electronics manufacturers get graded on a curve

Re:6.5/10 (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 5 years ago | (#28805947)

Engineering classes do tend to be graded on a curve. An absolute score
of 65% is probably what the chinese wunderkind managed to score. Everyone
else (including the normal chinese kids) are down in the 20's and 40's.

Of course no one in Greenpeace has enough clue to get the irony there.

Classification (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28805579)

There is a classification for Greenpeace: Ecoterrorists

PVC: a substance so toxic... (1)

HCaulfield (204219) | about 5 years ago | (#28806659)

...that we pipe our drinking water through it.

(Though, to be fair, the water that comes out of PVC pipes does tend to have a lot of DHMO [dhmo.org] in it.)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...