I’ve been a very bad environmentalist this week.
It was all an accident — and a fun one at that. Lindsay of LAist invited me to a lil all-girls party thrown by this game company. So I hopped on the Metro 704 to Hollywood and spent the evening drinking free wine, nibbling on fruit and cookies, playing a whole bunch of games, and meeting some v. cool people like jozjozjoz. I even happily left with a free little gaming device and a free charm bracelet.
Then on the bus back home, while trying madly to reduce my “Brain Age” on this new Nintendo DS, I remembered Greenpeace saying some nasty things about Nintendo.
So I got home and looked it up. Sure enough: According to Greenpeace’s Guide to Greener Electronics, Nintendo’s like THE ungreenest electronics company out there. The “first global brand to score zero across all criteria,” in fact!
I suck. I’ve officially brought a whole buncha uneco stuff into my house. I’m afraid even to give this stuff away. There’s no way I’d wear the charm bracelet — and I’m not much for knickknacks anyway — but Nintendo being Nintendo, I’m afraid the stuff might have lead in it. What if some kid gets a hold of it and pops a poisonous shoe in her mouth! The DS itself is probably chock full of phthalates too….
Companies like Nintendo are so great at throwing fun parties like these and getting every partygoer to have warm fuzzy feelings ’bout the company…. If they just used some of that money and energy to make their products with something other than the ickiest stuff –
I totally had fun at the party — but I won’t spend a dime on Nintendo games until they shape up –
Update, 5/6/09: Green tech guides: Making greener gadget shopping easier
Really? You wouldn’t wear a cute Nintendo charm bracelet?
Blame it on the wine. I doubt fruit and cookies would cause you to bring home a piece of crap like that. But who knows what they might have been laced with…
WWFPFD? Send it all back to Nintendo with a letter. A nice one, of course.
Comment by Beth aka Fake Plastic Fish — March 9, 2008 @ 12:40 am
I am SO bummed to find out how eco-unfriendly Nintendo is.
Meh!
And I was going to buy another DS as a gift, too… hmmm…
Comment by :: jozjozjoz :: — March 11, 2008 @ 6:52 am
I’m not saying Nintendo doesn’t have some room for improvement, but these “green electronics” reports from Greenpeace are downright misleading.
The “studies” have no scientific basis, and quite sloppy methodology. Many of Greenpeace’s rankings are seemingly arbitrary, and all are based solely on what the ranked companies themselves claim. Furthermore, they don’t even take into account whether those claims are realistic, or adhered to.
Greenpeace says as much in the report: “Each score is based solely on public information on the companies website.” So this is basically a report on how much marketing/PR companies give to their green efforts. Nintendo could be the greenest company on the list (they aren’t – I’m not denying they have room for improvement), and still rank last if they don’t publicize it.
I’m all for a report highlighting the environmental impact of the electronics industry (it would be great to be able to hold these companies accountable, and work for better policies), but this one by Greenpeace isn’t it… it’s mostly a PR stunt.
[1] http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2007/11/28/greenpeace-takes-ele.html
[2] http://www.temasactuales.com/temasblog/?p=39
[3] http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/29C5599A-FCD8-4E30-9AD5-5497999ABA1B.html
Comment by Joshua — March 16, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
Joshua — Your comment that suggests Nintendo’s actually greener than it is because it doesn’t do PR about its greenness is a tad hilar considering that this entire post was precipitated by a big PR stunt on Nintendo’s part :P
But in any case — You’ll note that Greenpeace’s report looks for 2 main issues: 1) removing hazardous substances, and 2) taking back / recycling obsolete equipment. That #2, obviously, includes having a recycling program, publicizing it, and practicing it. No one, including Nintendo, denies that Nintendo has no program in place — so that’s a clear F on that issue. Nintendo couldn’t publicize anything on this issue cuz it’s done nothing.
On the removing hazardous substances front, Nintendo has publicized that it has put together “Green Procurement Standards” — though details are hard to come by on what exactly those standards are. Still, that plus the fact that that Nintendo’s even put in the effort to put together a “What does Nintendo do to help protect the environment?” page — bragging that it’s OMG! recycling paper — makes me think Nintendo’s hardly shy about touting the few green moves it does make.
You might be pleased to know that those minimal efforts on Nintendo’s part have still convinced Greenpeace to award the company 1 point, up from 0 –
Comment by Siel — March 24, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
Siel, you’re missing the point entirely. I never said Nintendo was green, rather they’re a scapegoat in Greenpeace’s publicity campaign. I understand, Greenpeace is trying to get PR… that’s what they do. And they do so by going after the “popular” companies. They did this with Apple last year, and with Nintendo now.
My point was that neither you, nor I, nor **Greenpeace** knows that Nintendo only scores a 0 (or 1) on these issues. The scale has nothing to do with how green Nintendo is… Nintendo could be much, much higher (and are higher I would guess — much much is debatable :)
Since Greenpeace clearly states “Each score is based solely on public information on the companies [sic] website.” Additionally, many of the bad scores are based on “No information”. My big issue is that Greenpeace releases a shoddy study, and publicizes as if it means more than it does… it’s called good science and I wish Greenpeace was doing some. This study doesn’t show how green a company is — it shows how green a company *says* it is. There’s a big difference. As I said above, I’m all for a proper environmental study being released, but this isn’t it.
Comment by Joshua — March 24, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
I understand what you’re saying, but you’re missing my point — which is that the public information that Nintendo’s making available is very much a valid part of the critique. I think the point Nintendo’s trying to make is that owning up to, taking responsibility for, and educating consumers about the toxic materials used in Nintendo’s products is Nintendo’s responsibility. Silence — when we do know Nintendo uses questionable materials that are v. difficult to recycle — is in itself an evasion of responsibility.
As I mentioned, one of the 2 major points that Greenpeace is looking for is a electronics take back/recycling program — which Nintendo doesn’t have. That alone halfs Nintendo’s potential score. Sure, Nintendo may have “no information” on a take-back program — but that’s b/c it doesn’t exist.
And again — a company that goes out of its way to publicize that it recycles paper is hardly a company that’s too proud and/or secretive and/or media shy to brag about bigger enviro steps it may be taking.
Comment by Siel — March 24, 2008 @ 8:35 pm