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.

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.

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 –

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

Meh!

And I was going to buy another DS as a gift, too… hmmm…