Neoseeker : News : Greenpeace: Microsoft, Nintendo & Phillips least responsible over e-waste
Hardware Newsletter:
Email:

Latest News
Fri, Aug 08
Thu, Aug 07
Wed, Aug 06

send article hardware newsletter   article comments (7)

Greenpeace: Microsoft, Nintendo & Phillips least responsible over e-waste
Leo Chan - Tuesday, November 27th, 2007 | 12:51PM (PST)


Guess it's time for the greener Mario brother to take center stage

Daydreamers have mused over what sweet music Nintendo and Apple could be making together, but according to Greenpeace the two companies already share something in common, and it's their apparent lack of environmental friendliness. The environmental watchdog releases its latest quarterly "Guide to Greener Electronics", ranking companies on their commitment to reducing e-waste and use of "harmful chemicals" in products, and the newest report marks the first time Greenpeace has factored television and video game console makers into their evaluation of consumer electronics. Unfortunately, Greenpeace's report card for Nintendo is none too favorable, granting the Mario Factory a zero out of ten so big it can roll it home.

Greenpeace claims Nintendo has no discernible policies over use of chemicals like vinyl plastic (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs), though the company's website does note its manufacturing partners are required to steer clear of any banned substances for consoles and any of their components. Greenpeace could not find any plans on Nintendo's part to phase out their use in console hardware, and Nintendo had no known programs in place for electronics recycling.

Console competitor Microsoft is also new to the list, but makes a poor debut with a score of 2.7. Microsoft does intend to eliminate use of PVCs and BFRs before 2011, but Greenpeace believes the company fails to be forward with information on identifying future substances. Microsoft does not provide voluntary takeback as of yet, though the company last year did fund recovery and recycling of "over 1.3 million kgs of consumer electrical and electronic goods" in Europe. Greenpeace explains that Microsoft does not actively support its existing "producer-funded" recycling.

Both Sony and Sony Ericsson have the most experience with Greenpeace, being present in all their evaluations since August 2006. Sony has yet to rank over 8, but the company fared far better than either Nintendo or Microsoft this time around with a score of 7.3. Sony has since eliminated much of its use of PVCs and BFRs in its electronics, and the company intends to phase out use of PVC by 2010. The company also explicitly provides information on chemical management regulations and their implementation. Sony provides nationwide recycling in the US, and supports trade-in programs for notebook computers. Finally, Sony actively recovered and recycled resources from e-waste in Japan during the previous fiscal year.

Sony (7.3/10) - More products free of toxic PVC and improved reporting on recycling and takeback especially in the US. (PDF report

Microsoft (2.7/10) - New to the guide - long timeline for toxic chemicals elimination (2011) and poor takeback policy and practice. (PDF report)

Nintendo (0/10) - New to the guide - first global brand to score zero across all criteria! (PDF report)

Will Nintendo and Microsoft see their negative marks according to Greenpeace as enough of a blow to their reputation that official commentary will be in order? E-waste is certainly becoming an active topic what with the proliferation of digital audio players, cameras, etc., and there is still concern over how obsolete electronics are essentially being dumped into countries like India and China through clandestine arteries.


Greenpeace: Microsoft, Nintendo & Phillips least responsible over e-waste Image 1
  Related Stories

back to news    comments or corrections
- This news story is archived and is closed to comments now -

Comments:

November 27th, 2007 7:34PM(PST)
Bill Gates03
Am I reading this wrong, or shouldn't it be "Microsoft, Nintendo & Phillips MOST responsible over e-waste?"
November 27th, 2007 8:03PM(PST)
iamjoe56
wtf is the point? Why don't these green thingies just go and live in thr=ere mud huts and leave us alone?
November 27th, 2007 8:09PM(PST)
kspiess
Toxic chemicals in the world's air and water supplies are not good. They have the tendency to make people sick. And that's not much fun, is it.
November 27th, 2007 8:16PM(PST)
iamjoe56
Toxic chemicasl from what? Copper wire? Please!
November 27th, 2007 8:46PM(PST)
RabidChinaGirl
Taken from MSN Encarta:

Hazardous wastes are generated by nearly every industry; those industries that themselves generate few hazardous wastes nonetheless use products from hazardous waste generating industries. For example, in the computer software industry, writing software generates little hazardous waste, but the manufacture of computers involves many industrial processes. Making a computer circuit board generates spent electroplating baths that contain metal salts, and the production of computer chips uses acids, other caustic chemicals, and solvents. Other hazardous wastes are generated in the manufacture of fiber optics and copper wire used in electronic transmission, as well as magnetic disks, paper for technical manuals, photographs for packaging and publicity, and trucks for transportation of the finished product.
November 27th, 2007 9:21PM(PST)
iamjoe56
My point is, they are being way too sensitive over all this. Metal salts are bad, yes. Carbon emission, that is a load of bullshit.

my only point is this, I do not see how throwing away the copper wire causes problems, nor do I see how the computer industry itself has any effect on all of this, and thus why does Greenhippies even bother!?!?
November 28th, 2007 2:20AM(PST)
Cillchaoi
If one gets right down to it, humans have always generated waste that can contaminate the environment, such as fecal matter. There are many types of parasites that love to live in the intestines (or other parts) of the human body and that pass eggs, larvae, or other young waiting to infect the food or water supply so as to grow, spread, and infect more humans and other animals.

Admittedly, nowadays these types of infections are less common since our foods are well sanitized before consumption in most parts of the world but the point that I am making is that this is just the newest level of cleaning up after ourselves.

Yes, we need to do so. Yes, contamination of the environment is a bad thing. However, the people at Greenpeace (for whom I have little respect anyway) need to get off their collective high horse and realize that changes such as this do not happen overnight. If a process to make a certain product or material generates hazardous by-products, then a different method to produce the same or similar product must be found that can serve the same purpose and perform adequately for the intended use. Further, if the manufacturing process is not the same or similar enough to use the same equipment, then there is additional expense (and the time required for installation) to implement the needed changes to manufacture this new material.

Greenpeace can have their "report card" and raise a fuss about it if they wish but it doesn't make much of an impact on the issue and is done only to generate themselves some media attention. All in all, it amounts to their "15 minutes of fame" and then the readers will move on to something else, such as the article about the latest house fire in town, and forget about what Greenpeace has said.

- This news story is archived and is closed to new comments now -

  RSS Feeds

Latest Comments
Most Comments
Latest Net Reviews:
Latest Inhouse:


Compare Prices

Motherboards
 Abit
 ASUS
 Gigabyte
 Intel
 iWill
 Shuttle
 Soyo
 Super Micro
 Tyan
 More...

Processors
 AMD
 Intel
 More...

Memory
 SDRAM
 RDRAM
 DDRAM
 More...

Video Cards
 ATI
 Visiontek
 PNY
 3Dfx
 More...

search for lowest prices

(0.0811/d/nova)