When it comes to technology companies, Nintendo have one of the worst environmental records out there. They have owned the last placed slot on the Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics for years now, and don’t look like they’re about to change. But what if they did? Mark over at Kotaku spoke to Casey Harrel from Greenpeace about exactly what Nintendo could do to make them seem a little more eco-friendly.
“Nintendo has a lot of room for improvement. Ideally, I’d like to see them start with disclosure. The company is not disclosing much information on their environmental impact. This will be a good gauge on where they need to improve
“Progress should start with a strong commitment to chemicals management and a precautionary approach to the materials they use in their products – they should use chemicals that they know don’t cause harm.
“This eco-design will reap benefits in terms of the recyclability of their products, and likely up the percentage of goods that are collected for proper dismantling and recycling. This will allow more recycled content to be place in next-gen consumer electronics.
“And, finally, focus on energy use, both in the manufacturing of the products, but also during the use phase, where – specifically in game consoles – there is significant energy use. Bring efficiency down by a factor of eight – using Moore’s law, this should be feasible within five years.”
It all seems too easy right? It interesting to note that it was only a few years ago that Apple scored incredibly poorly on the Greenpeace scale, and Cupertino went into overdrive to adjust that situation. While there are a lot of similarities between Apple and Nintendo, it seems eco-consciousness isn’t one of them.
Yet.
[Kotaku]



















Robert
Monday, April 25, 2011 at 2:59 PMApple’s green contribution is nothing more than legal compliance. If you factor in their abhorant use of aluminium casings, they actually fare pooly… still.
If you weren’t aware, aluminium represents an obscene energy use to create. So much so that you can make 40 equivalent cases from rolled/pressed steel for the same energy use. No amount of recycling will account for the difference if just 1 in 40 units don’t make it back to be recycled.
Doug Sherry
Monday, April 25, 2011 at 4:36 PMNintendo’s been recycling for years – just look at the Wii..
EngelbertHumperdink
Monday, April 25, 2011 at 5:43 PMHa!
“Ideally, I’d like to see them start with disclosure” – Please TELL us what your environmental record is like! We have no idea what you’re doing, so we gave you last place. :-P
andronicus
Monday, April 25, 2011 at 8:04 PMThere is more to this then saying they rank lowest.
They consistently rank lowest due to total non-disclosure. Therefore because of this they are ranking lower.
If they opened up their doors….books…factories rather…then they will be assessed and scaled properly.
Also remember that Nintendo has a lot of third parties building products for them such as Panasonic….does that get taken into account?
Keith Drain
Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 1:52 AMBah Greenpeace is no authority a bunch of idealists that do not base their policies on evidence but on their own twisted ideals.
trollosk
Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 8:50 PMfuck greenpeace
Adrian Cascun-Valencic
Wednesday, April 27, 2011 at 9:49 AMWant to talk about wastage, Greenpeace? How about the “Bat-boat” disaster?
Adrian Cascun-Valencic
Wednesday, April 27, 2011 at 9:50 AMOK, I’m retarded – that was Sea Shepherd. Doesn’t mean Greenpeace aren’t an irrational bunch of tree-hugging hippies.