Greenpeace Dings Nintendo, Other Console Makers Over Environmental Concerns

November 28, 2007 -
Nintendo may be raking in the green with its sold-out Wii console, but it doesn't practice green manufacturing, according to environmental watchdog Greenpeace.

As reported by, Nintendo scored a zero on Greenpeace's quarterly Guide to Greener Electronics, the first global brand ever to do so. Also scoring badly: Xbox 360 manufacturer Microsoft.

Part of Nintendo's awful score apparently results from the company's failure to provide any information on its manufacturing practices:
Nintendo [scored] zero in the five categories related to the use of harmful chemicals, including offering no list of banned or restricted substances and no policy regarding the use of vinyl plastic or brominated flame retardants. It also scored zero in the four categories related to recycling.


oh, nuts to you, hippies. Like anyone cares what a bunch of tree-huggers cares about, anyway.


that's hilarious.

@Scott --

Well, France has a pretty good history of losing wars, so it's really not much of a shock.

I'm certainly not against the causes that Greenpeace is for. I'm all for trying to keep the environment clean, save endangered species, etc.

However, Greenpeace's methods leave a lot to be desired. They're basically a step below ELF in the crazy department at this point. When you're viewed as a fringe group, when you do crazy stuff, you end up weakening not only your cause, but the cause of the more rational groups that are trying to do some good.

Honestly, I wouldn't provide Greenpeace any information either.

They're a fucking non-government organization of retards, so who cares what they have to say?

Perhaps the Greenpeacers just can't get hold of a wii this consumer-mass.

Yes I have to laugh anytime GreenPeace says anything. My State Senator Imholfe is on their non-green politician hitlist all because he voted against some inane bills that would have wasted millions of federal tax dollars on pointless "green" issues.

Also missed in this article is that Sony Ericson scored up at the top of this list.

So I've been reading these headlines and thought, "Wow. Nintendo really isn't a green company? That's odd for the Japanese."

But now that I read more about it, I don't think that refusing to provide information is the same as doing poorly.

People should be more careful about the way they word headlines, because people who just glance by may get the wrong idea.

Greenpeace may be trying to help, but by misrepresenting facts (or by representing the absence of fact as a fact, in this case) they are really just being childish. They should just leave Nintendo off this list.

offering no list of banned or restricted substances and no policy regarding the use of vinyl plastic or brominated flame retardants.

What if it doesn't USE any of those? You didn't verify if they actually use any of those? And since banned substances, are, well, banned, wouldn't it be criminal to admit you're using them?

Something fishy is going on...
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...

That's right. We, Greenpeace, will assume that you make your product with toxic waste and baby seal corpses if you don't disclose to us the specifics of your manufacturing materials and details.

What, you don't want to? Well then you get a score of NEGATIVE A BILLION! Keep it up and we'll give you a medal for causing global warming.

Greenpeace is still around? Does anyone think they're relevant?

The best thing France ever did was sinking their boat.

Suck it, hippies.

(And good on Nintendo for not providing any information to a whacko fringe group with a major axe to grind against any company that makes money and any government that supports capitalism.)

Greenpeace... Ugh...Why are you here? Read the studies! The air we breathe in the cleanest we've had in over 12 years! Pollution in NY and cali are down 26.3% since 1999! The Ozone layer is constantly repairing itself daily. The fact is...all this is happening without the help of you let things naturally happen.

If you truely want to be a great organization do something good. Like seeing that the apartments in the US make 64% more pollution than a small community of 2500...SO go out and get rid of those apartment buildings and build those waste of space eco friendly houses wher eyou have to burn 10 lbs to power your blow dryer to get ready for work in the morning.

"Greenpeace… Ugh…Why are you here? Read the studies! The air we breathe in the cleanest we’ve had in over 12 years! Pollution in NY and cali are down 26.3% since 1999! The Ozone layer is constantly repairing itself daily. The fact is…all this is happening without the help of you let things naturally happen. "

Care to link to those studies? I dislike Greenpeace as much as the next person but those stats are nonsense. The world is not getting cleaner.

Anyone else find it funny that a group that supposedly is for the environment uses ships that are some of the most polluting. I mean seriously sails are so much more environmentally friendly than diesel.

Meh... Greenpeace was hijacked by political idealists a long time ago. They do this sort of thing to everybody.

Okay.. so, by not getting any information they fail, meaning that any company that they've yet to bother is also failing by that standard. In other words, Greenpeace equates anyone who brushes them off to a pollutin' and plunderin' Captain Planet villain.

@ ChrowX

I think they even have a shrine to Captain Planet in their head quarters. They probably all where those silly little heart rings as well. ;)

Greenpeace has always been a bullshit organization, but lately they're more bullshit then ever. I do like the work they do protecting whales, though, because I like whales. They're like giant, ocean bound dogs - actually whales sort of remind me of a high school buddy, in temperament, not scale. He sort of floated around, consuming stuff and not bothering anybody - but I digress.

Greenpeace is trying to blackmail Nintendo into releasing private information by assuming the worst and publishing it in a report that carries some weight and that's a despicable, misleading practice. A responsible reaction would be to note that Nintendo provided no information, not to score them as the worst possible sort of polluter. It just shows the sort of arrogance and absurd self-righteousness that permeates Greenpeace and so many of these "we're gonna help you, damn it!" organizations.

Greenpeace is nothing more than a group of idealist terrorists. Give them any information about your production plant, you risk getting blown up by them... sad by true...

You know if they were not Eco Terrorists I would be inclined to believe them or give a damn on what they said. This is just the iPod story all over again.

So, by the look of things, the only reason Nintendo failed was because they didn't tell them anything.

Hmmm....Well if they're really concerned shouldn't they shouldn't just assign a score right then and there without any evidence. They're supposed to hack into Nintendo databases and sneak around manufacturing sites with spy cameras :P


But still, Nintendo not wanting to divulge anything doesn't come as a surprise to me. That company is about as vacuum sealed as a Perdue sliced turkey in the deli section of a Safeway.

From what I read elsewhere, Greenpeace never actually ASKED Nintendo anything, but only looked over the Environment-Protection-or-whatever FAQ page on Nintendo's website (as they apparently did for everyone else they commented on). Supposedly this little tidbit that goes a long way to put things in perspective was somewhere in the fine print of Greenpeace's announcement.

I'd check it myself, but I don't have the time right now.

For more information on the misinformation of Greenpeace, check out this article:

Austin Lewis Says:

November 28th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Honestly, I wouldn’t provide Greenpeace any information either.

They’re a fucking non-government organization of retards, so who cares what they have to say?


Yeah, those bastards don't like us doing our jobs. World Peace.. That's just bollocks. Stupid Fuckers..

This is about as serious as the Fox 11 reports on MapleStory, Anonymous, and Nintendo DS

"They must be EVIL like those guys from Captain Planet, they didn't respond to our whining. Damn polluting warmongers!"

Greenpeace etc are no more fervent about their cause than other groups are about theirs, yes, some of them are crazy, but then, look at religions, animals rights groups and just about any other group formed around a 'concept' (even something as minor as Video Game Violence) and you'll always get the occasional nutcase, that's not because of the concept, it's because of the people.

I approve of the idea behind Greenpeace, same as I agree with the idea behind many animal rights advocates and Environmental groups, even if their actions aren't always sensible, in my opinion.

With that out of the way, I'm not surprised Nintendo didn't send out info on their first year to be honest, in these days of IP Paranoia etc, they probably didn't realise what the information was being requested for or why.

Hopefully there'll be a clearer picture next year.

WTF you talkin' about? Hippies RULE! Neocons are the enemy from my experiences. Just because Greenpeace criticizes Nintendo doesn't give you all a good enough reason to hate on them. Fox News; look for unbiased facts about them if you watch it. Look up actual stuff about Bush's elections and campaigns. I dare you to, oy.

@ Tye

Well when your organization takes the absense of information to mean that the company is dumping toxic waste into kiddy pools, then I say don't take them seriously.

If greenpeace wants to really be taken seriously they should gather facts rather than speculation.

With Greenpeace's logic, Super Smash Bros. Brawl scores a 0/10 with game reviewers because it hasn't been released to the public yet.

So let me get this straight, video games are not only responsible for violence in society, childhood obesity, the breakdown of the family and the collapse of society as a whole but it turns out they're bad for the enviroment too??

Well, to be honest, they did make it perfectly clear that they couldn't grade things because there was no information, they didn't imply anything from it other than a lack of information. There's an awful lot of assumptions being jumped to as to what Greenpeace is actually saying in that document.

@ GoodRobotUs

I guess what it comes to is this. In school a teacher can't grad your report if you never turn it in. So what happens, you get a zero.

It's bad enough when they made a scare campaign over nuclear power ( Now they have to make people feel like assholes for buying video game consoles. With Greenpeace you can't help but wonder: what will their next target be?


Out of 20+ posts, I haven't seen anyone here directly bash environmentalism. Yes, we all know that there are extremists in every group, and these people should be denounced. Not only are they indignant towards anyone who disagrees with them, but also damaging to their own cause. Greenpeace has likely done more damage to the environment than Nintendo ever could, as it has scared reasonable people away from environmentalism with its fear-mongering and misinformation (

*Not an environmentalist by any strech of the imagination, but I agree with GoodRobotUs in that the cause and Greenpeace don't have to be synomous.*


Exactly, they aren't saying that Nintendo are an evil, world-polluting company, they are just saying they couldn't grade them because they had no info. Just as the student who hands in their work late might be the next Einstein, Nintendo may be the greenest company on the planet, but without the information to prove it, they really have no choice but to give no grade.

Now, I'll agree that there's no imperative for Nintendo to give that information, but there's also no imperative for Greenpeace to give them a grade if they don't.

There's a difference between

0 and No Grade.

0 means you observed their activity and there is no redeeming value.
No Grade means you observed nothing.

Sure Nintendo could be dumping toxic waste into city resevoirs. Or they could be summoning Captain Planet every day. They didn't tell you though.

Greenpeace, stop lying with statistics. Next time, say "Nintendo didn't give us enough information, so we can't grade them" instead of "Nintendo didn't give us enough information, so THEY'RE EVIL!!!!!!"

And THAT is exactly what I'm getting at.

Not once at any point did Greenpeace pass judgement on Nintendo for not supplying information, and yet everyone is rushing in to pass judgement on Greenpeace.

Yah, fuck the environment and the motherfucking ecosystem and the wales and polar bears. Who needs 'em anyway? We can all live in underground bunkers on the moon and play video games all day long. Mass extinction is a small price to pay for a lifetime of mind-fogging entertainment. Keep burning that oil, people! If anyone tries to tell you that you have a responsibility to anything other than mindless self-indulgence, you should definitely kick them in the nuts right away then run over them with your truck. Effing pansies.


Not once at any point did Greenpeace pass judgement on Nintendo for not supplying information

Yes they did, they listed Nintendo behind companies they know for sure do pollute and use dangerous substances. They didn't list Nintendo on a "don't know" list... so they implied that Nintendo is the "worst offender".

Only deep within the article & report do they mention that the "worst offender" is pretty much 100% based on the fact that they really don't know what Nintendo IS doing...
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...

Only if the 360 RROD was GROD...thi product is earth friendly....but we have to make three times as many of them because of the high fail rates....

Care to link to those studies? I dislike Greenpeace as much as the next person but those stats are nonsense. The world is not getting cleaner.


Yeah! It was in a National Geographic 6 months ago I'll go back in my collection and find it post some pics.

Green peace to bad the French did not get all of them. Maybe we should tell them living is bad for the environment. Then tell peta how many animals get killed in combines each year.

Greenpeace? aren't they the people that oppose Golden rice (and other GMC) because (in a nutshell) the freemarket benefits the creators?


Message to Greenpeace: Who fucking cares? People don't care about "environmental issues" when they buy games. And if those Japanese whalers are reading this, feel free to sink a few Greenpeace ships.


PETA is the dumbest idea ever.

Greenpeace directly attacked Nintendo by even including them on the list instead of just saying did not observe. Instead they put them at a zero on there colorful lil chart. We all know that alot of people just pay attention to the pretty lil pictures, and don't fully read the article.

I really like Greenpeace. They're annoying as hell, but so are most politicians, and they fight for a cause I really care about. But right here I think they f**cked up. You are polluting if you don't want to tell somebody how you work?

They subscribe to thew Nostradamus Doctrine. Throw as much shit around as you can and hope you hit something.


"The best thing France ever did was sinking their boat."

And what can we say about a country who arguably lost a war with Greenpeace?

I'll agree, Greenpeace is nisrepresenting this, and yeah, they are in many cases a bunch of loud, narrowmided idealistic zealots. And things aren't as bad as they say...

I don't much like them, truth be told, but they do keep folks aware of some important issues. I just wish they were more ethical at times with thier methodology.

I support Big N on this one.


This is why i love the internet, Nintendo and Greenpeace leads to a "Bush stole the 2000 election" claim. Awesome. Now excuse me while i plug Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich.
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenTarget is not a developer or publisher.07/28/2015 - 5:31pm
MattsworknameAndrew: target asutraila, GTA 5. You were saying?07/28/2015 - 5:27pm
Andrew EisenNatir - Everything. I've been here since the beginning but we're not talking about ethics in games journalism right now. Did you really want to switch subjects?07/28/2015 - 5:25pm
Andrew EisenYes, how a game works, how characters are portrayed, how the controls operate, tone, themes, writing, etc. are all up to the devs. But that doesn't mean any of that is off limits to criticism by the people who consume it.07/28/2015 - 5:25pm
NatirAndrew, what do you exactly know about the GamerGate issue and the history behind it?07/28/2015 - 5:23pm
Andrew EisenYou're being absurd. No one is bullying or threatening developers and publishers.07/28/2015 - 5:23pm
MattsworknameAs far as im concerned, if feminist are allowed to bully and threaten retailers, developers, and publishers, then so should men, blacks asisans and jews. but thats NOT how it works, And thats why aniita and company are bullshit07/28/2015 - 5:22pm
NatirThe point is that there are tons of games that have women in lead roles. How someone is portrayed (woman or man), is up to the developers and writers of the story.07/28/2015 - 5:21pm
Andrew EisenDon't type angry. Your spelling is getting worse and you dropped an f-bomb which is why I deleted one of your comments.07/28/2015 - 5:21pm
MattsworknameMen do not get to decide how they are portrayed in games all the time, not do people of specific races. So why should women suddenly have the right to tell the industry how to portray them.07/28/2015 - 5:21pm
Andrew EisenI get to argue anything I damn well please, thank you very much. And again, no one's arguing that women don't exist in games. They're critiquing how they're generally portrayed.07/28/2015 - 5:20pm
Mattsworknameroles07/28/2015 - 5:20pm
MattsworknameYou dont get to argue that andrew, men or women do NOT get a say in how a game portary them, That is at the whim of the developer. YOu may not like how it's done, but the list hows, clearly, that women get a large amount of representation in the industry07/28/2015 - 5:19pm
Andrew EisenAlso, those few hundred games aren't from 2014. They're from the past couple decades. I spotted one from as early as 1990 and a bunch that aren't out yet.07/28/2015 - 5:19pm
Andrew EisenBecause the argument is not just how many games have women in them but how they are portrayed in those games.07/28/2015 - 5:16pm
Mattsworknamerepresented in games then Aniita and company like to claim?07/28/2015 - 5:15pm
MattsworknameAndrew: Even if you low ball the number of games on that list, or were to discount those that don't have exclusively female protaganists, that list is 36 pages long, 10 per page, thats HUNDREDS of games. how does that not show that woman are far better07/28/2015 - 5:14pm
Andrew EisenI never said you said sexism or harassment doesn't exist and didn't mean to imply it either. No, I'm not cherry picking. Obviously.07/28/2015 - 5:11pm
Andrew EisenNo, gaming companies are not on their knees. That's silly. They're free to listen or not listen as they see fit.07/28/2015 - 5:09pm
Andrew EisenAnd no, you are not labeled a misogynist for simply disagreeing with people like Sarkeesian or Quinn. That is completely untrue.07/28/2015 - 5:08pm

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician