I appreciate seeing these kinds of political articles on here - it certainly provides for some provocative discussion.
I must say though, while I respect that some people may not agree with the way Greenpeace conducts itself as an organisation, the issue they are raising - decreasing toxic waste - is difficult to logically argue against. Clearly,the less toxic waste being produced, the better off we are.
It seems many of the opposing views to the article are simply focused on their hatred of Greenpeace.
I read a haunting article a while back on what the real slumdogs of india do for a living (offered, obviously, as a counter to the love at the time for "Slumdog Millionaire"). I couldn't believe it, but lots of these people really do boil and break apart garbage for precious metals ("precious" in this sort of case including things we consider rather mundane, like copper and aluminum) and other scavenge-ables to eke out a poor living. So besides the horror of what toxic products do to the water table, the human face he puts on this is frighteningly accurate.
I want to thank you for your well-written article. The angles you cover are helpful and comprehensive. You -do- offer solutions (keeping a company in charge of their own recycling especially makes a great deal of sense). I found myself wishing people would require and listen to articles like these instead of soundbyte commercials, as I honestly found the soundbyte version offensive and annoying, and ignored them. Understanding the deeper story, however, made the issue mean a whole lot more.
I believe that, as an industry (consumers, developers, hardware engineers), we do ultimately hold an ethical responsibility to "green" ourselves by reducing energy usage and waste. It's not something that will happen overnight, and I don't consider it reasonable to yell "do it NOW" to companies without at least providing a signpost pointing in the right direction, but every step in that direction is worth considering.
I believe that to solve these issues, mature, well-reasoned dialogue is needed, which is why I am happy to see Guest Op-Eds such as this on occasion on the Kotaku site. I certainly consider such posts a much better solution to reaching active consumers than pithy, immature, and illegal antics like the ones Greenpeace recently pulled on HP.
I believe that solely focusing on negative publicity about companies and corporations will not do much to win over gamers. The industry is taking steps towards greener solutions, such as lower power consumption and digital distribution, which is worth acknowledging.
I believe that we can ultimately find solutions to these issues if we all work together and keep a level head. And I do believe it is important to keep looking for new ways to innovate.
Honestly, why does it become a hotbutton issue when it comes to environmental responsibility? I don't see anything bad with having to take care of the world around you.
@pandafresh: Yes, but Greenpeace chooses to use it solely to promote its anti-business and anti-capitalism propaganda. Demanding retailers to set up facilities to reclaim products sold to consumers? Not only is that an absolutely ridiculous and impractical idea, but in this global economy, you'd find the products returning to their third-world manufacturing origins anyway.
Why not use your donation money to buy everyone in china a console with the stipulation that the console meet your standards of green electronics. Then the companies will gladly make the changes, and you will get your way with newer safer products and china's carbon footprint will be "reduced" and there will be more charlie chans whose ass i can kick in Call Of Duty: World At War.
I had no idea until just now that Kotaku was another left-leaning media source, like ABC and CBS. What's next, Kotakupeace is gonna tell me I need to eat SOYJOY while playing GTA?
And I do believe "people eeking out a living by scavenging smoldering mountains of our castaway technology" takes some sort of artistic license. Sounds like me working in my home office.
@ToneTheTiger:
That line about people eeking out a living from mountains of castaway technology is probably literally true. It's true about a lot of places and about general trash, not just electronics. And its true about places a lot closer than Asia too boot.
@ToneTheTiger: wait what....are you saying? garbage dumps filled with poisonous materials like electronics are an issue. theres no political stance here, just a human one.
@ToneTheTiger: Actually the soy industry in Brazil is second only to cattle ranching in terms of contributing to deforestation of the Amazon. Although the problem has got much better in recent years due to soy producers' organisations agreeing to adopt more sustainable agricultural practices...
..oh wait. You're not listening, are you? Never mind.
@ToneTheTiger: I take it that you didn't bother to read the tag that says "GUEST OP/ED"?
Kotaku reported on something that Green Peace did regarding video game consoles. Green Peace found out about the angry response from dipshits like you. Green Peace sends a letter to Kotaku as a gesture of goodwill and explains their methodology. Kotaku receives the letter and obviously has to report it because of this thing called the Journalist's Creed (or the Journalist's Code of Ethics).
That said, I'd really appreciate it if Kotaku could ban you from ever commenting here again.
@PoweredByHentai: That said, I'd really appreciate it if Kotaku could ban you from ever commenting here again.
Banning someone for stating a disagreement is not exactly conducive to the free thinking intelligent mindset I'd presume you'd prescribe to yourself but quickly dismiss regarding the OP with whom you disagree.
@Kobun: You're right, debate and discussion on this matter is important, and I think there are plenty of valid and civil arguments one could bring up.
But ignorant, clearly flamebait comments suggesting that poverty is "artistic license" or calling Chinese citizens "charlie chans" IS ban-worthy. There's "different opinion" and then there's "wrong"
@Grand_Marquis: He's not stating poverty itself is simply a use of artistic license but rather the connotation it's used in the piece. I also don't see where he ever wrote "charlie chan" at any point in this topic. That said, my intent wasn't to defend him (though I have my own disagreements with the "editorial") but rather just point out one doesn't cure ignorance with more ignorance.
I find it funny how defensive gamers get when anyone dares to criticize anything gaming related. Jesus, some of you guys need to realise this is an important issue and Greenpeace is trying to do some good for the world here, which is more than can be said for most of you. Its pathetic how many of you are making so many excuses to defend the game companies or make Greenpeace seem like the villain here, or going with the whole "who cares about the environment, I'll do whatever the hell I want" mentality.
@Grand_Marquis: They've lost a lot of credibility in my eyes since this Climate Change guff. Especially as they recently admitted on TV that they were fluffing the facts to extract an emotional response from people.
@Donutta: Everything is a propaganda machine these days sadly. Too many people pick a group which conforms to their general mindset and lap up whatever cause and dubious facts used to support the pre-existing viewpoint. I think you can thank the death of credible, objective journalism for that.
The circumstances of the children in these rural areas are appalling. Unfortunately, these companies seem to be more motivated by business endeavors than health and safety. At most, it's bad for the company name to be associated with this sort of controversy.
@Pretty Sneaky Sis: I think it's important to keep perspective though. Yes, the lives these children live are appalling, but the materials that end up in electronics waste only make the tiniest contribution to that situation. The manner in which developing countries are used as dumping grounds for waste in general is a much more substantial problem. And that doesn't even touch on the many, many obstacles to economic and social development in the poorest countries, which is what is really responsible for the lives these children are living. Even if consoles were made of entirely biodegradable substances, these kids would still be living in abject circumstances.
It is a little exploitative to tag an article about environmental practice in manufacturing onto a heart-wrenching story about child poverty, but the author is absolutely not making the sensationalist claim that that console design is at the root of that poverty.
"Hello, game companies? Greenpeace here. Hi, we were thinking it would be just swell if you stopped using toxic chemicals when making your game consoles. Yes I know your consoles have already been in production for years, but maybe you could UNproduce them for a little while so you can make them nice and non-toxic.
Oh no, no, we don't know how to replace them. No, I wasn't aware that you already sell every one of your consoles at a loss. Yes, but maybe you could just spend a few million figuring out how to replace all the toxics on your own.
Yes, I know you're a company, but that doesn't mean you can't also care about the environment. No, I didn't realize how many employees that count on the money you're already making to feed their families. Well, the money could come from some of the employees who make more money. Oh, you have to give them a larger paycheck to give them incentive to work for you and not your competitor? Oh, I see. Well, maybe you could just charge more for the console itself.
No no, I already told you. We don't have any idea how to actually solve this problem. We just want you to fix it, then we can add you to our victories page! It's very nice: did you know we stopped toxic waste? Yes, and whaling. No, I don't know how many businesses we completely annhilated and people we've sent to the poorhouse over some of these: why do you ask?"
@Inkmonkey: Oh, boo-hoo for the friggin' companies!! The ones that make multi-million (or in some cases) billion-dollar profits!
Get a fucking sense of perspective already. Unless someone starts the ball rolling it will never become cost-effective to be environmentally friendly.
One suspects you would have a different view if you were living in one of the developing countries that are the oh-so-lucky recipients of our toxic trash.
1) Yes, the less toxic compounds in electronics, the better. However, we should also pursue longevity in these devices as well. There is evidence that these replacement compounds are causing the devices they are used in to die quicker and therefore pushing MORE waste into the "recycling" system.
2) We should also be pushing for our own technology to recycle our own waste. That would release us from the culpability of the photo above that is meant to invoke guilt. Either that or make responsible the governments that allow that type of filth to happen in their country.
08/27/09
I must say though, while I respect that some people may not agree with the way Greenpeace conducts itself as an organisation, the issue they are raising - decreasing toxic waste - is difficult to logically argue against. Clearly,the less toxic waste being produced, the better off we are.
It seems many of the opposing views to the article are simply focused on their hatred of Greenpeace.
08/26/09
I want to thank you for your well-written article. The angles you cover are helpful and comprehensive. You -do- offer solutions (keeping a company in charge of their own recycling especially makes a great deal of sense). I found myself wishing people would require and listen to articles like these instead of soundbyte commercials, as I honestly found the soundbyte version offensive and annoying, and ignored them. Understanding the deeper story, however, made the issue mean a whole lot more.
08/26/09
I believe that to solve these issues, mature, well-reasoned dialogue is needed, which is why I am happy to see Guest Op-Eds such as this on occasion on the Kotaku site. I certainly consider such posts a much better solution to reaching active consumers than pithy, immature, and illegal antics like the ones Greenpeace recently pulled on HP.
I believe that solely focusing on negative publicity about companies and corporations will not do much to win over gamers. The industry is taking steps towards greener solutions, such as lower power consumption and digital distribution, which is worth acknowledging.
I believe that we can ultimately find solutions to these issues if we all work together and keep a level head. And I do believe it is important to keep looking for new ways to innovate.
08/26/09
[current.com]
60 minute episode on ewaste and China. This really shouldn't be a conservative/liberal issue. We need to take care of our home.
08/26/09
Then I started reading Kotaku comments. :D
08/26/09
08/26/09
08/26/09
08/26/09
08/26/09
And I do believe "people eeking out a living by scavenging smoldering mountains of our castaway technology" takes some sort of artistic license. Sounds like me working in my home office.
08/26/09
That line about people eeking out a living from mountains of castaway technology is probably literally true. It's true about a lot of places and about general trash, not just electronics. And its true about places a lot closer than Asia too boot.
08/26/09
08/26/09
..oh wait. You're not listening, are you? Never mind.
08/26/09
08/26/09
Kotaku reported on something that Green Peace did regarding video game consoles. Green Peace found out about the angry response from dipshits like you. Green Peace sends a letter to Kotaku as a gesture of goodwill and explains their methodology. Kotaku receives the letter and obviously has to report it because of this thing called the Journalist's Creed (or the Journalist's Code of Ethics).
That said, I'd really appreciate it if Kotaku could ban you from ever commenting here again.
08/26/09
Banning someone for stating a disagreement is not exactly conducive to the free thinking intelligent mindset I'd presume you'd prescribe to yourself but quickly dismiss regarding the OP with whom you disagree.
08/26/09
But ignorant, clearly flamebait comments suggesting that poverty is "artistic license" or calling Chinese citizens "charlie chans" IS ban-worthy. There's "different opinion" and then there's "wrong"
Tone, here, is clearly in the wrong.
08/26/09
08/26/09
08/26/09
08/26/09
08/26/09
08/26/09
08/26/09
08/26/09
oh well ok then...
Thank you :}
08/26/09
08/26/09
-1
I'm so glad Kotaku has Star Commenters such as dowingba to enrich all our lives.
08/26/09
08/26/09
08/26/09
triple stamped, no erasies.
08/26/09
08/26/09
08/26/09
It is a little exploitative to tag an article about environmental practice in manufacturing onto a heart-wrenching story about child poverty, but the author is absolutely not making the sensationalist claim that that console design is at the root of that poverty.
08/26/09
Oh no, no, we don't know how to replace them. No, I wasn't aware that you already sell every one of your consoles at a loss. Yes, but maybe you could just spend a few million figuring out how to replace all the toxics on your own.
Yes, I know you're a company, but that doesn't mean you can't also care about the environment. No, I didn't realize how many employees that count on the money you're already making to feed their families. Well, the money could come from some of the employees who make more money. Oh, you have to give them a larger paycheck to give them incentive to work for you and not your competitor? Oh, I see. Well, maybe you could just charge more for the console itself.
No no, I already told you. We don't have any idea how to actually solve this problem. We just want you to fix it, then we can add you to our victories page! It's very nice: did you know we stopped toxic waste? Yes, and whaling. No, I don't know how many businesses we completely annhilated and people we've sent to the poorhouse over some of these: why do you ask?"
08/26/09
08/27/09
Get a fucking sense of perspective already. Unless someone starts the ball rolling it will never become cost-effective to be environmentally friendly.
One suspects you would have a different view if you were living in one of the developing countries that are the oh-so-lucky recipients of our toxic trash.
08/26/09
1) Yes, the less toxic compounds in electronics, the better. However, we should also pursue longevity in these devices as well. There is evidence that these replacement compounds are causing the devices they are used in to die quicker and therefore pushing MORE waste into the "recycling" system.
2) We should also be pushing for our own technology to recycle our own waste. That would release us from the culpability of the photo above that is meant to invoke guilt. Either that or make responsible the governments that allow that type of filth to happen in their country.