Consoles too toxic, says Greenpeace

By Robert Purchese Published 20 May, 2008

All three are bad for the environment.

Greenpeace has urged console makers to start using more environmentally friendly materials to make their hardware, GamesIndustry.biz reports.

The activist group pulled apart Wii, PS3 and Xbox 360 units and found all sorts of chemicals that hurt plants: polyvinyl chloride, phthalates, beryllium, bromine and cillit bang were detected. Maybe not the last one.

Their probing also found improvement, but there were still rather a lot of unnecessary toxic materials in use.

"If manufacturers only looked at each other's products, they'd quickly see ways of replacing their own dirty components with toxic-free materials," The group said on its site.

"A greener, cleaner game console is possible. There's no excuse for playing dirty."

Greenpeace recently had a go at Nintendo for failing to deal with its e-waste effectively and work under public eco-policies.

GamesIndustry.biz reaps a regular harvest of news from its fertile fact garden.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (98) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Cloudane #1 4 years ago

    I'm surprised that Nintendo are the worse one off.

  • robg #2 4 years ago

    If they looked at /each others' products/? I thought they were all bad?

  • gingerlink #3 4 years ago

    BANG and the dirt is gone

  • mossychops001 #4 4 years ago

    GREENPEACE. SAVE the planet, close your organisation down and save a few trees. show us how!

  • Barkotron #5 4 years ago

    "I'm surprised that Nintendo are the worse one off."

    From what I remember, did they not come off badly in one of these reports purely because they didn't actually respond to the information request?

  • mossychops001 #6 4 years ago

    I wonder what GREENPEACE's Carbon footprint is like?

  • Eraser #7 4 years ago

    "From what I remember, did they not come off badly in one of these reports purely because they didn't actually respond to the information request?"

    Yeah that's correct. Nintendo didn't supply the info for greenpeace so they (greenpeace) gave nintendo a very bad eco ranking.

  • gingerlink #8 4 years ago

    Whne I read this article on the bbc website, although it said nintendo were the worst, it said they didn't have the most harmful stuff like the berylium, which sounded wierd.

    Also, people are supposed to send their consoles to the companies instead of disposing of them anyway, or in most people's cases, selling them on down the line...

  • AcidSnake #9 4 years ago

    "If they looked at /each others' products/? I thought they were all bad?"
    Probably means that Sony's environmentally friendly components can not be found in MS or Nintendo's products, but could be used...And vice versa...

  • seasidebaz #10 4 years ago

    haha i bet if apple made a console they'd be completely shitting themselves by now.

    last i heard, they made everybody else put together look green.

  • ps3owner #11 4 years ago

    Dirty = cheap

    clean = expensive.

    I wonder where the PS3 fits in then?

    obviously the Xbox360 is the worst. after all, each user will have gone through at least 3 consoles in a 3 year life span... so nintendo and PS are far cleaner :)

  • DFawkes #12 4 years ago

    Greenpeace, the organisation that attempts to defend the planet by whining and publicising stuff with no scientific basis, and also commiting acts of borderline terrorism. Needless to say I'm not a fan :p

  • peterfll #13 4 years ago

    Another cleary uninformed group of people who cannot relate to the games industry - because they claim consoles are "toys" and should be subject to stricter manufacturing regulations. Because it suits your agenda love? I don't think so, even if there's some merit in it.

  • Garulon #14 4 years ago

    Fucking idiots. Yeah, let's frighten the shit out of people over Nuclear power, then frighten the shit out of people over GM, then frighten the shit out of people from Global Warming and famine, both of which would have been solved by GM/Nuclear.

    Fucking id.i.ots.

    Oh what's that? we're not even allowed to play Games consoles now without feeling guilty? I'd take my carbon footprint and jam it up their pious little studenty pot-addled backsides, the dull hippie scum.

    Damn, they're annoying.

  • dirtysteve #15 4 years ago

    DFawkes - spot on! pure immoral pressure group tactics. If Greenpeace say it, it must be true, right? An organization with so much potential pissed away because a few like to throw their weight around.

  • canIdoyabombsforya #16 4 years ago

    I thought you 13 year olds were taught to give a shit these days?

  • DiscoMike #17 4 years ago

    Coming soon: Cardboard-Box360

  • mossychops001 #18 4 years ago

    GREEPEACE Put your money where mouth is and become a political party. or shut up!

  • optimusprym8 #19 4 years ago

    "There's no excuse for playing dirty."

    I wish they would practice what they preach. Their chuggers are a right pain in the arse, verging on public harrassment.

    NB. Yes I know, chuggers are paid agency workers and not representative of Greenpeace workers as a whole but still, they use them so condone them, indirectly, sort of.

  • miiiguel #20 4 years ago

    Well, within this discusion we can see that in a general way we have our minds made up to certain things, like MS is evil, EA is very bad, Sony is cocky, Nintendo is awesome. To ilustrate these ideas we grab some random news around the net, but when something spawns that contradicts our "balanced world" we fight back: "lies"; "company XXX bought you!" and alikes. That said , I clearly remember some fellow EGers saying MS is so evil that EU had to fine them, because of this and because of that, now the same aplies ?:

    "Nintendo has contested a 149.1 million euro ($232 million) fine it received from EU regulators in 2002 for price fixing.

    Nintendo said that the fine, which it received for colluding with seven distributors to raise prices of games and consoles between 1991 and 1998, was one of the biggest single fines in EU competition law."

  • Danoxth #21 4 years ago

    My consoles do not pollute the world as much your boats do, so sod off :)

  • ps3owner #22 4 years ago

    @miiiguel

    wow. your post has got nothing to do with this topic... or am I missing something ? If the fine was waste related I would have agreed... but price fixing?

  • Bumhug360 #23 4 years ago

    Surely the worst thing about the consoles is the methane gasses caused by all the fan boys talking out of their arses?

  • Hughes. #24 4 years ago

    I want cillit bang in my console, and if I don't get I'm going to murder Barry Scott... although, I was going to do that anyway.

  • Garulon #25 4 years ago

    "And EU directives state that 'toys' are not meant to contain any of those materials, but guess what, in the EU consoles aren't classed as toys.
    Now, I'm no hippy activist or anything, but slagging off Greenpeace just for pointing out something you don't want to hear is a bit ignorant/naiive."

    Slagging off Greenpeace for pointing out something irrelevant is perfectly fine though, and this is irrelevant. The reason most of the stuff isn't allowed in toys is because children tend to eat them. When's the last time a child ate a games console?

    Also there's tonnes of shit in the PDF about "chemicals" that aren't actually banned but GP think they should be so are moaning about.

    It's just a collosal collosal waste of time, shouldn't GP be using their money (donated from poor simple bastards chugged in the street, right-on lefty Students who think it's still the 1970's and organic farmers) to oh I don't know, work out ways to quench all those hundreds of underground coal fires that are emitting as much Co2 as America+Europe combined?

  • Razorus #26 4 years ago

    My 360 died recently, releasing a toxic fume into the air, which proceeded to asphyxiate my hamster. I have since sent off my 360 for repairs and revived my hamster using Forbidden Wii Motion Control Resurrection Jutsu.

  • Nillsens #27 4 years ago

    Who cares about the environment anymore anyway?

  • superjag86 #28 4 years ago

    "There's no excuse for playing dirty."

    That's the only way I like it...

  • NickD7 #29 4 years ago

    I'm amazed people actually give money to those hippie scum bags aka Greenpeace. Next time they are out protesting the army should be called in to shoot the fuckers.

  • mossychops001 #30 4 years ago

    Greenpeace yes we know, but what Electronic product does not pollute or use the world resources in the making of such products?






  • Kostabi #31 4 years ago

    My only thought to this was "oh fuck off Greenpeace".

  • Unclebenny #32 4 years ago

    Whats a chugger?

  • NickD7 #33 4 years ago

    Greenpeace members should be thrown in a cage with P.E.T.A members and both sides given rusty hacksaws. Then they should be ordered to fight to the death. Any survivors are then locked up for life.

    Seems perfectly fair to me.

  • L42yB #34 4 years ago

    @cabbadgecase -

    I think the general feeling against green peace in this thread is because of their numerous past actions that have shown them to be a bunch of hypocritical idiots.

    Don't get me started, on green peace...

    *grumbles and leaves thread before turning nasty*

  • gooners2006 #35 4 years ago

    news to GreenPeace......No one cares about what you are saying :p

  • Xerx3s #36 4 years ago

    Environmentalists are too toxic if you ask me, we should get rid of them before they destroy us.

  • CARL05 #37 4 years ago

    Methane is also one of the most highest contributors to global warming apparently!
    Does that mean i'm not allowed to fart anymore aswell???

  • smelly #38 4 years ago

    >I'm surprised that Nintendo are the worse one off.

    They're not.. Its GREENPEACE are FUCKING around with the NUMBERS

    "we called nintendo, they didnt reply or answer us.. so we'll presume they're the worst and give them a 0 score"

    if i were nintendo i'd tell them were to shove their findings..

  • RandolphScott #39 4 years ago

    Highly informed comments thread.

  • TriggerHippie #40 4 years ago

    My 360's coolant system pumps bright green radioactive sludge straight into the watertable. Apart from having to smack the odd 10ft ant in the face with a shovel, I don't see the harm.
    Edited by 1 at 20/05/08 @ 18:04

  • BeachGaara #41 4 years ago

    So that's giant boat they sail around in...

  • The-Bodybuilder #42 4 years ago

    Bloody Green Gestapos.

  • TriggerHippie #43 4 years ago

    Dystopian Blade Runner-esque futures don't make themselves Greenpeace! Tree's and whales are all well and good but come on, FLYING CARS!

  • Eraysor #44 4 years ago

    When's the last time a child ate a games console?

    This post is the winner.

  • sneetch #45 4 years ago

    @cabbadgecase
    "'Whats a chugger?'

    charity mugger - those bib-wearing numpties who corner you on your lunchbreak and guilt trip you into handing over you bank details."

    Yep, if you are cornered by these goons then the best thing to do to cut the whole experience is to tell them that if they give you the form you'll fill it in yourself and post it off. They generally speaking won't because they won't get their fee unless they get you to sign up then and there. Then you simply tell them "I'm not stupid enough to hand over bank details to some guy on the street just because he's wearing a bib with a charity's name on it" and walk away.

  • monkie_king #46 4 years ago

    Or, you know, refuse to engage with them in any way.

  • knocker #47 4 years ago

    Garbage analysis ... Why ? Because there are a whole bunch of ways to ascertain how environmentally 'friendly' a given product is. Power consumption, by-products in manufacturing, longevity (less harmful waste) but greepeace focus on a simplistic notion of companies making 'commitments' and vague ecological statements on their website . Why ? Because they are mostly concerned about PR.

  • stephenb #48 4 years ago

    Bloody tree hugging wishy washy liberals. I live 300ft above sea level I hope they all drown in melted polar ice!

    /dons jack boots and marches up street

  • RandomTerrain #49 4 years ago

    You 9 year olds will soon change your tune when most of the Ozone is gone and sea levels have raised so much that you have to live in a tree.

  • EzyRyder #50 4 years ago

    What a load of kiddies in this forums. Oh dear.

  • Tyronne #51 4 years ago

    I could not care less,Greenpeace can fuck off

  • redneon Verified Programmer, SUMO Digital #52 4 years ago

    I pledge here and now that if Greenpeace change their name to Ringpiece I will do everything in my power to save the environment.

  • Athrack #53 4 years ago

    As long as they give me my 720p, shaders and HDR, they can make them out of wood for all I care.

  • Nostromo13 #54 4 years ago

    The Wii really is more dirt, cheap then dirt cheap…

  • Pulsar_t #55 4 years ago

    I used to think that Eurogamer had some pretty decent commenters. Where have they all gone, and where have these retards come from?

    A lot can change in a month, since you last posted (judging from your profile).. A large percentage of gamers are simply like that unfortunately.

  • RedPanda #56 4 years ago

    Post deleted at 14:31:59 28-01-2012

  • wired009 #57 4 years ago

    we should all be environmentalists because we all live on this planet, eat the food grown from the ground or pulled from the sea, and breath the air. toxic compounds in electronics has long been a problem in the industry, and there are people working to solve these problems. even the workers and plant owners who manufacture the electronics aren't thrilled to handle toxic agents all the time. there's nothing wrong with advocating cleaner electronics. there are already reduced toxic compound parts available, so it is a matter of awareness to make them common design choices. when you consider that tens of millions of consoles all over the world, it really does add up. what happens when we throw them away? it's not hard to imagine that trashing the planet will eventually catch up to us(already is). gamers should be responsible by recycling electronics, picking well designed hardware, and saving power from time to time.

  • RazorObsession #58 4 years ago

    To be brutally honest, I love playing games too much to give a flying fuck. All Greenpeace will get out of me is a 'Meh'

  • Garulon #59 4 years ago

    "what happens when we throw them away? "

    They're broken down and recycled according to EU SCEE regulations. It's not like you can throw them in a landfill anymore, is it?

    Pointless pointless guilt trip arseholes.

  • Loser #60 4 years ago

    This comments thread is the most depressing thing I've read in ages...

  • Pablo2k5 #61 4 years ago

    Woah. I'm genuinely shocked by all the stupid comments from you kiddies on here...

    Why would anyone say they "don't give a fuck" about the enviroment?

    I, for one am very grateful of GreenPeace and other such organisations for trying make a difference...

    *feels sad*

  • onyx_elite #62 4 years ago

    I believe I speak for a great many of us when I say, 'boo fricking hoo'.

  • spammage #63 4 years ago

    I bet GTA 4 is cleaner on PS3 than 360. Fact.

  • bad09 #64 4 years ago

    Consoles can be disposed of safely. A much bigger impact to the environment is the power usage, I know I feel guilty with HDTV, console, surround sound (sometimes PC for streaming music as well) all going strong. Still, I don't drive, I keep the heating/lights off etc. and try to reduce my footprint elsewhere as I do feel guilty sometimes.

  • Stu #65 4 years ago

    There really are some idiotic posts in response to this.

    I would have thought that the most critical thing, carbon-footprint-wise, would be the power they use on standby? Not sure how the PS3 and Wii perform but the Xbox 360 uses 10 times as much power as the Xbox did when they're both on standby.

  • bad09 #66 4 years ago

    @ Stu

    The best thing to do is not leave it on stand by. I try not to leave anything on stand by, it's only flicking a switch at the mains. Of course if you use remote play it's hard not to leave the PS3 on stand by!

  • Phily50 #67 4 years ago

    who pulls apart consoles anyway?

    Fucking tree huggers
    Edited by 1 at 21/05/08 @ 09:50

  • kangarootoo #68 4 years ago

    This thread makes me dispair. Someone's feelings about Greenpeace are irrelevant when you;

    a) don't actually read an article before commenting on it.
    b) construct a sentence.

    Maybe work on those two first before taking up your place on the world political stage.

  • Garulon #69 4 years ago

    "I would have thought that the most critical thing, carbon-footprint-wise, would be the power they use on standby?"

    But if we had Nuclear power stations that Ringpeice protested against instead of coal-fired power stations they wouldn't have any carbon footprint. We'd be on Gen IV by now, cracking hydrogen for free that we could use as fuel cells.

    "I, for one am very grateful of GreenPeace and other such organisations for trying make a difference..."

    They're children, they have a child-like view of the world cut into Goodies (them) and Baddies (everyone else), which is fine unless you get people buying into their simplistic child-like "save the planet!" twaddle because they miss religion.

  • Stu #70 4 years ago

    "But if we had Nuclear power stations that Ringpeice protested against instead of coal-fired power stations they wouldn't have any carbon footprint. We'd be on Gen IV by now, cracking hydrogen for free that we could use as fuel cells."

    Nuclear power still has a carbon footprint, just a smaller one. See the bar graph on P3 of this:

    http://ww w.parliament.uk/documents/uploa...

  • miiiguel #71 4 years ago

    It-s no longer only the "lefties" who believe it's man faults anymore... . The agenda has been stolen.

    As far as I'm concern, I'm no pig I don't plant garbage around..., and some statements I read *somewhere*, makes me wonder if the poster actually stinks.
    Edited by 1 at 21/05/08 @ 10:34

  • Garulon #72 4 years ago

    "Nuclear power still has a carbon footprint, just a smaller one. See the bar graph on P3 of this:"

    Yeah, that's the lorries driving nuclear material to/from the plant, building the plant, and shutting the plant down. Operational Co2 emmissions are less than 1% and are prolly caused by deisel generators to kickstart the pumping systems. Hydrogen fuel cells eliminate all this.

    But GreenPeice, rather than campaining on research into this apparently are more into DONT EAT TEH COSNOELZ THEY HAVE TOX IN which is Gillian McKeith bollocks. And while they bleat about global warming they also spread fear over GM and actively promote "organic" which is one of the least efficient and carbon-footprint-heavy ways of generating food there is.

    I guess we should eat the consoles instead huh? OH WAIT THEY TOXIC!!!111

    Edited by 1 at 21/05/08 @ 10:40

  • FooAtari #73 4 years ago

    I was about to post this;

    "This comments thread is the most depressing thing I've read in ages... "

    Jesus, much like the Wii Fit thread gamers shoot down any negative news against gaming without giving it any sensible thought.

    Sure this may be slightly sensationalist, these kind of reports always are, and they may be produced by an organization you don't care much fore, but that doesn't mean there isn't some truth in them. Especially with the growing trend of devices only going to standby when you hit the power switch. These things have a negative impact on the environment and we should always be looking at ways to improve our electronics to lessen the impact. No one is suggesting we shouldn't play games anymore you muppets. Some of these companies should use their huge profits to research ways to make greener electronics.

  • Garulon #74 4 years ago

    "These things have a negative impact on the environment"

    Breathing out has a negative impact on the environment. Maybe you should stop breathing out. There's bugger all about standby consumption just some vague scary guff about "toxins" which all semiconducters have, and it's why you can't just dump electronic equipment in landfills anymore.
    Edited by 1 at 21/05/08 @ 10:44

  • Garulon #75 4 years ago

    It releases Co2 into the atmosphere.

  • redneon Verified Programmer, SUMO Digital #76 4 years ago

    "It releases Co2 into the atmosphere."

    He's right.

  • Stupid_Fat_Hobbit #77 4 years ago

    Sure, Greenpeace may have some semblance of a point; games consoles, along with many other electronics devices, are probably not so good for the environment.

    However, Greenpeace are shitfuckers. I mean, they literally fuck shit. So I think I'll go out and buy some more consoles just to spite them.

  • FooAtari #78 4 years ago

    "Maybe you should stop breathing out"

    Yeah, great argument there. The small difference being that will kill me, and I can't change the way I breath. Where is the arm in changing the way electronics are design and built if it lowers emissions and consumes less electricity. Which has the added bonus of lowering my bills...
    Edited by 1 at 21/05/08 @ 11:01

  • Garulon #79 4 years ago

    "Where is the arm in changing the way electronics are design and built if it lowers emissions and consumes less electricity. Which has the added bonus of lowering my bills... "

    Nothing wrong with efficient consumer electronics and smarter standby, I'm all for that. It'll do bugger all in real terms of lowering emissions though, and pretending switching off your telly at the mains is making any difference is just bonkers. Do you think the coal-fired power station at the other end of the grid goes a little less smoky or something?

  • kangarootoo #80 4 years ago

    "Especially if you think man having anything to do with global warming is unproven nonsense."

    A convenient myth propagated by people who know nothing about the subject unfortunately. There is no disagreement amongst the vast majority of the scientific community of the world on this matter. All of them agree we are an influence. The only question is to what degree, but even that is a slim debate.

    Seems oddly convenient to me that our influence on the global climate only started to (apparently) fall into doubt JUST at the moment when we might have had to start giving a shit. Call me a cynic.


    "I think you'll find it is unproven. There's so much contradicting data it's not funny, and only those who panic at the first thing the lefties say truly believe in man made global warming."

    Links please. If there is so much contradicting data, finding even a small bit of it and posting the link here should be trivial.

    P.s. I don't panic at anything anybody says, but I believe we are an influence.


    Comment to everyone.

    This debate seems to have got a bit clouded. Disliking Greenpeace is one thing, but disliking someone does not mean they do not speak the truth.

    By all means kick the next chugger you see up the arse, but don't ignore fact when it is presented to you. It just makes you look simple.

    AT LEAST have the balls to say "I don't care about global warming". At least then you will be seen as honest but selfish instead of simply ignorant and stupid. Saying "its all tree hugger myth" just makes you look like one of millions of thankful sheep who, truth be told, don't know the first fucking thing about global warming but are delighted to discover they don't have to stop driving to work.

    I should point out that I am not saying that someone throwing reasonable doubt on human influenced global warming is stupid; not at all. They are simply presenting another side of the debate and that is fine and dandy. What I am saying is someone who says "this is not true" when the reality is they actually don't know in the slightest either way but can't be arsed to find out because to do so might mess with their own personal agenda, they are stupid. Very. Whatever the discussion subject at hand.

  • kangarootoo #81 4 years ago

    @Garulon

    "It'll do bugger all in real terms of lowering emissions though, and pretending switching off your telly at the mains is making any difference is just bonkers. Do you think the coal-fired power station at the other end of the grid goes a little less smoky or something?"

    Not true I'm afraid. Your comment about the power station being "less smoky" is fair, but utterly irrelevant and a strawman tactic.

    ALL modern power stations regulate their output based on demand, and excess electricity is continually routed elsewhere around the national grid as demand around the country changes.

    Are you reasonably suggesting that the amount of electricity generated by power stations is NOT dependant on how much electricity people are actually using? As if they just make whatever they want and then fire the excess into space?

    The opposite is actually the case, with supply and demand balancing being a core part of the whole electricity generation business. Millions are spent every year making supply and demand match more effectively and respond more quickly to change. Nobody in the power generation business likes the idea of making electricity they can't actually sell; doing that costs them money you see.

    Putting your TV on standby uses less juice, and if everyone did so it WOULD in the end mean that a power station somewhere would be producing less electricity and producing less waste product. This is fact.

  • Garulon #82 4 years ago

    "Putting your TV on standby uses less juice, and if everyone did so it WOULD in the end mean that a power station somewhere would be producing less electricity and producing less waste product. This is fact."

    No, it's a supposition based on everyone behaving the same way. Assuming you could in fact get everyone to buy new televisions that have low power standby (oh, that's environmentally friendly) and use them how much juice as a percentage of total Co2 generated by coal-fired power stations?

    How many years would it be to make up for the Co2 emitted in the course of making the low power televisions and people driving to and from the store buying them?

    See what I mean? A simplistic "oh this is something positive" easy-to-swallow childlike worldview doesn't help at all. Think!
    Edited by 1 at 21/05/08 @ 11:40

  • kangarootoo #83 4 years ago

    @Garulon

    Your original comment said "It'll do bugger all in real terms of lowering emissions though". But now you agree that it will make a difference, just that the difference will be small. I agree with you.

    I never said it was a silver bullet, I just called you on your assertiong that it would make no difference at all. This is not true.


    "Assuming you could in fact get everyone to buy new televisions that have low power standby (oh, that's environmentally friendly)"

    Again, this is a strawman. I never suggested that should be the case. I am happy for everyone who currently owns a TV with a standby mode to switch off instead of using it. Explain to me how that is a bad thing?

  • Garulon #84 4 years ago

    "Again, this is a strawman. I never suggested that should be the case. I am happy for everyone who currently owns a TV with a standby mode to switch off instead of using it. Explain to me how that is a bad thing?"

    Everyone? Even the elderly or disabled? for a tiny (ie "bugger all";) difference in Co2 output? I'd also be interested in how you'd police that.

  • Garulon #85 4 years ago

    "And why is it so hard for this stupid bunch of fools to switch their sets to standby, or to turn a light off in a room they are not in?"

    It's not, but it's their electricity, they paid for it, they can waste it if they want to, I'm assuming you only use electricty when you absolutely need to. Never had a half-empty fridge?

    Why do environmentalists turn into fascists so quickly?

  • Garulon #86 4 years ago

    "And the more they have it switched on, the more they pay. "

    exactly! It's their choice, and I'm not going to sit around letting idiot hippies dream up fascist ways of hair-shirting the general population for no real benefit. It 's just stupid.

  • Garulon #87 4 years ago

    "I CANNOT stand laziness. That is what leaving lights on is.

    LAZY. Repeat. LAZZZZYYYY."

    What about a lonely woman in a high-rise who heard a noise and feels safer with the lights on? What about street lighting? Subway lighting?

    Fascist. Repeat. FAAASSSCISSST :)

  • Garulon #88 4 years ago

    "Stop being so anal. You know what I mean about things being left on."

    You said lights being left on was lazy, I provided examples of when it wasn't lazy, but of course this was never about environmentalism, it was about you feeling nice and pious about following eco-religion better than people who can't be arsed doing pointless things like turning lights off.

    I bet you're absolutely fine with driving your car around on non-essential trips though, right? Because that isn't lazy, right?

  • TrevSkyline #89 4 years ago

    Who listens to GREENPEACE?

    They should clear off and go hug a few trees.

  • Garulon #90 4 years ago

    A scarey amount of people listen to GreenPeice, they indoctrinate in college just like radical Muslims and they're still thought of as the Good Guys because of the excellent pressure they applied to get the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty signed which was a Good Thing. Once it was signed though, the original founders left and the understudy assholes thrashed about finding all kinds of hippie shit to complain about; most of it contradictory e.g. anti-Nuclear power/anti-global warming/pro-organic.

  • kangarootoo #91 4 years ago

    @Garulon

    "Everyone? Even the elderly or disabled? for a tiny (ie "bugger all";) difference in Co2 output? I'd also be interested in how you'd police that."

    Holy crap man, you are the king of strawman. Do you take one to bed instead of a teddy bear.

    Sorry, sorry, cheap shot. Check this link to see what I am on about.

    [link url=http://en.wikip edia.org/wiki/Strawman
    ]http://en.wikip edia.org/wiki/Strawman
    [/link]

    How can anyone take your points seriously when you continually resort to diversion and subterfuge. If your points hold water, say them clearly for all to hear. Otherwise, we have to assume that you don't believe your point of view can actually stand up to scrutiny.

    "What about a lonely woman in a high-rise who heard a noise and feels safer with the lights on? What about street lighting? Subway lighting?"

    And again.

    "I bet you're absolutely fine with driving your car around on non-essential trips though, right? Because that isn't lazy, right?"

    And AGAIN.

    Read that link and stop doing it, otherwise you are grounded for a month. I'm not kidding. Look at me. This is my "not kidding" face.

  • kangarootoo #92 4 years ago

    "They should clear off and go hug a few trees."

    Who was it once said, "if you can be nothing else, be original". I'm not sure who it was, but they were very wise, as we are seeing.

  • Garulon #93 4 years ago

    @Kangarootoo:
    "Holy crap man, you are the king of strawman. Do you take one to bed instead of a teddy bear. "

    It's not a strawman, you idiot. You need to read what a strawman is. And possibly reply to my posts, if you can think of some magical way of forcing people to turn their televisions off, with also some magical way of detecting if people are too ill or disabled or sick to do it, all to save BUGGER ALL CO2.

    I'd say campaining for people to fuck around with their mains switches for bugger all benefit as opposed to campaining for cleaner realistic electricity generation (ie Nuclear, at least for the base load) is the very definition of a strawman though.

    And I want you to explain at least why e.g. ""I bet you're absolutely fine with driving your car around on non-essential trips though, right? Because that isn't lazy, right?" " is a strawman, otherwise you're on Ignore.
    Edited by 3 at 21/05/08 @ 14:09

  • kangarootoo #94 4 years ago

    @Garulon

    Oh I dispair.

    "I'd say campaining for people to fuck around with their mains switches for bugger all benefit as opposed to campaining for cleaner realistic electricity generation (ie Nuclear, at least for the base load) is the very definition of a strawman though."

    The two are not mutually exclusive. "Bugger all benefit" is misleading, and untrue. The benefit is perhaps less than that provided by nuclear power, but no power source is without a waste product so WHY NOT DO BOTH. You suggest it is one or the other, because that makes it easy to attack the one with lesser impact. Again this is strawman.


    "I bet you're absolutely fine with driving your car around on non-essential trips though, right? Because that isn't lazy, right?"

    From the ref I linked you to.

    "Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, such that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical."

    Nobody said anything about driving around on non-essential trips except YOU. You created an entirely different thread of the conversation all by yourself, the purpose of which was to create a target for you to easily attack. And in attacking the target you suggest that the original unconnected point your opponent was making has somehow also been undermined.

    THAT is how it is a strawman.

    Seriously dude, just put me on ignore (you actually level that as a threat, lol) and lets end the farse. You can take a horse to water...

  • bitesize #95 4 years ago


    my god, i've read some idiotic stuff from a variety of morons in my time on eurogamer, but this thread takes the fucking cake. congratulations everyone!

    respect to the few voices of sanity that have dared to step in, you're braver men (and women) than i...

  • Garulon #96 4 years ago

    @Kangarotoo

    "Oh I dispair. "
    "Bugger all benefit" is misleading, and untrue. The benefit is perhaps less than that provided by nuclear power", but no power source is without a waste product so WHY NOT DO BOTH. You suggest it is one or the other, because that makes it easy to attack the one with lesser impact. Again this is strawman.

    What benefit? You bang on about somehow getting people to not "waste" electricity, without ever saying what the definition of "waste" is, how you'll get people to not waste it (which'd be hard because you'd have to define "waste" first) and what the "benefit" is (but yet are sure it'll be even vaguely measurable).

    and I didn't suggest it's one or the other, I stated that GP are doing one but not the other, but feel free to misrepresent my argument so you can get used to this "strawman" thing you seem to enjoy.

    "You created an entirely different thread of the conversation all by yourself, the purpose of which was to create a target for you to easily attack. And in attacking the target you suggest that the original unconnected point your opponent was making has somehow also been undermined."

    No, it's called an analogy that activity A is "lazy" but activity B "isn't" lazy, by dint of Other People doing activity A but the poster doing activity B.

    My god you're stupid. You're not a GP member by any chance, are you?

  • Garulon #97 4 years ago

    "Garulon: I will never get through to you regarding lazy. I know it is hard to define lazy in a true sense (not sarcastic).

    We can all be lazy in that we do not carry water from a well for example or that we have appliances to do hard work etc etc."

    Absolutely (I have a ton of remote controls for example) but if there's no real harm who gives a crap? I wouldn't mind people owning cars (I don't, I use public transport exclusively) if they didn't generate Co2 (way more than domestic electricity usage, currently third in the emissions scale after coal-fired power stations and underground coal fires) and kill several thousand people a year. But hey, go after the people who leave lights on all night if it helps you.

  • kangarootoo #98 4 years ago

    @Garulon

    "My god you're stupid"

    Lol. I think, according to the rules of the internet, that means I win. Sleep tight :D

    I have nothing else to say, because lets face it, what could I possibly say to logic such as that quoted above.

  • kangarootoo #99 4 years ago

    P.s.

    "You're not a GP member by any chance, are you?"

    Of course not. I don't agree with all of their practices. But like I said earlier, that doesn't make their facts wrong.

  • FooAtari #100 4 years ago

    Hmmm, you always like this Garulon?

    I for one am not an environmentalist. For one, I admit that my PC is never off. It's on 24/7 as I use it a lot and it's often downloading over night. The monitor is never on if I'm not sitting at it though. Most of your arguments were pretty anal. Of course there are some people for whom standby might be a necessity. I simply said that now devices going to stand-by is more common perhaps they can use even less power than they do now. Not that everyone should stop usimg it. And some people might need lights on, I would never suggest they do anything different. But for the majority it does indeed come to convenience or lazyness if you like. But it doesn't mean the small things don't help. Sure they might take years to start taking effect, so what? I find your attitude pretty selfish. It's all a balance you know.

    Sure people pay for electric they can use it how they like. How about I buy a house next to you and start keeping old cars in my garden, the odd fridge, maybe a pig or two. Generally make your street look a whole lot messier. It's my garden I can do what I like... Or how about I sit next you at work, but never shower, never use deodorant and sit their sweating my ass off and smelling pretty bad on a hot day. It's my body I can do what I like.

    Personally I wasn't preaching to anyone, I wasn't getting on my high horse or telling anyone what to do or pretending to be some eco warrior who lives in a mud hut with no electricity. I simply said that Greenpeace did have a point that there can be more environmentally friendly ways to produce and use electronic goods and that many people here were simply shooting this down as it was slightly negative news against gaming.
    Edited by 1 at 21/05/08 @ 18:04