*g* I only want to show, that it is their thing to decide, in which theme they invest time and enthusiasm. The argument that they should invest their energy in more important task is bad, because it's a very important task for them. And you don't have to defend yourself, it's OK to play games, I do it too.

 Actually they gave a breakdown of the info. There were numerous categories in which Nintendo failed for not providing information. But they also failed other categories for not having policies on PVC reduction, not having policies for recycling old consoles and not mentioning manufacturer responsibility in any of their missionstatements or literature. 

So Nintendo provided no information to them and what they were able to find on their own was pretty dysmal. So with no reason to think that Nintendo has done a single thing to curb their environmental impact, why would thay earn anything higher than a 0?

And that said, Greenpeace did still mention in that release that the Wii consumes less power than the ps3 and 360.

This isn't Jack Thompson blaming video games for other phenomena, it's an environmental group pointing out the environmental impact of console manufacturers. I still fail to see why anyone is angry about this. 

That sounds like China's problem. If they don't want to import our garbage, they sure don't have to.

@ stof---all they did was go to the website and look at the first few screens for all of the info--if your going to do a book report do you skim the first and last page and think you can write a factual report about all of the pieces in the book....no

Wait... How do you know that's what they did? 

@stof: The source of the information for Nintendo that GreenPeace gave in their report all links to the NoA website's policy section. ALL OF THEM.

Right. And their policy section has no environmental policies. Seems like a pretty good reason to state that they don't take environmental factors into their policies.

And has Nintendo responded to that yet in any way? Have they said "we only scored low because of these reasons, this is what we're actually doing"? or "in light of this report, this is what we have planned"?

Shouldn't companies be striving to reduce their impact? Shouldn't Nintendo have tried to show Greenpeace everything they could about what they're doing to reduce harmful chemicals and waste?

It just seems really weird that everyone is jumping to Nintendo's defense over something that doesn't actually effect the games at all. Greenpeace didn't give Mario Galaxy a 7, they just pointed out that the company doesn't seem to have any interest in reducing their environmental impact. Kind of makes sense for an environmental agency to do don't you think?

@stof: Funny, you should ask, I get Nintendo's response (to the 1st report) here:

Source: http://gonintendo.com/?p=31138

Content:
We were surprised by the content of the Greenpeace report, given that we take great care to comply with all relevant regulations on avoiding the use of dangerous materials, recycling, etc. For example, all Nintendo products supplied worldwide are designed to comply with relevant global standards.

In order to certify that Nintendo products comply with standards for hazardous chemical substances, Nintendo has established the Green Procurement Standards, which require our component suppliers to certify that any parts they deliver do not include hazardous chemical substances, and ensure that Nintendo fully controls its products internally.

We are always actively looking at ways to continue to increase our environmental stewardship and hold this as a corporate priority worldwide. For some additional information on Nintendo of America’s environmental efforts, please visit the following page on our website:

http://www.nintendo.com/corp/faq.jsp#environment

Edit: added link, sorry about that.

Edit2: also, this is the same link that Greenpeace used, I think 

The money spent on this... they could have done something more useful with it.

No, but environmental protection is a tricky business because it relies on preventive science, and you can not say with that kind of certainty or tread recklessly regardless without considering all possibilities. Look, I DO NOT have anything against environmental protection, but these kind of things need to be considered carefully or we'll damage something else, it's not a simple matter.

Edit: I am also not saying that some people are not over-reacting against Greenpeace either.