Forums - Gaming Discussion - Gaming Is Ruining The Environment?

How many hours do you use your consoles each week?

40+ hours 7 33.33%
 
30-40 hours 3 14.29%
 
20-30 hours 2 9.52%
 
10-20 hours 9 42.86%
 
Total:21
Shadow1980 said:
TomaTito said:

Largely ignored in that video, gotta love Nintendo for saving the world.

I thought I remembered consoles specifically not using a lot of electricity. Your old incandescent light bulbs typically use around 40-100 watts, so even an Xbox One X at peak power consumption only uses as much electricity as two or three old-style light bulbs. Even if you averaged, say, 6 hours of play time per day, that's still a very small portion of the typical household's total power consumption.

Save the world, one light bulb at a time

SvennoJ said:
Nintendo Switch also doesn't need a tv! Mobile gaming for the win, phones use even less! (But pollute a lot more with yearly updates)

Gaming laptops use less than consoles as well without requiring an extra screen.

I agree wholeheartedly, mobile gaming for the win

Last edited by TomaTito - on 02 March 2020

@Twitter | Switch | Steam

You say tomato, I say tomato 

"¡Viva la Ñ!"

Around the Network
SvennoJ said:
Conina said:
Staying at home gaming is much better for the environment than driving around to get entertainment elsewhere (or driving around as a form of entertainment).

I drive around at home for entertainment :) (GT Sport)

Gaming is also better for the environment than watching tv. I bet a lot more snacks are consumed while watching tv than when you have your hands full playing a game!

Are you saying that because of chip bags and pop cans piling up in the process?

Also, not quite related, but Germany just opened a 62 mile bicycle highway, devoid of gas powered vehicles.



Conina said:
sales2099 said:

Per capita isn’t as important as total population.

Why? Per capita seems a lot fairer to me.

Depends on analysis. If we have a 1.2B country with 1B people living in extreme poverty in the rural area then they will drop the average a lot. But since all comparisons tend to be average to population then this one also being per capita is ok.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Conina said:
sales2099 said:

Per capita isn’t as important as total population.

Why? Per capita seems a lot fairer to me.

Who said this had to be fair? Total pollution per country is ultimately a far more accurate number then per capita. 

Like Canada is only about 35 million, even if the country is horrible per capita, it’s ultimately a drop in the global bucket 



 

 

Conina said:
sales2099 said:

Per capita isn’t as important as total population.

Why? Per capita seems a lot fairer to me.

Whilst per capita might seem "fairer" the real denominator we should be adhering to is absolute totals, the environment doesn't care about per-capita totals afterall.

In that regard, China is the biggest offender, whilst the likes of Europe are going extremely clean.
However the flip side is... China has the most green energy and is investing the most while still having an insatiable appetite for coal.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
Pemalite said:
Conina said:

Why? Per capita seems a lot fairer to me.

Whilst per capita might seem "fairer" the real denominator we should be adhering to is absolute totals, the environment doesn't care about per-capita totals afterall.

In that regard, China is the biggest offender, whilst the likes of Europe are going extremely clean.
However the flip side is... China has the most green energy and is investing the most while still having an insatiable appetite for coal.

China is also making all our toys and clothes and recycling our waste...

Per capita is indeed not fair, the actual CO2 footprint of the average Chinese is much lower, while those in Europe and NA are much higher.



Pemalite said:
Conina said:

Why? Per capita seems a lot fairer to me.

Whilst per capita might seem "fairer" the real denominator we should be adhering to is absolute totals, the environment doesn't care about per-capita totals afterall.

In that regard, China is the biggest offender, whilst the likes of Europe are going extremely clean.
However the flip side is... China has the most green energy and is investing the most while still having an insatiable appetite for coal.

There are many things that need to be considered take Australia a lot of graphs have us high because they factor in the exports of products like gas and coal not at the point of use but the country of origin so all the greenhouse emissions from Australian exported fuels  are added to Australia's total ,now there is a 20 billion dollar project to deliver solar energy from the Northern Territory in Australia to Singapore via undersea cable on the table this would cut into Singapore's reliance on gas it would be interesting if this would count toward Australia or Singapore , Australia's argument is the demand is from India and without it we would not be exporting the coal so they should have it counted since they control the rate of consumption,my take is both the supplier and consumer should be counted the world is a finite space shared by us all.

one more thought when it comes to renewables taking the Singapore project as an example. if it happens only the amount of reduction should count if it is all used up in increased demand then it should be seen as neutral.

The thing that worries me is loopholes and semantics that tend to crop up in these global problem, i remember reading about proposed carbon credit scheme years ago where a manufacturer could buy credits to offset their carbon, and this was seen to help drive down carbon but it had loopholes like Volkswagen could offset its porsche division without making any changes to its porsches because the system gave an average carbon number for the industry rather than brands  and Volkswagen could use credits from existing cars that came in under that average to offset the carbon used by its sports cars rather than needing to reduce carbon reduction to gain those credits.



SvennoJ said:
Pemalite said:

Whilst per capita might seem "fairer" the real denominator we should be adhering to is absolute totals, the environment doesn't care about per-capita totals afterall.

In that regard, China is the biggest offender, whilst the likes of Europe are going extremely clean.
However the flip side is... China has the most green energy and is investing the most while still having an insatiable appetite for coal.

China is also making all our toys and clothes and recycling our waste...

Per capita is indeed not fair, the actual CO2 footprint of the average Chinese is much lower, while those in Europe and NA are much higher.

Just seems like moving the goal posts. The average footprint of euro countries may be higher, but these are countries with populations that are a fraction of China. China still has an addiction to using coal for energy. Total pollution per country is imo the most important factor as how much a society breeds is definitely part of the problem. Each life consists of several decades of consuming resources.

So ultimately, Europe is actually more environmentally conscious for the simple reason they don’t breed like rabbits ;)



 

 

Switch to digital delivery of games. The resulting savings of packaging, production, transportation, heating, cooling, and lighting of the retail store, and the like will offset a shitload gaming related environmental destruction.

But, anyway, essentially everything, as others have mentioned, causes some amount of environmental degradation. Gaming isn't even a blip on the radar of offenders.



There is no reasonable way to discuss pollution on a per country, per capita, or per anything basis. I'm not going to repeat what everyone has said above, but it just can't reasonably be determined that way. It also just doesn't fucking matter (except maybe when talking about something like litter, or solid waste). What matters with greenhouse gases, water pollution, and the like, in the big picture, is the total amount created on earth. All this comparing of industries and countries to each other, creating offsets, and other stuff like that is just nonsense political bullshit. Either the total amount comes down, or it does not.