Questions & Answers on Game Consoles and Toxic Chemicals
Here we address common questions about the Clash of the Consoles campaign.
- What does Greenpeace want to achieve?
- Greenpeace is calling for game console makers to:
- Why did Greenpeace include game consoles in its toxics ranking of electronic products?
- Does Greenpeace receive any funding or support from companies in the electronics sector?
- Don't games consoles comply with laws on toxics?
- Why these specific companies?
- How do you obtain information from the companies and how is it evaluated?
- What your response to criticism of the Greenpeace Ranking Guide?
- What does the focus on games consoles intend to achieve? Don't computers or mobile phones generate much more e-waste?
- Are the chemicals as hazardous as you say?
- Won't getting rid of toxics mean customers have to pay more for games consoles?
- Which console should a green consumer buy?
- Are you asking the public to boycott game consoles?
- Have you tested the actual chemicals contained in consoles?
- How did you analyze the products for toxins?
- Why can console manufacturers put toxic chemicals in their products? Isn't it illegal?
- Is Greenpeace happy with the low energy consumption of Nintendo's Wii?
- So is Greenpeace getting into the 'machinima' business?
Q: What does Greenpeace want to achieve?
We are campaigning to 'green' the whole of the electronics industry. In the last year, we have been successful in pushing manufacturers to introduce greener products in both the mobile phone and PC sectors. The game consoles sector is lagging far behind. There is not a single green games console available.
Q: Greenpeace is calling for game console makers to:
Remove toxic chemicals from their product ranges by:
- Remove toxic chemicals from their product ranges by:
- Putting electronic products on the market that are free of PVC and HFR (halogenated flame retardants) and which comply worldwide with the European Union's RoHS chemicals lists
- Publishing a chemicals plan that identifies hazardous chemicals in their products and production plants
- Adopt environmentally-friendly takeback policies by:
- Accepting responsibility for the final fate of their products
- Developing a system of global takeback for discarded productsM
Why did Greenpeace include game consoles in its toxics ranking of electronic products?
We are campaigning to 'green' the whole of the electronics industry. In the last year, we have been successful in pushing manufacturers to introduce greener products in both the mobile phone and PC sectors. The game consoles sector is lagging far behind. There is not a single green games console available.
Our ranking guide shows that environmental considerations are currently a lower priority for game consoles makers than for the mobile phone, TV and PC industries. Nintendo, for instance, scored zero in the latest ranking guide.
Does Greenpeace receive any funding or support from companies in the electronics sector?
No. Greenpeace is funded by donations from millions of individual supporters around the world. We do not accept funds from political parties, governments or corporations. That way, we maintain our independence.
Don't games consoles comply with laws on toxics?
Greenpeace's ranking criteria score companies on what they are doing beyond current legal requirements. This is not a 'law enforcement' ranking guide - Greenpeace is looking for environmental excellence.
As a minimum, we expect all of a company's products - irrespective of where they are made or sold around the world - to comply with the European Union's RoHS Directive (Restriction of Hazardous Substances in electronic products). Otherwise, companies would be guilty of double standards: selling their EU customers products free of some hazardous substances while offering products with a heavier toxic burden outside the EU.
Why these specific companies?
Our focus is on global brands and market leaders who should be showing the way forward. Global manufactures have the largest environmental footprint and they can drive forward the greening of the entire industry.
How do you obtain information from the companies and how is it evaluated?
This is all about the consumer's right to know whether the product they buy is an environmental risk. Greenpeace has been pushing major electronic companies since 2004 to eliminate toxic chemicals and increase recycling in order to stem the growing tide of electronic waste ('e-waste'). We base our conclusions on information which is publicly available on companies' official websites and by talking to companies. It's a two-way process.
What your response to criticism of the Greenpeace Ranking Guide?
A response to several recent criticsms from sites like Arstechnica can be found on our weblog.
What does the focus on games consoles intend to achieve? Don't computers or mobile phones generate much more e-waste?
We want to green the electronics industry as a whole. Other sectors within the industry are moving in a positive direction whereas the game consoles industry has yet to demonstrate any progress in improving its environmental policies.
Are the chemicals as hazardous as you say?
Using chemicals like brominated fire retardants and PVC, in game console components, leads to hazardous substances which can build up in the environment and in human and animal tissue. Workers in production facilities as well as recyclers in scrap yards may be exposed to particularly high levels of some of the most hazardous chemicals used in the electronics industry. Users of computers or electronic might also experience low levels of exposure.
As our report shows safer alternatives are readily available for most if not all dangerous substances. Electronics companies should use them. They should also identify how to overcome remaining problems so as to deliver truly green products.
A few years ago, the electronics industry said there was no alternative to toxic lead solder. Yet when European law required them to look for alternatives, they found substitutes in the form of copper, silver and tin.
Won't getting rid of toxics mean customers have to pay more for games consoles?
Not necessarily. The components in game consoles are the same as those in PCs. PC makers are already removing toxic chemicals in some applications without raising prices for consumers. Sony has publicly stated that it makes money from reusing and recycling its old products. So eliminating toxics should not lead to game consoles becoming any more expensive.
Which console should a green consumer buy?
As yet, there are no green game consoles in the market. Mobile phone and PC industries have shifted their policies on toxic chemicals and takeback towards greener targets. But not game consoles companies. We'd like gamers to tell their favourite game console company that they would like to play in a toxic-free world.
Are you asking the public to boycott game consoles?
No. Our aim is to green the electronics industry as a whole. Competition between game consoles makers is the best way forward.
Have you tested the actual chemicals contained in consoles?
Greenpeace Research Laboratories at the University of Exeter tested all 3 gaming consoles for toxic materials in late 2007. The results are presented in a report (Playing Dirty: Analysis of hazardous chemicals and materials in game console components) shows that all three gaming consoles contain a number hazardous chemicals and materials, including PVC and BFRs.
How did you analyze the products for toxins?
Greenpeace purchased one of each of the 3 game consoles and took them to the Greenpeace Research Laboratories for proper dismantling, taking care to avoid cross-contamination between consoles and also contamination from dust and grease. X-ray fluorescence spectrometry and PVC analysis were carried out at the laboratories of LPD Laboratory Services in the UK. For further details, please refer to our report. Further details of our methods can be provided upon request.
Why can console manufacturers put toxic chemicals in their products? Isn't it illegal?
Certain toxic chemicals in electronics are restricted by law, such as the European Union's Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive, which prevents the use of lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and certain brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in electrical and electronic equipment. However, the use of hazardous chemicals in electronics is still widespread, as witnessed by the results of numerous studies including our own analysis of laptops and game consoles.
Is Greenpeace happy with the low energy consumption of Nintendo's Wii?
Game consoles are unfortunately not one of the product lines covered by key energy performance standards such as "Energy Star". However, it is good to see that a game console, such as the Wii, can operate in idle mode with an energy consumption of 15 Watt.
So is Greenpeace getting into the 'machinima' business?
We decided to use machinima genre as the way to get our campaign message across. We hope gamers will help us push game console makers to improve their environmental policies and introduce greener and more energy-efficient products. We think manufacturers should take full responsibility for their products when they become waste and introduce products which are free of the most hazardous chemicals.
