I don't know how much faith I'd put into this study. If I'm not mistaken, the last time Greenpeace did this, Nintendo got a 0 because they didn't reply to Greenpeace's questions. No data is not the same as negative data. But, I just don't know how much more energy efficient a Wii can be, especially when compared to the other consoles. In addition, I don't see how it's fair to compare a company like Nintendo (who only makes a handful of specific products) with someone like Sony who makes everything from TVs to video game consoles to computers to a multitude of other electronic devices. Anyway, that's just my take on it.

--------author replies -----------
In looking over the full .pdf report, it seems like Nintendo's low score is warranted - it doesn't take all that much to get some score...they received 0.8.

I'm a little confused about this as well, especially with regards to nintendo. Nintendo's console sucks very very little power. You could fault them for their vampire power, but all consoles do it, and (if i remember correctly) they all suck more power in sleep mode, more than the Wii uses when powered on.

Consider this taken with a huge grain of salt.

@Allie, by being green, it's not just power consumption that is looked at. While the Wii may not use much power in the home, it may be bad for the environment when produced or thrown away. If I recall correctly, there are some components inside the Wii that are very harmful to the environment which was looked at, so it may use little power. But it's like its own tiny environuke when thrown away.

the wii isn't green?!

hasn't anyone ever seen the energy comparison done between the leading 3rd generation gaming platforms. the nintendo wii uses very little power and it even has wireless networking. the system is almost beyond being energy star. i would like to know more information about what makes a company non-green in this chart.

----hi uncleben!
before I ask Greenpeace some of the many questions that have been generated, I'd like to ask you how you know the Wii uses very little power?

Treehugger dismissed this report as inaccurate in 2006:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/10/rotten_to_the_c_1.php

I'm echoing the other posters here too, nintendo did get hit hard because they didn't release all the information that greenpeace wanted. And when compared to the power consumption of a 360 or PS3 the Wii is using nothing... and heck it makes you actually get exercise! ... or break things within arm's reach :D

Mainly it feels like if you don't give into greenpeace's every whim they condemn you.

Author replies

I think all the comments are relevant, but I do not see how this discredits the report as a whole. To me it looks like Greenpeace is continuing to refine and expand the criteria, and that while imperfect, this is one of the best tools we as consumers have to see what companies in the electronics industry are doing to green up their products.

Currently I am working on a report about the different environmental issues effecting the Baltic Sea, and I see similar problems to those Greenpeace is being taken to task for. First the group that wants to produce the report must find good available data that can be found across the board for the nine Baltic nations to use for creating their indicators. That in itself is a gargantuan and uneven task. But does that mean that the whole project should be scrapped? I don't think so. Each year the indicators will shift slightly and hopefully improve. I think it is instructive to see what the countries are or aren't doing, and the team working on the report also decided to give countries a chance to respond to questions directly related to the criteria. Perhaps Greenpeace should do the same, so that companies in this case can give their self-assessment of their progress. But I think the information is still important.

A few answers from Greenpeace.

On Nintendo - we ask all the companies to be transparent by posting any policies or practice on their corporate website. Then all companies can be compared by anyone.

Nintendo chooses not to communicate with us or more importantly to inform customers or members of the public fully about toxic chemicals policy, recycling or energy issues.

Hence they compare badly to the other 17 companies in the Guide who do make at least some of this information publicly available.

Specifically on energy efficiency of the Wii - that's question is also covered on our site:

http://www.greenpeace.org/electronics-q-a

"Nintendo has the most energy efficient console when compared with Sony’s Playstation or Microsoft’s Xbox. However, no game console meets the Energy Star standard for PCs (v.4.0) the standard used also for game consoles."

To be fair to all companies we have as far as possible used internationally recognised standards to compare company performance. In the case of energy efficiency that is the US EPA Energy Star program.

All companies do get the criteria well in advance.

Tom,
Greenpeace International
http://www.greenpeace.org/electronics