Network now...FEATURE
Sony “Way Ahead” on Environmental Issues
Sony: 24/45
Microsoft: 15/45
“Sony is clearly leading the way for the console holders,” says Kruszewska. The company’s Greenpeace profile shows it is doing particularly well in regards to its chemicals management and take-back initiatives. “Sony were the first company in the US to roll out a take-back recycling program for all their products in the US, and while this is certainly better than the efforts of Nintendo and Microsoft, the company should look to branch out its take-back policies on a global basis.”
And though Microsoft’s score suggests they are not too far from Sony in the broadest sense, the company's score of fifteen points were largely tallied in three areas; precautionary principles, chemicals management and a timeline for phasing out potentially dangerous chemicals. Microsoft scored nine points in these three areas and failed to impress Greenpeace in a number of other areas, yet Sony accumulated its higher total by a focused effort across the spectrum of green measures.
“Microsoft is just getting on board with the environment. They’ve just hired a sustainability team, and we are seeing movement from Microsoft with its 360 console, but the company had started from a very low base.”
“In fact, when we added the company onto the list we were to observe, Microsoft put some interesting information about their green use of energy on their website, which we looked at and thought was very fluffy, and in fact they got no points. We advised them that this information showed them up as having a real lack of understanding of the issue, and they subsequently took the figures down.”
Kruszewska does praise Microsoft for making its changes, however, especially in its promise to eliminate PVC BFRs [brominated flame retardants – known for their toxic properties, resistance to degradation in the environment and an ability to ‘build’ inside humans and animals] by the end of 2010. “But really, they have it so easy because they only make two core hardware products – the 360 and the Zune – they should really be way ahead. But they are coming on board for sure.”
It seems odd that Greenpeace has ranked Sony first and Nintendo last when considering that, only a week ago, the Natural Resources Defence Council showed that the opposite is true in regards to power consumption. The NRDC claimed that videogame consoles in the US lead to the emission of over 7 million tons of carbon dioxide each year, and that Nintendo’s Wii uses an average of just 16 watts when active; a mere fraction of what the 360 (119 watts) and the PS3 (150 watts) uses.
“Those results are completely correct,” says Kruszewska. “The Wii definitely uses much less energy than the other consoles, but it is a completely different type of product. If you look at the graphics processor that your PS3 or 360 will have, it’s hard to put them into exactly the same category. I mean, the PS3 is being used by universities globally when they have lots of number crunching to do because it’s that powerful. We’re talking about a 9-core processor here.”
“If you take an isolated view at the function of playing a game, then yes, you can say that the Wii is using less power than a PS3,” says Kruszewska, who adds that there is a wider picture to look at than just the power consumption of a console.
To read the full Greenpeace guides to greener electronics, follow the company links below.
Nintendo. Sony. Microsoft.
The full Greenpeace report on green electronics can be found here.
Images provided by Greenpeace.
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us / BeltwayBlips / TechBlips / MassiveBlips / GamerBlips / FAQ
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Cool!
It'd be nice if videogame stores offer collection points for old consoles/accessories/plastic game cases so they can be recycled/ disposed of properly.
Nintendo need to make amends.
If all packaging + shovelware games are biodegradable, I won't complain.
I demand that Cooking Mama's controller , manual +box are made edible, Wario should part-time at 'British Gas', and Wii Fit 2 comes with a giant Hamster wheel so you can power your own (damn*) console.
(* What Reggie said at the last meeting....... probably)
Of course, one must not lose sight of the fact that while the PS3 may be leader of the green pack when it comes to manufacturing, it is the 800 pound gorilla in environmental problems once it is in the gamers living room. I refer of course to its staggering power consumption. The carbon footprint of the ps3 when playing blue ray discs is quite frankly, alarming when compared to stand alone players. We can only thank the heavens that most ps3 owners have not heard of folding@home, a software package that makes the ludicrous claim to use 'spare' processing ability in a cpu for scientific research. The power consumption of which, if used by even half of all ps3 owners would raise serious environmental concerns in exchange for a chasing the end of the rainbow scientific dream.
hahaha you're confusing CO2 with CO; CO is "the enemy" (as you want to call it); not C02. That's 2 different things! It's not the same molecule. That whole discussion about C02 just has no point at all ;)
Nephy: Not only that, but if we take the 'global warming' alarmists at their word, and take their bull that we are causing irregular increases in greenhouse gas emissions, and that therefore we all need a carbon dioxide footprint, here's the thing:
[quote]
However out of all the greenhouses gases, water vapor accounts for 96.9%, CO2 is 1.9%, and the remaining 1.2% is methane, chlorofluorocarbons, and nitrous oxide. Even out of the 1.9% of CO2, humans contribute only about 3% of this, where the remaining 97% of the CO2 comes from natural sources such as vegetation, soils, and the ocean. So overall, humans contribute only a tiny insignificant fraction to the total greenhouse gases.
[/quote]
So there you go - CO2 accounts for 1.9% of all greenhouse gases - and of that 1.9%, only 3% is contributed by humans. These figures are not in dispute by the way - you can go as far back as 1995 to today and you will come across roughly the same conclusions.
it's all a big semantical quagmire. People who can not be bothered to actually look at differing opinions on the subject take Al Gore and his merry band of 'climatologists' at his word, and automatically disregard any who tells them otherwise, labelling them as 'apologists for the energy companies'.
the notion of power consumption during a game being unimportant, or whilst at standby being forgotten (folding at home anyone) and the claim that the cant be classed together (didn't they just do that)
you can understand why one of the founders left them
petty idiotic fools more reliant on marketing hype than ps3defence
I've always found this point interesting quite interesting:
Do we (and by extention, the companies and products we support) NEED to be greener? Maybe! Maybe not! There is no undisputable proof either way. But regardless of if we NEED to, SHOULDN'T we? It's hard to deny that there's a lot of environmental problems in the world: smog, acid rain, contaminated water, etc... Whether we need to or not, we SHOULD be cutting these things.
So, as a result, regardless if global warming is true or not, itfcarbon taxes are coming or not, companies like Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo should be cleaning up their acts because it's the right thing to do. So should we, for that matter. The world would be a much nicer place if we did, impending global catastrophe or not.
Not to mention, moral/environmental issues aside, Green policies usually make sound financial sense anyway. It's pretty much win/win in most cases..
I'm with you two, guys.
How come are people here that don't care about toxics?
As far as I know, human beings breathe, drink and eat. We need the environment as much as any other living creature. If the enviroment is dirty, you'll get dirty sooner or later. You don't have to do it for the trees (we breathe thanks to them by the way) or the cute seals in the Artic, do it for you!
I guess people forget about that big thing in thew sky called the SUN! a little know fact tree huggers (or they just don't know or care) wont tell you about is that on Mercury the temp risen the same amount as on earth. reported by NASA, just a little something to think about.
Two major flaws with what this Greenpeace "toxics campaigner" spouts out...
1) As Nintendo aren't disclosing the majority of their environmental practices how can their "greeness" be accurately compared with Sony or Microsoft? And even those two companies do not provide enough data to justify worthwhile comparisons. It's like me stating that I've more money than my friend just cos he/she is not willing to disclose their wealth to prove otherwise. This "rocket scientist" should keep her completely unscientific assumptions to herself. (Or is Iza a him?)
2) Then when asked about power outage (which has a very large effect on the carbon footprint) the same Greenpeace flak says “The Wii definitely uses much less energy than the other consoles, but it is a completely different type of product." If that's the case why was he/she comparing their environmental impact previously?
Idiot! No wonder nobody can be arsed to save the whales nowadays.
Rob: That's fine with me. Notice that I didn't start the personal attacks, but I did bring myself down to the level of the one who was blaming me for 'destroying the world's ecosystem' by responding in a similarly derisive manner.
"I'm not part of this whole fake faux-democratic spectrum - there's no left or right"
Squarepusher, good points. Some people would do better to have more counter views to the status quo similar to his. even if he is wrong, and I am not saying he is, atleast he has conviction. You try having a reasonable, balanced conversation with a "greenie", it just can not happen, it's grade 2 all over again, fingers in t he ears, "la la la la la."
What a bunch of baloney. The whole greenhouse gas emission business is about selling carbon credits. Ergo, we have to save the Earth by buying our carbon credits from the banks (and being regulated to oblivion), while Al Gore and his merry bunch of alarmists can keep all the private jets and plasma TVs to their little hearts' desires.
BTW, the claims of the 'global warming' cartel are becoming more and more baseless as more details regarding faulty information/implicit wrongdoing reaches the surface: skewed numbers from the IPCC, and the sun cooling down (instead of heating).
I hope this is the first and the last time I have to read this kind of phony environmentalist propaganda in my favorite VIDEOGAME magazine.
You know, you don't have to be a scientist to understand that all the carbon in the air 2 billion years ago that kept current life forms from existing (such as, you know, US) being put back into the air after forutantely being invested in the Earth via deceased life forms becoming fossil fuels (hence the 'fossil') is probably a very, VERY bad idea.
You also don't have ot be a scientist to notice glaciers are noticeably thin and the snows of Kilimanjaro are....well, not really there anymore.
There may be some nasty things going on in the global discourse, but facts are facts.
That said, we'd do more for the environment coming down on fossil fuel use than on console manufacturers.
I love the net, everybody's an expert.
Rider_on_the_Storm:
Nice oneliner. Can you dispute my claim that you're going to have to buy carbon credits (as part of the 'environmentalist' movement) from the private banks, wrapping themselves in the altruistic cloak of 'environmentalism'? Don't you see the potential for another economic bubble built on hot air - like the tech-com bubble, the subprime mortgage bubble? What happens when that bubble bursts, just like the current bubble is threatening an economic collapse?
Economic booms and busts don't occur out of thin air, you know - these kind of Ponzi schemes do.
Of course there's no such thing as global warming. They got the same "scientists" that "proved" smoking cigarettes isn't harmful in the 80s, to provide all the evidence we'll ever need that "global warming" and the "environment" are all nonsense.
Hey, at least they're not like Al Gore that promotes Yes-men to the IPCC to cook the numbers. (as recently reported by mainstream news)
But hey, I guess this surrogate religion is faring better in the States, where people love to be taken for a ride. The Treasury has now stolen 8 trillion on the backs of the American taxpayer - what are you gonna do about it, huh? That's all money you will have to pay back in taxes.
But hey, by all means get worked up over the Earth (supposedly) getting warmer, when every country has experienced record colds this year. Again: the sun is COOLING, not getting warmer. Please download the latest update from Al Gore's hive-mind computer: it's now about 'climate change', not 'global warming', since the Earth conveniently doesn't get any warmer. Religions have the nasty habits of turning every 'sceptic' into an 'infidel' when their predictions don't ring true.
duly noted how you completely ignored my irrefutable points about fossil fuels and diminishing ice on a global scale.
You can be angry about carbon credits without being hostile to environemental truths.
Truth be told, we need to decrease dependence on coal and oil and renew our faith in nuclear power, a virutally unlimited fuel source that isn't going to FUBAR the environment. Repoisoning the atmosphere (relative to our well-being as a mammalian species) is just plain idiocy. If there are aliens looking down on us, we'll be infamous for doing the exact opposite of what is beneficial for us -- the myth of the civilization that actively sought its own destruction by reversing the very process that granted them the opportunity to live. It took billions of years to make Earth hospitible to our presence, and it's taking us an infinitely smaller fraction of that time to take it back. The utter idiocy is astounding. We know we can't live in a carbon-rich environment, we know the atmosphere was prep'd for us as carbon lifeforms were fossilized, and we know that putting it back in the air will net us the same effing result that prevented our existence in the first place. Wake up!
Wake up indeed. Take a look at Richard Haas (president of the CFR)'s take on global warming, or global cooling. Find out what he thinks about it. (and if you ask yourself: who the hell is Richard Haas, well, you'd better find out what the CFR is and where they fit into the pecking order)
It's a wedge issue. REAL environmental destruction is going on, but it isn't this big devil poison called CO2, the life gas of the Earth and one of the basic elements of life on this planet.
Real environmental concerns:
- cross-species engineering (giving rise to dozens of mutations)
- honeybees dying due to genetically modified crops (GMO), thus destroying the ecosystem.
- dumping toxic waste in the ocean.
- depleted uranium (remember Shock and Awe in Iraq? What about Gulf War I?)
This whole silly notion of us needing to put regulations on greenhouse gas emissions is a bunch of hogwash, sorry. Go look at those four points I mentioned - learn about some REAL environmental concerns and don't simply repeat what the mainstream media is regurgitating.
The world is not going to end because you don't pay your carbon taxes, sorry. Let Al Gore and all the elites pay their due first before they need to tax the little people - the hypocrisy is astounding.
Even if you BELIEVE the world is going to come to an end due to those pesky greenhouse gas emissions, their solution (carbon credits being imposed on the people, everyone on this earth having a carbon footprint and you needing to buy carbon credits from the banks) is NOT going to solve it, and it puts an awful amount of power into the hands of those who have the privilege of handing out those carbon credits. The potential for corruption and control is astounding. Now I ask you, do you want to be regulated into oblivion? Do you want social workers coming into your house every three to four weeks to check if you have the right lightbulbs or whether you're within the limits of your carbon footprint?
Sorry, but I don't wish to become a slave. It's that simple. Leave me the hell alone, is what I have to tell to all the environmental extremists.
On the verge of a global market meltdown, how the people are even stomaching this bull about carbon taxes doesn't speak too well about the public's ability to see through a con.
I don't know where to begin, and I don't have all day, so I'll be relatively brief.
Much as I respect CFR and Richard Haas - and I do - I much prefer to place my trust on environmental issues in the conclusions that form the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community - i.e. the peer-reviewed conclusions by people who actually know what they're talking about. Richard Haas is not a climate scientist - he's an expert on international security and globalization. And the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that climate change as a result of rising carbon dioxide emissions is real, that human activitiy is causing it, and that it's changing the way that the Earth's climate functions.
For crying out loud, if you want to see any evidence of climate change at work, just pick up any copy of National Geographic magazine from the past decade, instead of looking at the Exxon adverts as your main source of information on climate issues ("CO2 - the life gas of the earth" - ha).
Incidentally, I'm amused that this discussion has turned into a debate on CO2 levels and carbon credits when the Greenpeace study is clearly referring primarily to chemical pollutants in the production process and the companies' processes for disposing of them safely.
And I for one applaud Edge for keeping an eye on the big picture. That videogame companies are being subjected to studies by Greenpeace is a sign of the maturity and ubiquity of the industry, and the industry definitely needs to keep an eye on broader trends if it wants to remain successful.
It does not matter that Richard Haas is not a scientist - Richard Haas is the president of the CFR and thus has a far-reaching influence on geopolitics, and due to the ever-greater politicization of science (which dozens of people have warned for in the past - Michael Crichton being one), it makes sense to listen to what he has to say.
Here is his own quote - you make of it what you will:
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
What is this about a 'new enemy to unite us'? 'The real enemy, then, is humanity itself'? You need to ask yourself these questions.
"CO2 - the life gas of the earth - ha"
I don't know what to say to you when you make a comment like that - it's obvious you are under the impression you are right. If you dispute the claim that CO2 is one of the main sources of life on this earth - the very substance that plants breath - then that smacks of ignorance that no amount of arguing can hope to solve.
As for me being apparently influenced by Exxon Mobil, has it ever occured to you that National Geographic is not exactly shy of corporate sponsorship either and therefore cannot be considered impartial? Like Discovery that refused to do a segment on the hackability of RFID because their corporate friends considered that to be too damaging to their business strategy?
For the record, there is NOT a consensus that human beings are causing it. And second, CO2 is not even the chief emission source.
I don't know which peer-reviewed studies you're referring to - you put that out and you don't provide any links, so that bolsters your argument but it doesn't give me the opportunity to check what you're saying. Incidentally, so does the comment that I'm looking at Exxon adverts as my primary source of information - you can't in all honesty know what exactly I'm looking at, so you just make a broad derogatory assumption.
Anyway, Edge is not the place here for a long-winded debate on climate change. I just wish this kind of thinly veiled propaganda could be kept outside a videogaming magazine - I don't want articles that hijack a very real 'concern' (environmental problems) and then twist it to a desired outcome: control on CO2, (this is just nuts. Even if you were convinced it's this devil poison called CO2, PUTTING TAXES ON IT IS NOT GOING TO SOLVE IT - YOU CAN'T SOLVE THE SUN HEATING BY PUTTING TAXES ON THE LITTLE PEOPLE FOR BREATHING - and the sun is not warming, it's in a cyclic cooling period, so that puts that argument to waste), control on what you can and can't do as a business, ever-more draconian regulation.
OK – well, that’s fair enough, you’re right that I ought to go into more detail and provide some references if I want to make the argument properly. Let’s break the debate thus far down into manageable chunks.
1. The overwhelming consensus of the world’s scientists and CFR’s position.
As a long-time subscriber to CFR’s journal (Foreign Affairs), I find it interesting that you insist on interpreting Richard Haas’s contribution as an endorsement of global warming scepticism on behalf of the entire institution. CFR’s listing of recent articles on the environment (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/gs/energy-resources-and-environment.html) shows a number of articles which have been written by experts, including an excellent summary by Carter Bales and Richard Duke of the current situation and the basis for the scientific consensus (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080901faessay87505/carter-f-bales-richar...). Numerous other articles in the journal are broadly in agreement that climate change is happening, and reviews of books by climate change sceptics are neutral at best (for example on Bjorn Lomberg’s latest).
Articles in other reputable sources in the media include Elizabeth Kolbert’s excellent five-part series on climate change in the New Yorker in 2006, as well as a piece on CCD in bees (which you mentioned above – doesn’t seem to have much to do with GMOs though http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/06/070806fa_fact_kolbert) and a good comment piece on the IPCC report (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/02/12/070212taco_talk_kolbert). You can also check out the Economist’s reporting of the issue here with a summary page and lots of links (the Economist started out sceptical and got convinced) http://www.economist.com/research/Backgrounders/displayBackgrounder.cfm?....
Lastly, if you want to get into the actual substance of the primary research by experts, the IPCC report and the Stern Review by the UK government (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm and http://www.occ.gov.uk/activities/stern.htm) are properly-documented pieces of summary research which draw on a number of primary sources and mention (and reference) the various counter-arguments that are out there. Their conclusions are fairly clear. For the record, the IPCC is an intergovernmental panel whose conclusions are reviewed by thousands of scientists and member governments and represents a consensus, and in its 2007 report it put the likelihood that human beings are the cause of global warming—now evident from “increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level”—at ninety per cent.
I noticed in a post above a contemptuous reference to the mainstream media – I’m not sure how to try to convince someone to believe something when they are determined to reject not only the consensus of experts in the field but also pretty much the entirety of the set of reputable writers in the press whose job it is to sceptically appraise complex topics and who have also come away convinced. Any impartial observer who spends time listening to range of opinions on the subject from experts – including sceptical experts – will find it very difficult to reach a sceptical conclusion.
2. CO2 as the source of life on earth.
It would, naturally, be extremely silly to dispute the role of carbon dioxide in photosynthesis in plants, and as this is where sunlight is converted into other sorts of energy, it’s true enough to say that CO2 is vital to life on earth. It’s also irrelevant to the current discussion, as we’re not talking about photosynthesis – we’re talking about climate change. The relevant facet of CO2 is its property as a gas that traps heat in the atmosphere, i.e. as a greenhouse gas. If you want to debate about whether carbon dioxide is indeed a trigger for higher temperatures, then fair enough – but carbon dioxide’s role in photosynthesis and in global warming are two entirely different things and shouldn’t be confused.
3. The purpose of the Carbon Tax and Emissions Trading schemes, and how they work.
It’s worth pointing out that emissions trading is not the same as a carbon tax: a carbon tax is where the government sets a price per unit of emissions and charges emitters based on how much they output, whereas an emissions trading scheme puts a cap on the total quantity of emissions and then releases permits to pollute which companies then have to pay for, with the price floating based on the size of demand. In short, with a carbon tax the government sets the price of emissions and allows the quantity to vary; with an emissions trading scheme, the government sets the quantity of emissions and allows their price to vary. Environmental economists tend to prefer the tax as a simpler and more effective way of getting polluters to reduce emissions, but the trading schemes are a lot more politically palatable and tend to be the solution that makes its way into policy.
I don’t know why anyone would say that they don’t work, because the mechanism of how emissions trading works is simple: if you have to pay a price for each unit of emissions that you create, then you have a very clear incentive to create fewer emissions. This becomes more pressing as the government slowly reduces the number of permits available, causing the price per permit to increase over time. It’s really just common sense that a scheme like that would cut emissions.
4. “Environmental Propaganda” in relation to videogames.
Like it or not, climate change sceptics are in the minority: opinion polls show a majority in pretty much every country in the world agreeing that climate change is happening, and this is backed by the overwhelming consensus amongst experts. If you’re not convinced, then fair enough: but like most people, I am convinced, and I for one am very interested in how the videogame industry is dealing with the environmental responsibilities that society expects. I very much hope to see Edge continuing its coverage of this hugely important issue.
So there you go – that’s the argument. Of course you’re totally entitled to hold your own opinions and to disagree with the conclusions presented here, but I’m afraid I remain fairly unconvinced by your counter-arguments so far. Check out the references on the Wikipedia page on global warming if you’d like to see some further reading generated by experts who make the case for it much more clearly than I ever could. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Notes_and_references
As for the opinion polls showing a majority in favor of efforts to combat global warming, well, if that were true, we wouldn't have articles like this one - saying the exact opposite.
There is both growing public reluctance to make personal sacrifices and a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the major international efforts now underway to battle climate change, according to findings of a poll of 12,000 citizens in 11 countries, including Canada.
"There's consumer reluctance that's creeping in, and we've seen that some are being stunned into inaction by the enormity of the task," said Earthwatch executive vice-president Nigel Winser.
While I'm glad you took the time to document what you're saying, and that you're at least being respectful of the opposing party's views on this, I think you misread my point regarding Richard Haas.
It's not that I'm insinuating that Richard Haas denies there's climate change - it's that Richard Haas' comment points towards a deliberate geopolitical strategy to hijack the very real concern of environmental pollution and spin it in such a way to make it all about carbon dioxide, and the control and taxing of it. (and contrary to what you seem to think, it's not out of altruistic concern)
As I said before, tons of other scientists have been disgusted over the years how science has been politicized - Michael Crichton even attempted to spark off a public debate about this in his book 'The State of Fear', noting that previous politicizations of science have led to horrific examples in history, such as the eugenics movement.
But I digress, let's focus on 'climate change'/'global warming'.
For the record, out of all greenhouse gas emissions (and these figures are not in dispute - I've looked at articles dating back to 1995 and compared them to studies from 2008), CO2 accounts for 1.9%. Of that 1.9%, human beings contribute only 3%. Water vapor, however, accounts for 96%.
Secondly, the 'hockey stick' curve that Al Gore shows in 'An Inconvenient Truth' was based on a paper referred to as MBH98, and has been shown to be in error.
Third, Gore bases his entire 'doomsday scenario' on the basis of the argument that irregular spikes in CO2 levels lead to irregular temperatures. Contrary to what Gore wants us to believe, this is a gross oversimplification and assumption.
Fourth, let's say you were entirely correct, I am entirely wrong, and CO2 is the main contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, it's the 'devil', and we as humans are causing it, and we need to tax and regulate it. How is that going to solve the sun heating? (if it is indeed heating, and not in a global cooling period) Notice that the solution being promulgated is not even a solution to the 'supposed' problem.
That is, unless I'm missing something here - is population control perhaps factoring into this grand scheme? Let's say world population figures increase on a yearly basis - is that a problem that should need to be addressed?
PS3 fanboys rejoice! PS3 is leading in something. I've always worried about the amount of toxic wii around the world.. those landfills will be bubbling in a few years ;-)
No need to worry about the toxic Wii. According to Nintendo "people hang onto them! ”. At this point I would like to insert a Reggie "Not my problem" picture.