No, The Greenpeace rating has nothing to do with the environmental impact of Nintendo, it has to do with Greenpeace frustration of not being able to push Nintendo around. Just read what few facts are listed in the article: "Nintendo . . . has banned phthalates and is monitoring use of antimony and beryllium, and although it is endeavouring to eliminate the use of PVC, it has not set a timeline for its phase out.” "While Sony . . . still needs to set a timeline for eliminating all phthalates, beryllium copper and antimony and its compounds.”

So even though Nintenda has banned pthalates, Sony is still working on it and doesn't have a timeline set.

The Nintendo score isn't low because they are worse than Sony. The Nintendo score is worse than Sony because Nintendo doesn't recognize Greenpeace as the world arbiter to judge Nintendo's environmental impact - so Greenpeace slams them with a low score. Sorry, Greenpeace better come up with better data than that if they want me to pay attention to their scores. This just shows they have their own agenda and want to push anyone around that doesn't do everything their way.

I like my wii. Maybe I should go buy a new game for it.