-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PlayStation has committed to lowering its carbon footprint with PS5.
- Thread starter IbizaPocholo
- Start date
- News Hardware
EDMIX
Writes a lot, says very little
Thats probably why they stated every little bit helps....soooo the point sounds to me like many of you want a 1 word solution to something you already know is complex and anyone simply helping is "pointless" if they don't correct the issue in 1 move or something. Its a dumb narrative to argue.
Sony is also simply an electrics company, not a government, did you not think maybe its a bit silly asking of that of a company vs your own governments or? So if they want to help, sure, I have nothing against it and the other poster is correct, every little bit helps, but stop getting mad at a company for not solving the ENTIRE ISSUE IN ONE MOVE that is actually the job of the government.
If they want to help, collect and disclose "pollution" numbers for manufacturing, not some strange "we've lowering its carbon footprint" nonsense. These companies are doing a disservice to us that actually care about the environment i.e. pollution, not some type of mystical carbon monster that doesn't exist.
If they would focus in on their own government/Japanese cos. and try and stop them from continuously dumping radioactive waste into the ocean, that would be a ton more helpful than this carbontard bs.
If they would focus in on their own government/Japanese cos. and try and stop them from continuously dumping radioactive waste into the ocean, that would be a ton more helpful than this carbontard bs.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Spare me your moral outrage. If anything you're highly gullible about how this stuff works. I never claimed we have zero footprint on climate change. But I don't think humans as a species are the scum and root factor into global climate change the way certain types want to guilt us into believing.
Sorry if common sense upsets you.
Miles708
Member
Can we elaborate on this? Is digital-only more eco-friendly than physical media?
Server farms require massive amount of energy 24/7, and streaming services should be even worse in this regard. But I am speculating as well.
Are there any real numbers or researches about this?
Geki-D
Banned
Both are science denialism. It doesn't matter how much you *feel* humans aren't responsable, the science is done and dusted on the matter. Maybe you should actually look into the research rather than let political pundits think for you and then regurgitate their biased, anti science falsehoods.
Katsura
Member
Completely false. The degree of human impact is in no way settled science. Perhaps you should take your own advice because you're the one being politically partisan here
Holammer
Member
No numbers, just speculation; but think of the process for getting a physical copy of a game in manner similar to Milton Friedman's Lesson of the Pencil.
The supply chain needed for the ink alone is mindbogglingly complex and requires a long supply chain of resource collection, refinement, production, labor and distribution.
Digital distribution (or the Internet in general) comes with it's own similar costs obviously, but once in place I would imagine that the ink used to print a box requires substantially more energy than a single download.
EverydayBeast
ChatGPT 0.1
Carbon friendly machines are emerging (cars, solar energy etc.) gaming by default is opening up to new ideas all the time (streaming, vr etc.) I think its possible how efficient consoles are is underrated, SONY of course makes headlines all the time, so lets see them put their money where their mouths are.But they still aren’t carbon neutral yet, so they have a ways to go.
Ambition is good; action is better: Making progress on our climate commitments - Microsoft On the Issues
The dialogue at this year’s United Nation’s Climate Summit has a refreshing air of sober reality. The urgency of the climate crisis has by now fully been absorbed, and the conversation has turned to the practical matter of what needs to be done to mitigate the worst impacts of a rapidly changing...blogs.microsoft.com
Geki-D
Banned
Last edited:
Afro Republican
Banned
San Francisco Station, censorship built right in. Version 5.0
Piku_Ringo
Banned
Wait for PS5 Pro edition thenAs long as its not covered in dookie then...
Last edited:
Katsura
Member
The title literally says 'consensus'
Do you not understand the difference between a consensus and settled science? Also, from the very same site
Technically, a “consensus” is a general agreement of opinion, but the scientific method steers us away from this to an objective framework. In science, facts or observations are explained by a hypothesis (a statement of a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon), which can then be tested and retested until it is refuted (or disproved).
So good job proving my point
Oh and
Last edited:
Geki-D
Banned
So every major scientific organisation agrees that it's because of man, but you're going to play the the old creationist "It's just a theory" card? lol okThe title literally says 'consensus'
Do you not understand the difference between a consensus and settled science? Also, from the very same site
Technically, a “consensus” is a general agreement of opinion, but the scientific method steers us away from this to an objective framework. In science, facts or observations are explained by a hypothesis (a statement of a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon), which can then be tested and retested until it is refuted (or disproved).
So good job proving my point
"Robust findings
-most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is extremely likely due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases"
Also from that site:
"Human-induced climate change, represents a raft of new challenges for this generation and those to come, through increases in extreme weather events and other changes, such as sea-level rise and ocean acidification. The changing climate is superimposed on natural climate variability, leading to a change in the frequency, intensity and duration of extreme events."
"Earth's climate has warmed
Both natural and human influences have affected climate over the past century, but it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. "
So good job proving my point
Last edited:
Katsura
Member
Once again you're making an ass of yourself without even knowing it. You know what else was consensus once? That the earth is flat. Or that the sun revolves around earth. Or that earth is the center of the universe. Also, your entire post doesn't refute what i said - that there is a difference between settled science and consensus. You claimed the science is 'done and dusted' i believe. That is objectively false but feel free to put your ignorance on display in yet another thread until you run away like a cowardSo every major scientific organisation agrees that it's because of man, but you're going to play the the old creationist "It's just a theory" card? lol ok
"Robust findings
-most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is extremely likely due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases"
Also from that site:
"Human-induced climate change, represents a raft of new challenges for this generation and those to come, through increases in extreme weather events and other changes, such as sea-level rise and ocean acidification. The changing climate is superimposed on natural climate variability, leading to a change in the frequency, intensity and duration of extreme events."
"Earth's climate has warmed
Both natural and human influences have affected climate over the past century, but it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. "
So good job proving my point
Geki-D
Banned
lol I'm not doing the bullshit asymmetry principle with you again where I post evidence and you just sit there and say "nope". Just take solace in the fact that I've already proven you wrong and all you can do is yet again sit there, arms folded, moping and shouting "But No!"Once again you're making an ass of yourself without even knowing it. You know what else was consensus once? That the earth is flat. Or that the sun revolves around earth. Or that earth is the center of the universe. Also, your entire post doesn't refute what i said - that there is a difference between settled science and consensus. You claimed the science is 'done and dusted' i believe. That is objectively false but feel free to put your ignorance on display in yet another thread until you run away like a coward
Put up or shut up at this point, show me research that climate change isn't mostly because of man rather than hiding behind a technical definition of what consensus means like a creationist saying that "evolution is just a theory".
mitch1971
Member
I like that the cars dials are in red so it matches the xbox when it turns on.
Katsura
Member
Technical definition? No, its the actual definition. Stop spouting shit and you wont be called on it. You claimed it's settled science. The burden of proof falls solely on you. Also, stop the strawmen. No one is denying climate change. We're saying that we don't know for sure to what extend humans influence it. You then started your politically fueled moronic rants where you label people anti-science and flat earthers
PS You didn't post any evidence in the other thread, just disregarded studies or studies that didn't actually prove what you think they did because you lack the basic math skills to actually read and understand them
Last edited:
Geki-D
Banned
"Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]
Consensus is achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication of reproducible results by others, scholarly debate,[2][3][4][5] and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists; however, communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the "normal" debates through which science progresses may appear to outsiders as contestation.[6] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing the consensus can be quite straightforward.
Popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but not necessarily controversial within the scientific community may invoke scientific consensus: note such topics as evolution,[7][8] climate change,[9] or the lack of a link between MMR vaccinations and autism.[6]"
So hey, your whole position hinges on the fact that maybe, just maybe, one day, against all of the evidence science currently has, they'll find something that goes against all of that.
lol Keep living that dream, buddy. Till then the science is clear and the consensus is there. Climate change is because of man. Unless you have something saying otherwise?
Katsura
Member
Yes, i do. Stop posting the same thing over and over as if that will somehow magically make you right. You still do not understand the difference between consensus and settled science. Your claim was it's settled. Prove it or admit that you, once again, talked about things you do not understand
DemiFiend_
Banned
Imagine being butthurt about Sony helping the environment. If there's no Earth there's no video games my dudes. Just turn off the option if it's possible lol.
Last edited:
If that's what you need to tell yourself to justify your lifestyle choices that's on you.
But the science don't lie. It's no coincidence that the planet has been warming at an exponential rate ever since the start of the industrial revolution.
Randall365
Member
Noise is the one thing that will out me off the PS5. The launch Pro was ludicrous - I had to buy another one after a year or two it was so annoying.
Miles708
Member
That was a very nice video to watch, thanks!
I've never thought how a pencil is made, and how somehow it doesn't cost a thousand dollars, given all the work and people required to make one.
But that's what the supply chain is for, isn't it? You cooperate with many people to build things in a more economic and efficient way, and that's why I'm not sure an all-digital ecosystem would be necessarily good from an enviromentalist point of view.
I would think that maybe, for the enviroment, it makes sense to have smaller games on digital. But big games like GTA, or FIFA or Call of Duty? You need to power your servers 24/7 full-power to let people download, and likely hundred of thousands of gamers want to download and re-download these games every day. I suspect that takes a lot of energy to work.
On retail, the enviromental cost is totally upfront (and bigger?) but then dissipates. If I want to buy GTA IV from GameStop, today, i make no harm to the enviroment. But if I want to download it, it means there needs to be a server already online 24/7, waiting for me since 2008.
Last edited:
Mass Shift
Member
Interesting fact. About 12-15 average sized plants (6 inch pots) are able to continuously absorb C02 in a home up to 2000 sqft in size, converting it into oxygen. They are even capable of absorbing emissions too small for even your carbon alarm to detect. And there's another thing they absorb that Sony probably doesn't want to even talk about, electromagnetic radiation.
Yup, plants are like these little green EMF hulks that reduce (not eliminate) everything from waves to even the headaches people periodically suffer as result of them. I know it seems ridiculous to think of a small cactus placed by your gaming console as a EMF fighter, but if it works?
Yup, plants are like these little green EMF hulks that reduce (not eliminate) everything from waves to even the headaches people periodically suffer as result of them. I know it seems ridiculous to think of a small cactus placed by your gaming console as a EMF fighter, but if it works?
I swear to God, people like you act like you are in a fucking cult. No one is arguing CC isn't real, they are calling out the fact that Sony is using this as a marketing gimmick.
which they are. Of course it requires less power, it's newer tech. People are staying the obvious, but you're angry they are clapping like seals.