Which is a fairly important distinction. For example even with all their Zunes, I'd be amazed if Microsoft produces 5% of the dangerous waste of Sony and yet MS is second to last place.

As with most things from Greenpeace, their strength is marketing, not actual research. The writers over at ArsTechnica have done a little more thorough work in evaluating Greenpeace's methodology: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071128-greenpeaces-green-electronics-guide-undermined-by-minimal-research-effort.html

I've seen the telemavision commercials for this mythical device, but have seen no evidence one actually exists.

will that be the Royal Wii?

Da-Dum-Ching.

First off, Greenpeace policy seems to be guilty until proven innocent. Since Nintendo hasn't reported their numbers to Greenpeace, Greenpeace seems to think that's enough to pass a guitly judgement on them.

Secondly, Nintendo's Wii consumes a lot less power than the other gaming systems. Check out this report:

http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-356-4.htm

So, in my opinion, a Wii owner produces a lot less greenhouse gases (for power production) than an X-Box, Playstation or PC owner.

Get the facts, Jack!

This was covered on ecogeek as well. Turns out Nintendo got the goose-egg because there was a miscommunication and Greenpeace did not get the information that they requested. Rather than attempt to get to the bottom of the issue, they just gave them a zero. Nintendo claims that they adhere to the European standards for hazardous substances for all of their products. I would consider this nothing more than a controversy generator.

http://news.spong.com/article/14361

That says it all. GREENPEACE has done my homework for me Thank-you.

No WII for my children. They are more concerned with the environment than games anyway. They don't play games with the environment.