Will this lead to the end of big-budget, blockbuster movies and the end of action movies. Will they be replaced by smaller, more family-friendly films that don't require a huge amount of money and resources to produce?
By GARY GENTILE, AP Business Writer
LOS ANGELES - From "green carpets" at awards shows to organic fruit
served to actors on sets, Hollywood is going all out to promote itself
as being environmentally hip.
But is it all just show?
No amount of public service announcements or celebrities driving
hybrid cars can mask the fact that movie and TV production is a gritty
industrial operation, consuming enormous amounts of power to feed
bright lights, run sophisticated cameras, and feed a cast of
thousands.
Studios' back lots host cavernous soundstages that must be air-
conditioned to counter the heat produced by decades-old lighting
technology. Huge manufacturing facilities consume wood, steel, paint
and plastic to build sets that are often torn down and tossed out
after filming ends.
The energy guzzling continues on the exhibition side, too, with
multiplexes drawing millions of kilowatts to power old-school popcorn
makers and clunky film projectors that cash-strapped theater owners
are reluctant to replace.
A two-year study released last year by the University of California at
Los Angeles concluded that special effects explosions, idling vehicles
and diesel generators make the entertainment industry a major Southern
California polluter, second only to the oil industry.
Still, financial and public pressures have resulted in many studios
expanding their environmental efforts, doing everything from using a
biodiesel fuel mixture to run the generators on the set of the Fox
show "24" to converting Warner Bros.' enormous set-building facility
to solar energy.
"Public consciousness on this issue has changed dramatically," said
Kyle Tanger, a principal at Clear Carbon Consulting. "The talent
themselves are requesting it from some of the studios. And a lot of
these things make economic sense."
Economic benefit can come to studios directly, by switching to more
efficient lighting or cooling systems or driving hybrid cars on
location, which can save gas. Other projects, such as installing solar
power, can take decades to pay off.
But there are other benefits that are harder to quantify. Besides the
public relations angle, many performers and other employees want to
work with eco-friendly companies, so it also helps in recruiting and
retaining employees, Tanger said.
Form and function merged at this year's Primetime Emmy Awards show.
To symbolize its commitment to energy conservation, Fox had wanted to
replace the traditional red carpet with a green one.
The tradition-bound Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, which
gives the awards, politely said "no."
But the carpet that ended up cushioning the heels of such stars as
Sally Field and America Ferrera was made from recycled plastic bottles
and later cut into pieces and donated to several local schools.
"No doubt some efforts have been window dressing. But I actually think
Hollywood is doing far more than people are giving it credit for,"
said Terry Tamminen, who served as an adviser to Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger before starting his own environmental consulting
company.
One convenient yet controversial method is the purchase of carbon
credits by studios and producers to offset the greenhouse gases from
their production activity. The credits attempt to counter such
pollution by investing in environmentally friendly projects such as
planting trees or funding wind power.
Studios and a growing number of other industries calculate their
emissions, then write a check to one of several brokers who funnel the
money to projects around the world. The goal is to become carbon
neutral by funding activities that reduce an equal amount of
emissions.
The 2004 Fox film "The Day After Tomorrow" and last year's Al Gore
documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" offset all or some of their
pollution. This year's "Evan Almighty," from Universal, donated money
to the Conservation Fund to plant 2,000 trees, enough to "zero out"
the greenhouse gases produced.
But the practice has come under fire by some who say it is an easy way
to avoid the hard work of directly reducing pollution. Others question
whether carbon credit payments are actually going to projects that
make that much of a difference.
"If you're going to drive around in a big ol' Hummer and then buy
carbon offsets to mitigate that, that's like getting drunk on the
weekends and throwing some money through the window of an AA meeting
and thinking you're doing something," said Ed Begley Jr., who was a
poster child for energy conservation long before Al Gore made it
trendy.
The Federal Trade Commission, meanwhile, has begun examining claims
made by the nascent multimillion-dollar carbon credit industry.
Warner Bros., which bought carbon credits for the 2005 film "Syriana,"
has also become more aggressive at reducing emissions during all
phases of production.
In addition to solar-powered set-building, the studio is recycling
sets, using recycled plastic lumber in the construction of some
buildings, and printing double-sided scripts where feasible.
Pieces built for the 2001 film "Ocean's 11" now sit in the Santa
Monica offices of the National Resources Defense Council. Sets from
this year's sequel "Ocean's 13" were donated to decorate the halls of
local community colleges.
"You have to start by measuring your own footprint, then reducing it,
whether through using alternative fuels, reducing electrical loads or
combining trips," said Shelley Billick, vice president of
environmental initiatives at Warner Bros. Entertainment. "It's too
easy to write a check, pay thousands of dollars and say, 'I'm climate
neutral.'"
Last year, Fox parent News Corp. set a goal of being carbon neutral by
2010.
To further that goal, Fox Broadcasting chose its popular "24" series
as a case study and to serve as a model for other television
productions.
Diesel generators that power the show's lighting were switched to a
mixture that uses 5 percent biodiesel fuel. That percentage will be
increased in coming years. The show also has secured energy from solar
and wind generation from a local utility for its soundstages.
But News Corp. has a more ambitious goal than simply reducing its own
carbon emissions.
"We knew from the beginning that if our goal is to make as many carbon
reductions in the world as possible, probably the best way we can do
that is through our audiences," said Rachel Webber, director of energy
initiatives for News Corp.
The company concluded that worldwide, it produced the equivalent of
641,150 tons of carbon dioxide. But a rough estimate revealed that the
people who read its newspapers, watch its TV shows and browse its Web
sites use about 7 billion tons.
"That's the greatest potential to reduce carbon, but we have to get
our own house in order first," Webber said.
To reach the wider audience, Webber and a climate expert from Harvard
University met with show writers and executive producers earlier this
year to brainstorm on ways to integrate environmental messages into
show plots.
But Webber said Fox is not forcing "tacked on" messages into its
shows, but rather offering resources should writers choose to address
the issue.
"We can't use this in a way that doesn't fit into the show," Webber
said. "It can't be Jack Bauer driving in a car he otherwise wouldn't
drive in."
Ultimately, any steps Hollywood takes, big or small, to reduce
emissions are positive, Begley said. "There are different shades of
green."
With Hollywood becoming environmentally-friendly....?performing arts show Hollywood phonies are only doing it for publicity like throwing a concert causing more pollution and damage to the environment and to global warming with the people at the concert there was litter, energy for the lighting amps booths etc, energy for the TVs to watch it, gas to drive there car emissions, etc.
With Hollywood becoming environmentally-friendly....?opera cd opera theater
Too much to read, lost intrest.
