- The Washington Times - Sunday, September 30, 2007

LOS ANGELES (AP) -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 that consumes enormous amounts of power to feed bright lights, run sophisticated cameras and feed a cast of thousands.

Studio 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 often are 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,” says 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.

Other benefits 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, Mr. Tanger says.

Form and function merged at this year’s Primetime Emmy Awards.

To symbolize its commitment to energy conservation, Fox wanted to replace the traditional red carpet with a green one.

The tradition-bound Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, which gives the awards, politely said “No.”

Nevertheless, 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,” says Terry Tamminen, who was 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 activities. 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.

However, 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,” says 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,” also has become more aggressive at reducing emissions during all phases of production.

In addition to powering its set-building facility with solar energy, the studio is recycling sets, using recycled plastic lumber in the construction of some buildings and printing double-sided scripts where feasible.

“You have to start by measuring your own footprint, then reducing it, whether through using alternative fuels, reducing electrical loads or combining trips,” says 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.

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,” says 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,” Ms. Webber says.

To reach the wider audience, Ms. Webber and a climate expert from Harvard University met earlier this year with show writers and executive producers to brainstorm on ways to integrate environmental messages into show plots.

However, Ms. Webber says 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,” Ms. Webber says. “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, Mr. Begley says. “There are different shades of green.”

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide