Hollywood and Global Warming

[Robert Glenn]

http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Guar...1947932,00.html

 

The city of Los Angeles is principally famous for two things: glittering movies and suffocating smog. Now researchers have found that the two are not unconnected. A study by the University of California Los Angeles shows the film and television industry to be the second largest polluter in the Los Angeles area. Only the region's oil refineries pump more pollutants into the air, it says.

 

While Hollywood has a reputation for pumping out unregulated quantities of hot air, the research is the first to quantify the industry's emissions. The two-year study estimates that the industry emits 140,000 tonnes a year of ozone and diesel particulate emissions.

-snip-

[Paul Bruening]

Holy Cow!!!

 

I sold my local community leaders on how movie-making was a "clean" industry. I guess, its cleaner than so many other industries that have come and gone in North Mississippi and left their toxic stamp on the environment: chip board, plastic, battery manufacture, etc.

[Jim Feldspar]

http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Guar...1947932,00.html

 

The city of Los Angeles is principally famous for two things: glittering movies and suffocating smog. Now researchers have found that the two are not unconnected. A study by the University of California Los Angeles shows the film and television industry to be the second largest polluter in the Los Angeles area. Only the region's oil refineries pump more pollutants into the air, it says.

 

While Hollywood has a reputation for pumping out unregulated quantities of hot air, the research is the first to quantify the industry's emissions. The two-year study estimates that the industry emits 140,000 tonnes a year of ozone and diesel particulate emissions.

-snip-

You mean with all that traffic, automobiles come in third on the list?

[Robert Glenn]

You mean with all that traffic, automobiles come in third on the list?

The study focuses on industrial use instead of personal use. I would assume that it includes all forms of transportation on company time including premier openings and publicists hired and so forth.

Here's another entry from a guardianUK blogger. Not trying to cause a political argument.. I"m just submitting it for those who are interested and/or concerned.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/film/2006/11/m..._hollywood.html

Edited December 11, 2006 by RobertNC

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I've often watched many tons of carefully-wrought timber being assembled, then pulled apart a day later to clear the stage, and found it hard to justify what I'm involved with.

 

Phil

[Brad Grimmett]

Remember that the film industry is one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) businesses in Los Angeles. I'm not saying we don't pollute, but the size of the industry is certainly relative to the amount of pollution.

[Peter J DeCrescenzo]

Remember that the film industry is one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) businesses in Los Angeles. I'm not saying we don't pollute, but the size of the industry is certainly relative to the amount of pollution.

 

Although the Hollywood-based environmental organization EMA generates a certain amount of PR "hot air" -- probably unavoidable given the context in which they operate -- they seem to work very hard at promoting efforts to clean up the film industry's act, as it were:

http://www.ema-online.org/

[Nick Mulder]

from what I have seen on shoots is that they are heavily based on a time is money perspective and so speed is perceived as efficiency.

 

The greener methods take more time - and are therefore inefficient, yet from an energy perspective they kick ass in terms of cyclical efficiency (as opposed to the linear processes in the film industry)...

 

When doing my own experimental shoots and fun stuff I always try to reduce waste and the use of 'one-shot' products (glaring exception in that I use film)  - but I know when working on real jobs that all I can do is perhaps hint at the other way to do this and that, usually getting a blank response that I translate into 'but that would mean more work you idiot'

 

its going to come to a head sometime in our lifetime.

Edited December 12, 2006 by Nick Mulder

[James Erd]

Hi,

 

I've often watched many tons of carefully-wrought timber being assembled, then pulled apart a day later to clear the stage, and found it hard to justify what I'm involved with.

 

Phil

 

For what is worth, much of that timber could be donated to Habitat for Humanity.

 

That would be a huge PR boost for the studio's reputation, and certainly justify the added time and effort needed to disassemble the structures with appropriate care.

 

It would be wonderful to see an industry go green with out the need for cap and trade incentives.

[K Borowski]

Nick, it all depends on how you look at film. Yes, the ribbons you run through your camera are one-shot, but I doubt many 1959 video cameras are in as good of shape, or as compatible with today's production standards as my 1959 Auricon is ;-) I think the wasteful part of Hollywood (at least on-set) is the ridiculously high shooting ratios some productions have, or the ridiculously long shifts they work because some pencil-pusher says that that approach saves money. On paper, I guess constantly working overtime can save money, and when you're running behind schedule I guess there is no real way around some situations that are going to necessitate overtime, but God how many mistakes people make when they are tired! Perfect example: What do the Chernobyl, Exxon-Valdez, and 3-Mi. Island disasters have in common? They all took place at or around 2 am local time.

 

I agree that something that takes more overall time is viewed as inneficient compared to something that takes less time, regardless of the other advantages of the more lengthy process.

 

I'd argue that running multiple rehearsals several weeks before production starts (again taking more money in the short-term) would make for fewer mistakes on the set and therefore less waste of filmstock and crew time. If you have Nicole Kidman on your roster, or are shooting a 26-episode/season TV show, this cannot be done, but I think smaller features ought to try to take a more "theatrical" production approach as opposed to the very business-like Hollywood approach, which can be nothing but wasteful, since it is based on another incredibly wasteful system: American business as a whole ;-)

 

Regards,

 

~Karl Borowski

[Daniel Madsen]

Robert thank you for bringing this up- it is a topic that is very important to me. Global warming and more broadly environmental degradation is a huge problem. Individual productions can do much more to help the environment than they think. Everything for production creates waste- power (smog), food (trash), it is a sad fact. What productions need to work on is not creating excess waste.

 

 

Another thing is the film making process and respect for the environment don't mix well. Everything in prod. is about speed, so if that means leaving trash in the forest after a shoot that's what happens. On every shoot I pick up trash after people, not because it is my responsibilty to the production but because it my responsibility as a resident of planet earth. It gets in the way of people's egos if they have to pick up trash so few people do it (especially on student shoots).

 

 

Is it true that generators run cleaner if they are loaded near capacity. I was on a shoot where we used a generator that was 5-6 times the size we needed- that cant be good.

 

dan

[Nick Mulder]

Nick, it all depends on how you look at film. Yes, the ribbons you run through your camera are one-shot, but I doubt many 1959 video cameras are in as good of shape, or as compatible with today's production standards as my 1959 Auricon is ;-)

 

Yep, its one way of looking at it ... consumer digital cameras go through so many iterations of capability that they are redundant within 2 years (at least thats what the marketeers are telling us) - I love that my spring driven Bolex is near on 40 years old and is still the current production model >>smug_smiley<< the disbeleif you get when talking about it with is exasperating however...

 

Film vs. video vs. digital in terms of sustainability is a complex discussion that I'm sure my broad stroke of logic approach would yeild a theory riddled with holes ... For now I'll shoot film simply because I like it, I'll do my best to make the most of it and try to think about cutting down on consumables and other linear processes...

 

 

Go team wind-up !

[Guest]

Of course none of this applies to films made by Leonardo Di Caprio. All of his transportation cars are electric, they don't print the script on paper, no beef is eaten on set, actresses are banned from wearing perfume, costumes are made only from natural fibres, cast and crew try to breath less so they emit fewer green house gases.

 

R,

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Of course none of this applies to films made by Leonardo Di Caprio. All of his transportation cars are electric, they don't print the script on paper, no beef is eaten on set, actresses are banned from wearing perfume, costumes are made only from natural fibres, cast and crew try to breath less so they emit fewer green house gases.

 

---It's the beans substitutining for the beef that cause the green house gases.

& How many cows does it take to make the gelatin for 1000' of film?

[James Erd]

How many cows does it take to make the gelatin for 1000' of film?

 

 

OK I know I'm a bit OT here, but that's a good question, and one I'm interested in for reasons not directly related to global warming. Now how to find out?

 

First I'll stick to B&W Film for the sake of simplicity.

 

Step one: Take one square centimeter of film and clear the silver with Hypo. Wash thoroughly.

 

Step two: Heat the emulsion until liquification @ Aprox. 60 celsius. This should also remove any residual moisture.

 

Step three: Weigh the result on an accurate scale and calculate the total weight of emulsion for 1000' of film...

 

Step four: Take a cow and render it's hooves and hide... er :blink: Mr Di Caprio we have a problem :blink:

 

OK lets rework this formula...

 

Step one: Ask John Pytlak...

 

Step two: Wait for answer :D

[Alessandro Machi]

I think it's fair to measure all the time people sit their butts in their chairs at home watching the product that was made by the movie industry. If 20 million people end up sitting at home watching a movie on their television sets, that probably is a relatively green activity and should be factored into the equation, meaning one should add 40 million hours of people viewing hours to those pollution stats.

 

Plus it's a repeatable movie that can be played over and over. Other industries can make this claim as well, for instance the couch that might be toxic to make allows someone to spend a lot of time on it doing relatively green activities.

 

On the other hand, if the movie is on "free tv", it's only on because commercials that encourage everyone to consume are included.

 

Perhaps channels like HBO and Showtime are the greenest of all since they allow for movies to have a second life after the theatrical release and they don't incorporate commercials that enourage everyone watching to additionally consume.

 

So, HBO & Showtime movies are the greenest! (HBO & Showtime, please send money).

[Daniel Madsen]

Ralph Nader is correct when he said today's youths are numb to anything political on TV, because they are too busy being bombarded by corporate advertising. What does this mean? We grow up corporate with our 30 sec sound bites and put politics and the potential for tremendous change at the wayside.

 

There is not a third party in the US which means people are fine with corporate influence in our government (we have it in our lives everyday- why not in politics) ........so the trend continues. We complain like everyone else or we fight the power.