The talk of Tinseltown

Is the most wasteful business on Earth finally seeing the big picture?

A writer, designer and producer from the entertainment capital of the world try to design a greener movie industry and rebut a few clichés about Tinseltown excess

Article by Peter Morris

Hollywood has to face its own inconvenient truth. Only the Californian oil industry pumps more pollutants into the air than the movie industry. A study by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) late last year estimated that the film and TV industry in Southern California emits 140,000 tonnes of ozone and diesel particulate pollutant from many sources (chiefly generators, fires and special effects) and suggested that Hollywood’s greatest special effect is smog.

Casting Hollywood as an environmental villain – albeit one with a conscience – the report seemed to confirm that the movie business was talking green, but not thinking green. This is, after all, an industry where some executives have more private jets than most of us have houses, and where one starlet famously stipulated in a contract that three peaches be delivered to her dressing room every hour. Yet Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) boss Dan Glickman insists Hollywood is being badly miscast: “The major studios are engaging in a host of efforts to make movies and programmes in an environmentally friendly way, to prevent air pollution, conserve natural resources, reduce water pollution and improve environmental quality. MPAA members voluntarily divert more than half of their trash from landfills, recycle extensively, promote rideshares and use low-volatile-organic-compound paints to prevent smog.”

How easy is it going to be to turn the licensed lunacy that is movie-making into a sustainable business? And how does Hollywood judge its environmental performance? To answer these – and other – questions, DCM quizzed three of the industry’s top professionals.

The panel

The Hollywood professionals invited to discuss their business’s environmental performance are:

• Lawrence Bender
  Producer, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, An Inconvenient Truth
• Dick Clement
  Writer, The Likely Lads, The Commitments, Flushed Away
• John Mott
  Production designer, art director, Jericho, Driftwood

How would you rate Hollywood’s environmental performance?

Clement I can see why campaigners condemn the amount of emissions produced by film crews on location. More could be done. But the industry has a conscience, occasionally manifested in the subjects it chooses. It also gave Al Gore an Oscar, though you’d be hard pushed to say honestly that An Inconvenient Truth was actually the best documentary film of the year.

Mott Individuals are usually fairly environmentally conscious (we recycle cans, bottles, paper, production assistants), but the industry is wasteful. In the art department we recycle sets as much as possible – for financial and ecological reasons – but productions still generate massive amounts of trash and emissions.

Individuals have a strong sense of environmental responsibility. But time and financial pressures make the green choice the last choice’John Mott, art director, sci-fi drama Jericho

Bender The movie-making process creates a big carbon footprint, so we need cleaner generators, like biodiesel, and better methods of energy use. Most studios are looking at going green – considering putting solar panels on their roofs for example – to save money and energy. The Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth was a huge deal but, more importantly, last year we finally put the question of “Does global warming exist?” aside. The question now is what we’re going to do about it.

Do you think the environment is considered in the film-making process? And what would it take to make movie-making more green?

Mott Many individuals have a strong sense of environmental responsibility. Unfortunately the time and financial pressures we are all under often make the green choice the last choice. Encouraging productions to be carbon neutral is a must-do, as is using recycled materials.

Bender It’s film-maker driven. Hollywood is a business and people are cost- conscious, so they look at things on a financial and creative basis. When I started making movies in the late 1980s, no thought was given to recycling. Now it’s an enormous part of it. Recycling all your set materials and being conscious of what you’re using is widespread but there’s still a long way to go.

Clement Truly effective change can only come from the top, from studios and really big producers, like Jerry Bruckheimer, and the directors and writers guilds. 

On a daily basis, do you come across good – or bad – environmental practices?

Clement Los Angeles has been recycling for several years. I have friends who have installed solar panels for heating. (I can’t do it in my house. We are in the hills and don’t get enough sunshine.) The actor Ed Begley Jr has practised what he preaches for years: he used to ride to auditions on a bicycle. The organisation Tree People has lobbied to plant trees all over town. At the same time, the ocean is toxic. Don’t swim in Santa Monica Bay, especially after a rainstorm. Heal The Bay is fighting to improve matters, but it’s an uphill battle.

Mott On our lot we have a comprehensive recycling programme. But we generate massive amounts of food waste. Many of the picture vehicles we rent are old and are gross polluters, or, at best, just polluters. The paints and finishes we use are subject to very strict rules which have improved air quality enormously.

Clement People are becoming more environmentally aware. One of my friends has a Prius whose licence plate reads: ‘SUVTABU’. 

Does everyone in Hollywood really drive a Toyota Prius?

Clement I just bought my second Prius to make a tiny contribution to limiting emissions. When Toyota launches a plug-in version which is fully-electric on journeys within about 60 miles, I’ll be first in line. Give Woody Harrelson credit for insisting he was driven in one when he was filming in the UK.

Mott The hybrid thing has become a bit of a farce. It’s not environmentally beneficial to drive a hybrid SUV that gets worse mileage than a standard sedan. I am a firm believer in plug-in diesel hybrids. The technology seems esoteric now but these vehicles are the new big thing for the future.

Bender There are probably more Prius cars per capita here than in many other areas. I own one. But there are a lot of  SUVs too. 

Should Hollywood make more movies with an environmental message?

Clement Message movies seldom succeed. The science in The Day After Tomorrow was too flawed and sensational to be useful. Erin Brockovich, on the other hand, was a terrific film with a strong environmental message.

The movie-making process creates a big carbon footprint so we need cleaner generators, like biodiesel, or better ways of using energy Lawrence Bender, producer, An Inconvenient Truth

Bender You try to make a difference whatever way you can – a reality TV show around greening, documentaries or films. It’s not Hollywood’s mandate to make message movies, it’s Hollywood’s job to entertain.

Has Tinseltown, famed for its conspicuous consumption, changed its habits?

Clement Hollywood’s image is largely a myth. Those swimming pools you glimpse from the air when you fly in are mostly empty. This is a very hard-working town. It has its share of ‘McMansions’ but I’m not sure consumption is any more conspicuous here than in many other parts of America.

Mott Just the word ‘Hollywood’ conjures up images of movie stars and glamour. In reality, the lifestyles of a few hundred people are fodder for the tabloids, people who the world loves to love (or hate). The rest of us just work.

Bender There’s a lot of consumption in Hollywood, there’s a lot everywhere in America. As a state, California is way ahead of the rest of America in energy use and conservation. We consume less per capita in California and conserve more than the rest of America, but we still have a long way to go. 

For a former Terminator, Arnold Schwarzenegger has been a greener governor of California than one might expect. Has this changed opinion in Hollywood?

Mott The Governator is a popular figure. His comments have helped people view this issue differently. Calling people Girlie Men helped, I’m sure…

Recycling, car-pooling and saving energy are all microscopic acts but, duplicated, they can help Dick Clement, writer, The Commitments

Bender I don’t think he’s been ahead of Hollywood, it’s the other way round. The Governor saw it was important to sign the bill that will cut California’s greenhouse gases by 25% by 2030, but it took pressure to get there.

What have you done to make your own lifestyle more sustainable?

Clement I car-pool whenever possible. In our house, we recycle and make our own compost. We’re trying to buy local produce rather than food that’s flown in from abroad. We try to conserve water and energy. We are very aware of over-fishing, and avoid buying fish that is in any way threatened. These things are microscopic in themselves, but if they become duplicated enough times by enough people, it can help.

Mott I’m happy to give advice, but to change my practices? Are you crazy? Actually we recycle, conserve water and energy, we’ve insulated our home, and added double glazing. Our garden is low water use and we don’t eat veal.

Bender I’ve done an energy audit of my house. I’m looking into solar power and making my house carbon neutral. The big hitch is air travel – I haven’t found a way to cut that down. I’m working with Yahoo and Wal-Mart on a large campaign called 18secs to promote a grass-roots campaign throughout America to get people to buy compact fluorescent light bulbs. The idea is that if you take 18 seconds out of your life to change one bulb, you’re going to save $30 over the light bulb’s life and use 75% less energy. And once people do that, they realise there are 50,000 other things they can do. 

Mission implausible?

Hollywood is about as far away from carbon neutrality as Earth is from Alpha Centauri, but not for long

The sneer that Hollywood’s commitment to the environment begins and ends with buying an inordinate number of trendy hybrid vehicles is no longer true. But nor, yet, does the industry live up to the eco-conscious statements by some of its most famous employees.

Since 2005, when the George Clooney geopolitical thriller Syriana was declared the first carbon-neutral major motion picture, the trickle of films claiming a similar status has swelled into a small stream. But these eco-credentials have largely been achieved by carbon offsetting, working out how much CO2 you’ve emitted, estimating the financial worth and then paying that sum to a green charity. That’s worthwhile, but it’s not the same as changing the way the industry works.

Hollywood has made huge progress on sustainable materials – cutting back, for example, on its use of tropical timber – driven partly by a guide to best practice from the Environmental Media Association which covers everything from printing fewer scripts (they are all electronic on the sitcom According To Jim), using low-sulphur diesel for vehicles and tough standards on timber.

Recycling has a long tradition in Hollywood, though the industry has a different name for it: remakes. The industry is now even better at recycling material off screen than on. The non-profit organisation The ReUse People recycled 97.5% of all the material used in the three huge sets for The Matrix 2 and 3. Some 37 truckloads of lumber were reused to house poor families in Mexico. The increasing use of digital technology – which can artificially recreate battle scenes for a fraction of the carbon emitted by old-style epics like Ben Hur – will help.

But what Hollywood needs most is a cleaner source of power. As Shelley Billik, vice president of environmental initiatives at Warner Bros (which made Syriana), says: “To make a film carbon neutral without offsetting, you need a film that runs generators on diesel and utilities to provide renewable energy. And we’re not there yet.” 

Making Oscar turn green

The Academy Awards is the world’s greatest egofest. But the movie business has tried to make the event as green as possible. Here is a list of the steps it has already taken and a note on what it still could do:

1. Used carbon offsets for energy used in the Oscar events and the telecast.
2. Made the green room carpet from 100% recycled plastic.
3. Gave upholstered furniture in green room back to the manufacturer for reuse/resale.
4. Used corn-starch plastic bottles for bottled water.
5. Offered hybrid vehicles to presenters and Academy staff.
6. Ensured that 77% of non-reusable set-pieces didn’t go to landfill sites.
7. Asked stagehands to collect and recycle batteries.
8. Used recycled paper for 48,000 paper napkins.
9. Used 80% recycled plastic for set-piece decorations.
10. Supplied re-useable bamboo skewers for the governor’s ball.

What the Academy could have done:

1. Made the famous red carpet out of recycled plastic.
2. Powered the event with biodiesel or low-pollution micro-turbines. The Academy decided this wasn’t feasible but is still investigating.
3. Recycle more of the set. At other events, the Academy has recycled 90% of the sets.
4. Use a hybrid bus to drive the press to the ceremony.
5. Pledge not to let actors with an enormous carbon footprint – John Travolta’s may be 100 times as much as the average Briton’s – host the event or make acceptance speeches.
6. Make the Oscars the world’s greatest video conference. It would be intriguing to see if winners still weep when beamed in from the mid-West.

Article first published in Design Council Magazine, Issue 2, Summer 2007