Interesting, can't wait to see how these hypocrites spin this.
UCLA Study: Television, Filmmaking Industries Are Big Polluters
Nov. 14, 2006
NBC

LOS ANGELES -- Special effects explosions, idling vehicles, teams of workers building monumental sets -- all of it contributes to Hollywood's newly discovered role as an air polluter, a university study has found.

The film and television industry and associated activities make a larger contribution to air pollution in the five-county Los Angeles region than almost all five other sectors researched, according to a two-year study released Tuesday by the University of California, Los Angeles.
Although Hollywood seems environmentally conscious thanks to celebrities who lend their names to various causes, the industry created more pollution than individually produced by aerospace manufacturing, apparel, hotels and semiconductor manufacturing, the study found.

Only petroleum manufacturing belched more emissions.

"People talk of 'the industry,' but we don't think of them as an industry," said Mary Nichols, who heads the school's Institute of the Environment, which released what researchers called a "snapshot" of industry pollution. "We think of the creative side, the movie, the people, the actors -- we don't think of what it takes to produce the product."

Researchers considered the emissions created directly and indirectly by the film and television industry. For example, they factored in both the pollution caused by a diesel generator used to power a movie set, as well as the emissions created by a power plant that provides electricity to a studio lot.

They also interviewed 43 people who worked in a variety of areas within the industry, and reviewed major trade publications to see the level of attention paid to environmental issues. In doing so, researchers found that some studios have recycling programs and green building practices.

"Nevertheless, our overall impression is that these practices are the exception and not the rule, and that more could be done within the industry to foster environmentally friendly approaches," the study said.

Nichols said the Integrated Waste Management Board, a state agency, funded the study and chose the industries against which Hollywood was compared.

"Given the importance of the movie and TV industry in Southern California, we thought this was something the public should know," Nichols told the Los Angeles Times.

Nichols, a law professor and past secretary of the California Resources Agency, said researchers found that, while individual productions and studios are taking steps to minimize environmental damage, the industry's "structure and culture hamper the pace of improvements."

Because so many independently functioning units come together to make a movie, it is hard to regulate practices, according to the report.

Industry representatives reached late Monday by The Times said they had not seen the report, but said they were concerned about environmentally sound practices.

Movie production tops hotels, aerospace, and apparel and semiconductor manufacturing in traditional air pollutant emissions in Southern California, according to the UCLA study, initially prepared for the Integrated Waste Management Board. The industry is probably second only to petroleum refineries, for which comparable data were not available.

In greenhouse gas emissions, the entertainment industry ranks third, The Times reported.

The entertainment industry generates a combined $29 billion in revenue and employs 252,000 people in the Greater Los Angeles region, according to the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp.

Researchers also noted environmentally responsible examples within the industry.

The makers of the film "The Day After Tomorrow" paid $200,000 to plant trees and for other steps to offset the estimated 10,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions caused by vehicles, generators and other machinery used in production.

Lisa Day, spokeswoman for Participant Productions which worked on offsetting carbon emissions from the making of "Syriana" and "An Inconvenient Truth," she was a little surprised by the study's findings.

"I think the industry as a whole does look at itself," she said. "The studios have done a lot in terms of waste reduction. I think that energy is the new thing the industry is looking at and what impact they have."

Production teams for "The Matrix Reloaded" and "The Matrix Revolutions" arranged for 97.5 percent of set materials to be recycled, including some 11,000 tons of concrete, steel and lumber. All the steel was recycled and 37 truckloads of lumber were reused in housing for low-income families in Mexico.

Ted Reiff, president of ReUse People of America, the nonprofit that deconstructed the sets, said the county and city of Alameda, where the films were made, "were really leaning on Warner Brothers to step up and do the right thing." Alameda officials were concerned that the total tonnage of the sets represented about 10 percent of Alameda's annual solid waste stream.

Although it is generally more expensive and time consuming to take a set apart for reuse, Reiff's estimated $450,000 bid to dismantle and reuse the material was cheaper than the demolition contractor's price, he said.

"They're not green at all except when they're forced to be," Reiff said of the film and television industry.

A Warner Bros. spokeswoman declined comment.

Part of Hollywood's problem is that unlike other industries, film and television work is often done by short-term production companies, in some cases making it difficult to apply environmentally friendly practices, the study said.

"You can imagine that if you're renting a sound stage, it could take more time to dismantle a set than you expect and you've got six weeks of rental time," said Charles J. Corbett, an associate professor of operations and environmental management, who worked on the study. "You'd need to plan ahead that you'd need an extra day to dismantle the set carefully so you can reuse the materials."