Eco-hip Hollywood still a major polluter

LOS ANGELES — From the eco-friendly carpet that graced an awards-show runway to organic fruit served 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 movies' and TV's gritty industrial operation, which consumes 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.

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 forced many studios to expand their environmental efforts, doing everything from using a biodiesel fuel mixture to run 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 benefits can come to studios directly, by switching to more efficient lighting or cooling systems or driving hybrid cars on location to save gas. Other efforts, such as installing solar power, can take decades to pay off.

But there are other benefits that are harder to quantify. Many performers and other employees want to work with eco-friendly companies, so it also helps in recruiting and retaining workers, Tanger said.

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

Fox replaced the traditional red carpet with one 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 advised Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger before starting his own environmental consulting firm.

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 are an 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 paying for 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 from some who call it an easy way to avoid the hard work of directly reducing pollution. Others question whether payments are actually going to projects that make that much 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," Ed Begley Jr. said.