Posted on 11/15/2006 12:19:40 PM PST by proud_yank
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 at 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.
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.
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.
And 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.
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."
Just the mindless filth of this country protecting each other....
...and it likes what it sees.
Part of Hollywood's problem is that unlike other industries, the produce nothing of worth.
The end product is purley a diversion from reality. And sometimes (increasingly so) it is political (Communist) propaganda designed as entertainment.
If it came time to ration resources, Hollywood should be in the expendable column. Especially as filmmakers resort to using computer renderings for sets/mattes and even actors (see Lord Of The Rings and Lucas' films).
I'll bet they excluded all the emissions from huge limos and private jets to transport the "stars." The emissions needle would go off-scale if these were counted as well.
When I saw the title, I thought it was referring to the people who inhabit Hollywood.
Liberals can't honestly be expected to hold true to their beliefs, can they?
Filth in morally, spiritually corrupt H'weird. Nothing knew.
Of course they can - they all believe that taxes, quotas, and personal deprivation are for the 'little people' not them. That's why BS can have a private beach and drive around in gas guzzling vehicles, why Rosie O'Donuts has armed bodyguards and screams no one should own guns, and Bono is a tax refugee in the Netherlands but demands the taxpayers in the US should support the world's poor.
This story isn't news. I noticed filth, mainly profanity, about 20 years ago, and I'm 39. I've seen old movies, staring the Marx Brothers, John Wayne, and Jimmy Stewart, and none of those movies had profanity. Why did the amount of movie profanity increase within the past 20 years?
I'll agree that Hollywood produces a lot of smelly dreck.
But you seem to be saying more generally that things produced for entertainment have no intrinsic value, and that would be profoundly incorrect.
ping
Hollywood markets escapism. They are not grounded in reality and have misplaced priorities.
I am not saying that they can't create their product. I'm saying if it came down to rationing resources, they'd be at the bottom of the list.
Artists who use oil paints and then throw out their paint rags are also polluting.
If we are going to be told how EVIL commuters are by "destroying the planet" then we need fair assessment as to what we are getting for what Hollywood uses. Just consider the financial resources. Hundreds of millions of dollars to keep up the illusion of "star power" and market dominance through the product of a single film. And studios do not work on profit, it would be unthinkable to torpedo a film or to bury the losses of one film in the expenses of another profitable but small film. Ego overrules the bottom line in Hollywood. They want to make money but most studios remain afloat because of repackaging of the films they produced decades ago (films that should be in the public domain).
It took a "study" to find this out? Oh that's right, our schools are turning out ignorant people who have to have studies to tell them what they are watching is filth or not.
Remember that story on the DNA testing and court warrants issued to inspect Malibu septic tanks because of possible fecal contamination coming from properties owned by Hollywood celebs?
Did they ever find the culprit{s}?
"brown-noser" ;)
This was about environmental pollution ;-)
None the less, your point is still valid.
Films in the public domain are very shabbily treated and usually decay. 'It's a Wonderful Life' used to be and the worst possible prints showed up on TV and home video year after year. The studios know how to physically protect that particular treasure chest.
It was done on purpose, see the Communist goals of 1963
http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm
particularly #21,24 & 25 should tell you WHY there is so much profanity in the movies, TV and now allowed in all society.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.