I am not sure… and I have a feeling that if there was a story out there on a particular movie being the MOST environmentally damaging that the media was able to squash it before it got out (they have the power of information control)… but anyway I did my best to research it and all I found was this stinky story about a film crew in China ignoring environmental laws. They probably were not the worst as far as environmental impact goes, though. Let’s consider things that need to happen for a movie to be produced. First a script has to be printed (tons of copies are printed and spread around)… then people have to decide who’s going to be in it (tons of phone calls and emails are exchanged)… then people have to get to the set (transportation costs — both monetary and emission wise)… then the filming begins and that is a somewhat energy intensive process as well (all the lighting equipment, rain makers, machines, camera dolleys, the cameras / monitoring stations themselves) there’s a lot to it!
But my real gut feeling on this one is that the worst movie for the environment is the one who produced the most explosions and thus gave off the most amount of CO2 (and wasted all that energy, well not a waste if you consider the movie’s creation worth the cost of the destruction/ emissions)… so think of all the movies where things go boom! Each time that happens, we waste, we pollute. Here’s the movie that apparently was the worst in this category: (and I’m going to total up the carbon emissions of just one explosion):
“Making movies with explosions is known to be an expensive endeavor and with all the action-packed movies around you may wonder which one had the most expensive explosion sequence.
The answer is Pearl Harbor released in 2001. Remember at the end of the movie with the destruction of the six ships during the bombing scene. Well, there you have the scene and the movie. Each one of those ships measured 400 to 600 feet in length, it took 12 camera teams, the explosion took one entire month to rig, required 700 sticks of dynamite, 2,000 feet of primer cord and 4,000 gallons of gasoline. The price tag was a whopping $5.5 million.”
OK so let’s see now, 4000 gallons of gasoline
From the EPA:
CO2 emissions from a gallon of gasoline = 2,421 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 8,788 grams = 8.8 kg/gallon = 19.4 pounds/gallon
so that’s 77,600 pounds of CO2 polluted into the atmosphere
Let’s cover those 700 sticks of dynamite next: (again from EPA)
Hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide, and ammonia all have been reported as products of explosives use. Carbon monoxide is the pollutant produced in greatest quantity from explosives detonation. TNT, an oxygen-deficient explosive, produces more CO than most dynamites, which are oxygen- balanced. But all explosives produce measurable amounts of CO. Particulates are produced as well, but such large quantities of particulate are generated in the shattering of the rock and earth by the explosive that the quantity of particulates from the explosive charge cannot be distinguished. Nitrogen oxides (both nitric oxide [NO] and nitrogen dioxide [NO]) are formed, but only limited data are available on these emissions.
I’d say it produced (at the very least) another 10,000 pounds of harmful emissions… Probably all in all this thing going off put over 100,000 pounds of pollutants into the atmosphere. Now that isn’t all that much when we consider what we are doing on the roadways each and every day and in factories and power plants (esp. coal — a coal plant probably sneezes 100,000 pounds of pollutants!)… but the point is that these simulated explosive events do add up and they are not doing anything to help the environment (in fact, they are doing just the opposite)… I’d say we give Hollywood maybe another 5 or 10 years of having everything the way it’s been in the past, then crack down and pass a law code that says that all explosions in movies must be either miniaturized or done with computer generated imaging technology.
And for fun, here’s the list of the worst environmental movies (which confused me at first, but this is worst in quality, not environmental impact:)
Click here to cancel reply.
Sorry,At this time user registration is disabled. We will open registration soon!
Don't have an account? Click Here to Signup
© Copyright GreenAnswers.com LLC