SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION IN AUSTRALIA: NASCENT, AMORPHOUS, BUT MOMENTUM IS BUILDING

IF NOT US, WHO? IF NOT NOW, WHEN?

Sustainable production in Australia: Nascent, Amorphous, but Momentum is Building

IT FEELS LIKE the Earth has turned on us, that it is trying to shrug us off with fires and floods and wild weather. And it feels like we deserve it, with our high consumption and mountains of plastic debris, and by foolishly forgetting how much we depend on the environment.

It’s nearly 20 years since Al Gore warned us of these matters in An Inconvenient Truth. Only the unhinged argue that climate change is not caused by humans.

Earth is 1.1°C warmer than it was in the late 1800s and temperature records topple every year now because the atmosphere is choked with greenhouse gases. Dozens of countries, including Australia, have committed to getting emissions down to zero by the year 2050 but the United Nations has said that this is one of the greatest challenges that humankind has ever faced. The overall aim is to limit temperatures to 1.5°C degrees above pre-industrial levels. That’s what it will take to keep the Earth habitable. Or so we’re told.

Fundamental change is necessary to the way we all live. Every city, industry and household can play a part and has to. The wise amongst us are acting fast. Those who aren’t… well the word “willful” springs to mind.

All this and more is explored through the prism of the Australian screen industry in this special edition of IF Magazine

The production of film and television is not good for the environment. Actually, no, it is horribly bad with its high electricity and fuel use, extravagant set construction, and so on. In the simplest of terms, reducing its impact centres on energy sourcing and use and on waste – reduce, reuse, recycle is often heard from sustainability advocates. COVID-19 was a big setback to sustainability, but it also showed how quickly change can occur if there is will.

How the industry is reducing its environmental impact is not a story that can be told as one coherent narrative. It is true to say that only a limited amount of activity is happening here in Australia, which is extremely dispiriting, but it is equally true to say that momentum is building, which inspires hope.

Big media companies have been walking the talk abroad for more than a decade. In the UK, many significant players with their roots in television – the BBC, ITV, C4, Sky etc – have changed their behaviour and influenced others to do likewise. The same applies in the US, where the Hollywood studios lead the charge.

All have the power and resources to act big. How admirably they’re doing depends on who’s judging.

This international activity is filtering through to Australia because of its heavy dependence on international finance and the high level of overseas ownership and control of the major production houses that make a lot of our local content. But overall, as said, the state of play is nascent and amorphous.

A group has emerged, however, that is changing this regrettable situation by sparking concerted national action. Up until very recently, Sustainable Screens Australia (SSA) has been a group of seven women gathering knowledge, support and skills over hundreds of hours on a voluntary basis. (Many questions spring to mind about why only women have been willing to do this but discussing it here would be going off on a tangent.)

SSA’s goal is to push and cajole the industry to cut carbon emissions and transition to a circular economy. It’s been, and still is, a massive task and the group should be loudly, gratefully applauded. Everyone who cares, or knows they will eventually have to care, has been waiting on the SSA for guidance, and it’s been a lot of pressure.

Throughout the research for this magazine big questions continually arose. Here’s a taste of them.

How long have we got?

The whole film and television industry will be paying attention in 20 years. So said one of the SSA management committee during a discussion about analysing the carbon footprints of businesses and productions. But have we got 20 years or is it a door-die situation? As in do now or die – literally? The concept that Earth will be uninhabitable sometime soon seems too immense for the mind to properly take in. Perhaps that’s why some will only change when forced to. Perhaps Hollywood disaster films get it right and people only move with urgency when they see a giant wave or earthquake with their own eyes.

How can everyone be persuaded to play their part?

Responsibility for climate change and the deterioration of the planet lies at the feet of humanity. Not very long ago, this was the subject of argument. Now, across the globe, it’s seen as irrefutable. Each of us is complicit. Those who are deeply committed and knowledgeable say only collective action will get us out of this pickle and that means changing people’s consciousness to build support. Individual versus corporate responsibility is often discussed, but powerful corporate entities don’t run themselves; individuals run them. How to put a bomb under everyone is also much talked about. It doesn’t help when the gains from setting up carbon offset schemes attract human bad apples.

What can be done about our dependency on others?

Nothing and nobody exists in a vacuum. However carefully businesses put their waste in the correct bin, they very often have to trust what happens to it after it’s taken away.

When we defecate into the toilet and flush, we wash our hands of checking where it actually goes and how much damage we’re doing to the planet. This undeniable dependence on government and others is challenging. There’s plenty of evidence that individuals within the film and television industry are encouraging hire companies to make electric vehicles (EVs) more available, influencing energy suppliers to be more transparent, and so on, but pressuring doesn’t carry the same weight as policing. And how can you know that others, including those who supply your dishwashing liquid, are genuinely green? Information often comes from vested interests and the difference between truth and marketing spin isn’t always easy to discern. At least the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) is on to the greenwashing.

Is measuring carbon dioxide emissions, calculating footprints and transitioning to a circular economy easy?

Yes and absolutely not. Carbon footprinting is the foundation on which strategies and goals are set yet, if you look too deeply, it can sometimes feel like you need Albert Einstein’s intellect to understand the complexities. Let’s use the example of EVs. These are positioned as squeaky clean compared to vehicles powered by combustion engines and petrol or diesel. There is no dispute that EVs are a better alternative, but it shouldn’t be assumed that they’re beyond reproach. Maybe they’re always recharged with electricity generated by burning fossil fuels, not renewable sources such as hydro, wind or solar. And then there’s how all the components of different models of EVs were manufactured, and how each car will be disposed of, including the batteries. Even Rowan Atkinson, who has a car collection worth millions, recently pondered publicly whether keeping an old petrol car was better than buying an EV. To make significant change, it is necessary to dig down deep. Very deep. Those who think otherwise should google “scope 3 emissions”. There’s a reason sustainability advocates say “Do what you can and it doesn’t matter if it’s not perfect”.

How much does this all cost?

Sorry but your guess is as good as mine. The question was asked constantly but clarity was impossible to get.

Are we losing sight of the core business of making and distributing great content?

No. It’s likely there won’t be an industry if action isn’t taken. Putting that and the morality and stupidity of destroying the planet aside, there’s a slow dawning that the only way to stay in business will be to take notice. Just as commissioners and government agencies consider gender equality and diversity and inclusion when they make decisions, so too will they consider environmental impact. And factoring in the environment will become mandatory, although how that will be applied is unknown.

What will it take to fundamentally change society?

This is the big one. Collective action is required across the economy but certainly in the West, getting and making money is seen as the basis of survival, not nursing a sick planet back to health. And over consumption as a pastime is very popular. What’s needed is an utter re-think. Pondering the likelihood of that can feel overwhelming and spark helplessness. In film and television, sustainability managers are being appointed, sustainable policies are being thrashed out, awareness is growing, but is it just tinkering around because the big drivers are capitalism and competition? You could say that but here’s a question: how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

Just do it: act NOW

All these techniques can be applied to any department in film and television production:

• Minimise travel/use electric vehicles

• Reduce/reuse/recycle

• Reduce energy use/use renewables

• Save water

• Hire people and equipment locally

• Reduce plastic use

• Track carbon footprint/reduce or offset

• Reduce food miles/compost/don’t waste food

• Use vendors and services that use sustainable practices

For the record and for inspiration

All the Hollywood entertainment giants are taking steps to go green.

A major study into emissions by Screen Auckland was published this year and includes recommendations for action.

WarnerMedia’s latest corporate social responsibility impact report illustrates how, in Hollywood, being kind to the planet often supports the work of not-for-profit community organisations.

The platform Green Film Shooting has regular news about sustainability in filmmaking, especially news from Europe. Recently it reported that only vegan food was served during the production of Avatar: The Way of Water.

The not-for-profit Doc Society, which is committed to enabling great documentary films to be made and to finding audiences for them, has a filmmaking protocol available.

Sony Pictures has made public its examination of the environmental impact of virtual productions.

Be inspired by some content

The not-for-profit environmental organisation Earth.Org this year published a list of the 21 best environmental films. Eyes of the Orangutan and Seaspiracy are the most recent.

Facts about carbon emissions

• Industrialised countries represent 20 per cent of the world’s population but have accounted for 80 per cent of cumulative CO² emissions since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

• About 90 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions come from burning fossil fuels – mainly for electricity, heat and transport.

• China, the US, the European Union and India accounted for two thirds of global fossil-fuel carbon emissions in 2021.

• Australia is the 14th highest emitter, contributing just over 1 per cent.

Source: CSIRO