Green

We talk a lot at work these days about greening the theatre.  Usually it doesn't take too long for that conversation to come around to the amount of possible waste inherent in the fabrication of scenery.  The scene shop seems to be where everyone thinks the biggest changes can be made toward a greener process.

This last year I went to a USITT session on this topic.  There were three TDs presenting their strategies for making their shops more environmentally responsible.  I was excited to hear what they had to say because this is an issue I have been wondering about myself.  Each of the presenters gave one substantive idea.  This is what they said:

1. Find ways of integrating stock.
2. Don't put anything in the dumpster.
3. Build less scenery.

Sometimes I wonder if I am in the same business as other people.  I thought that in this case because there are design considerations here that would be a tough sell to the artists I work with.

Integrating stock means getting a director and set designer to buy in to a scenic solution that fits that stock.  Even before that it requires a scene design that uses elements that are stock-like.  It isn't enough that the sizes and shapes be stock compatible, the design needs to need things that could come from stock.  That isn't a given.

Building scenery with the strategy that you will try to recover everything changes fabrication methods in ways that can change the engineering performance of the assemblies as well as create work for other departments.

Just doing less... again we're talking about a buy in from directing and design.

I don't mean to just be shouting "THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE" but there does need to be a recognition that the buy in to make these kinds of decisions goes beyond the TD's office.  There's enough challenge realizing a design when the constraints are budget and physics.  Layering in an environmental constraint adds a level of complexity that would require a mission level commitment from the organization.  Something that would let you explain at a production meeting that you will not be executing as designed because that choice doesn't comply with the environmental mission.

Even if that mission level commitment was there I wonder about the efficacy of these solutions.  I mean, I guess building less is unimpeachable, but the others have domino problems.

Integrating stock and using recovered materials are solutions that come with a need for storage space, additional labor, and additional transportation.  I wonder if the environmental cost of operating a storage facility cancels out the benefit of having the stock.   How does year round heat and light compare with a palette of plywood?  When I look at the issue that question comes to me fairly quickly, but I haven't seen any discussion about the costs - dollar and environmental - of additional infrastructure as part of the process.

The accounting would seem to be more complicated than we've made it to date.

I also can't help but wonder how changes in materials choices in the scene shop would compare with non-production initiatives that could be undertaken by an organization.  What about turning down the heat or the air 5 degrees?  How about a subscription series where all the patrons agree not to drive?  It's not to say that a company couldn't do both, but it would be nice to know what order of magnitude different kinds of solutions exist on.

There's a research project to do here, something that looks at the concept in a wider context.  There needs to be a real qualification of the level of commitment that would be needed for an organization to truly embrace this mission: something that speaks to the dollar issues - primary and secondary - and to the potential artistic issues.  A study that examines all the ways a company could try to make a difference and identifying the relative weight of the ideas.

It's easy to say "stop buying all that plywood" and it is a worthwhile idea.  We need to know what it really costs.