Dr. Rushton pointed me toward this article (The Films Are Green, but is Sundance?) from the NYTimes just as the festival was starting. It ignorantly, and snarkily, asked if Sundance was eco-friendly, citing poor examples such as trucks idling on Main Street waiting to be unloaded during set-up, and vague conclusions about how many people fly in on private jets. That's all you've got? Did you research it at all?
Redford founded Sundance with the idea of connecting and fostering arts and the environment, and environmental protection and preservation is of the highest priorities of the Institute and Festival. Even as just a seasonal employee, I would vouch fervently for this commitment.
Dr. Rushton also sent me this article (NYT plays dumb about Sundance) that is a good response to the first.
Here are a few of my own examples:
This year, Sundance did not sell bottled water - they're giving out BPA-free nalgene bottles and placing Brita fill-up hydration stations around, with the message of reducing bottled-water waste. The number of film guides (~75 pages, newsprint) printed was cut way back to save paper. The city shuttle system is free for all, and beefed up with more frequent routes for festival weeks, so that driving private vehicles can be highly discouraged.
I did more research and learned this:
Electricity used for all venues and theaters is offset by clean, renewable wind energy, through a partnership with Rocky Mountain Power's Blue Sky program. The CO2 emissions avoided by these offsets is equivalent to protecting one acre of forest.
Just a few examples that I'm familiar with working in the box office, I'm sure there are many more. I was disappointed with the New York Times article, it was unresearched and embarrassing for them; clearly written by a green journalist, and I don't mean eco-friendly.
No comments:
Post a Comment