The environmental impact of movie making is something most of us have never given any thought to -- after all, it's not exactly the sexiest topic in the industry. Yahoo! News spoke to Sweet Land director Ali Selim about the decision to run a "carbon-neutral" production. What that means is that the production calculated all of the carbon dioxide emitted during the production. The total was measured against the productions investment in renewable energy -- Selim chose to invest in a reforestation project in Germany and a windmill project in Jamaica. The emissions report cost the filmmakers five thousand dollars to perform plus the cost of their investments. Selim extended this eco-friendly way of shooting into all aspects of the production. He encouraged the crew to carpool, maximized location shooting to limit traveling, and even used natural light whenever possible.
Sweet Land is not the first film to use this model, both Syriana and An Inconvenient Truth commissioned similar reports. As admirable as Selim's method might be, is "environmental friendliness" the best marketing strategy? It seems pretty unlikely that an audience would flock to a movie because it got great "emission reviews." Would a film's impact on the environment impact your decision to see it?