Celebrities all over the place are going green. Every day there is a new eco story popping up. Cate Blanchett has become an environmental stickler in her home, with efforts that include installing 2-minute timers on on her shower. (This attempt is, no doubt, helped by the fact she has stylists and the like to keep her looking fresh.) There's Sarah Michelle Gellar who rides a pink bike around, and uses reusable bags for Whole Foods discounts. And some, like Adrian Grenier, coach others on how to be more green, like his tutorials for Paris Hilton. But I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees these stories and spots the imbalance between an actor's work and their personal causes.

The Telegraph posted an article yesterday calling Hollywood out on being one of the biggest polluters in soCal, whilst performing "eco-friendly gestures [that are] simply showy stunts that make little difference." It sites a two-year study performed by the University of California at Los Angeles, which found that production aspects like explosions and idling vehicles are only beat by the oil industry in regards to polluting emissions. But there's also the garbage -- the sets that get built and destroyed and everything else that's necessary to create a faux world.

Warner Brothers is finally starting to recycle sets, which is a plus, and other productions try to balance their negative environmental impact with positive action -- the Evan Almighty production planted "2,000 trees to 'zero out' its greenhouse gas production." But as Ed Begley Jr. says: "If you're going to drive around in a big ol' Hummer and then buy carbon offsets to mitigate that, that's like getting drunk on the weekends and throwing some money through the window of an AA meeting and thinking you're doing something." What do you think? Do the environmentalist acts of actors mean anything when they're in a resource-sucking industry? What can Hollywood do when it relies so much on energy and materials?