Quick Key Facts
- Global species populations have declined by an average of 69% since 1970.
- The Endangered Species Act was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1973 and has saved 99% of the species it protects from extinction.
- At least one-third of plants and animals in the U.S. are threatened with extinction.
- Habitat loss, low genetic variation and other human impacts like pollution, wildlife trafficking, agriculture and development, and climate change are major drivers of endangerment and extinction.
- The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) maintains the international “Red List” of endangered and threatened species.
- Scientists warn that the loss of plant and animal species due to climate change could cause an “extinction domino effect.”
The Endangered Species Act
To understand what “endangered species” means, it’s important to unpack the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which followed the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966, the first piece of federal endangered species legislation. Enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1973, the ESA states that the federal government has a responsibility to protect endangered and threatened species. They must also protect the areas or regions necessary for the survival of the threatened species, called “critical habitats.”
The ESA set forth definitions of both “endangered” and “threatened” species. As stated in the Act, endangered species are “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” and threatened species are “any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Species in both categories are called “listed species,” and can become “delisted” if they are no longer endangered or threatened.
It’s important to note that species can be listed as endangered at the state, federal and international level. They are managed under the ESA if they are listed at the federal level, but many states have their own versions of endangered species laws too.
How Are Species Protected Under the Act?
Species listed as threatened or endangered species then get protections by the federal government. They are protected from trade, sale and “take,” which prohibits anyone to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” with these species, as well as interfering with breeding and behavioral activities in their critical habitat.
Three major provisions included in the Endangered Species Act lend it strength:
- Citizen suit provision. Members of the public — whether individuals or public interest groups — can petition to have a species listed as threatened or endangered, ensuring that federal agencies are taking action.
- Critical habitat provision. Agencies must protect the lands and waters that a species needs to survive and recover. When a species is listed, a critical habitat is also designated so a recovery plant can be drawn up.
- Consultation provision. Federal agencies have to avoid doing anything that jeopardizes protected species, including “adversely modifying” their critical habitats.
Ultimately, the ESA has been very successful. By some estimates, it has saved 99% of the species it protects from extinction.
How Do Species Get ‘Listed’ Under the Act?
A status review is conducted by the USFWS and NOAA to determine whether a species warrants protection under the ESA by giving it one of these designations. It’s a lengthy process for a species to get listed. It’s supposed to take only two years, but on average it takes about twelve. “Candidate” species — that is, those petitioning to become listed species — have to qualify for protected status under the ESA based on several factors.
If any of the following five factors are met, a species must be listed as endangered or threatened, according to NOAA:
- Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range.
- Over-utilization of the species for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.
- Disease or predation.
- Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
- Other natural or manmade factors affect its continued existence.
Every five years, a review must be conducted of listed species to determine whether the criteria for the recovery plan set forward have been met. Now, more than 1,300 species are protected (or “listed”) as either endangered or threatened under the ESA in the United States.
The ‘Red List’
While the Endangered Species Act focuses on protection at the national level, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) maintains the international “Red List” of endangered and threatened species. The IUCN compiles information on animals, plants and fungi from more than 100 countries and regions, and evaluates their risk of extinction. By their latest count, more than 44,000 species are threatened with extinction worldwide. This includes 41% of all amphibians, 37% of sharks and rays, 36% of reef-building corals, 34% of conifers, 27% of mammals and 13% of birds.
Red List Categories
The Threatened Species list identifies those listed as Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) or Vulnerable (VU). Evaluations are based on five criteria: population reduction rate, geographic range, population size, population restrictions and probability of extinction. Population reduction is measured over 10 years, or three generations.
Geographic range considers the “area of occupancy” or a species, and the “extent of occurrence” — or the smallest area that could encompass all the sites that the species lives in. Smaller numbers are usually indicative of a threatened population. Lastly, “population restrictions” is a combination of population number and area of occupancy.
Species are categorized by threat level based on the five evaluated criteria, ranging from “least concern” to “extinct”:
- Least concern. There is no concern about population numbers. Human beings, pigeons, houseflies and domesticated cats and dogs would all fall under this category.
- Near threatened. The species might not be currently threatened, but will likely fall under that category in the future.
- Vulnerable species. High risk of becoming extinct in the wild.
- Population reduction rate: 30-50%
- Geographic range: Extent of occurrence is under 20,000 square kilometers, and area of occupancy is under 2,000 square kilometers.
- Population size: Fewer than 10,000 mature animals.
- Population restrictions: Restricted to under 1,000 mature individuals, or area of occupancy is under 20 square kilometers.
- Probability of extinction: 10% within 100 years
- Endangered species. Very high risk of becoming extinct in the wild.
- Population reduction rate: 50-70%
- Geographic range: Extent of occurrence is under 5,000 square kilometers, and area of occupancy is under 500 square kilometers.
- Population size: Fewer than 2,500 mature animals, or if the population has declined by 20% or more within five years or two generations.
- Population restrictions: 150 mature animals
- Probability of extinction: 20% within 20 years or 5 generations
- Critically endangered species. Extremely high risk of becoming extinct in the wild.
- Population reduction rate: 80-90%
- Geographic range: Extent of occurrence is under 100 square kilometers, area of occupancy is under 10 square kilometers.
- Population size: Fewer than 250 mature animals, or if population has declined by 25% or more within three years or one generation.
- Population restrictions: 50 mature animals
- Probability of extinction: 50% within 10 years or 3 generations
- Extinct in the wild. Includes plants that only survive in cultivation, or animals only in captivity. The term also encompasses species that are only surviving outside of their historic range.
- Extinct. There are no known individuals of the species remaining.
How Do Species Become Endangered?
Take the passenger pigeon, for example. These birds used to fly by the thousands overhead in North America but not a single passenger pigeon remains. The cause of their extinction is twofold: many were shot by humans for sport and food, and their forest habitat was cut down to build cities and plant farmland in a rapidly expanding America. They are a prime example of how human intervention can damage a species to the point of extinction — even one that once comprised 25-40% of the total bird population in the United States.
A passenger pigeon stamp on a National Wildlife Federation stamp sheet in 1966. Kevin Dooley / Flickr / CC BY 2.0
Loss of Habitat
Extinction and endangerment can also happen, however, outside of human intervention. Glaciers melt after an ice age, pushing out plants and animals that can’t adapt to new conditions. A volcano can erupt and kill off an entire species. Think of the dinosaurs, who lost their habitat during the Cretaceous period when an asteroid struck the Earth. The debris sent into the atmosphere prevented light and heat from reaching the ground, and the dinosaurs were unable to adapt to this different climate. Their populations became endangered, and eventually extinct.
Increasingly, however, human activity is the reason for habitat loss. We clear enormous amounts of space for housing, agriculture and industry, leaving it inhospitable to the creatures who once lived there. When huge swaths of rainforest in South America are razed (or “deforested”) to create grazing space for cattle, the entire habitat that a species depended on is destroyed, contributing to decreases in their population. Such destruction has indirect impacts as well — while a species might not have been directly impacted by this loss, they might have depended on another impacted species as a food source, now leaving them without the necessary resources to survive.
Loss of Genetic Variation
Genetic variations allow species to adapt to changes in their environment. Without variation, species don’t develop resistance to disease or other threats, putting them at greater risk of extinction. Inbreeding prevents new genetic information from entering the gene pool, so disease is much more common and deadly within the group. Cheetahs, for instance, went through a period of inbreeding during the last ice age, so they don’t have as much genetic variation. As a result, fewer cheetahs survive to maturity than other species. Human causes like overfishing/overhunting can reduce the number of mature individuals that can breed, contributing to inbreeding.
A cheetah at Maasai Mara National Reserve in Kenya. Ray in Manila / Flickr / CC BY 2.0
Other Human Impacts
Extinctions have historically occurred during the five mass extinction events throughout the planet’s history, which were largely the result of natural causes. However, extinction is now occurring at a rate 1,000-10,000 times faster due to humans. Through travel and trade, humans introduce new diseases to species by spreading pathogens to new locations, and also introduce non-native species to areas where they are not meant to live, therefore altering food chains and possibly pushing out other native species. As we encroach upon the habitat of wild animals, species are at greater risk of death by car collisions and hunting too.
Pollution and Toxicity
Toxins released into the environment by humans, including pesticides, can contribute to the threatened status of species. Bald eagles were heavily impacted by DDT, which was used on farms as an insecticide and then washed into waterways where it poisoned fish. After eagles ate the poisoned fish, they began laying eggs with thin, fragile shells that cracked before the babies could hatch. Since DDT was banned in 1972, bald eagle populations have bounced back.
The introduction of trash and plastic into ecosystems by humans — especially in our oceans — can also harm species. It’s estimated that 100 million ocean animals are killed as a direct result of plastic each year.
Wildlife Trafficking and Removal From Habitats
Wildlife trafficking involves the illegal trade, smuggling, poaching, capture or collection of wildlife that’s protected, endangered or managed. It’s the second biggest direct threat to species, following only habitat destruction. The IUCN found that 958 species are at risk of extinction due to international trade. African elephants, for one, are heavily trafficked for their ivory tusks to make products like jewelry and chess sets. Consequently, fewer than 420,000 of these elephants remain of the 1.2 million that once lived in 1980.
Climate Change
Given the expansiveness of climate change and its impact, it’s no surprise that it’s a major threat to biodiversity. By 2050, some biologists estimate that 25% of plants and animals will be extinct in the wild as a result of climate change. Warmer temperatures are altering habitats and leaving species without places to breed and find food, disrupting seasonal cues for migratory animals, and causing sea level rise to damage coastal ecosystems, among many other impacts. In 2010, phytoplankton populations had dropped 40% since their 1950 levels, and rising sea surface temperatures were identified as the cause. Losing this key species that consumes carbon dioxide and produces oxygen during photosynthesis would be devastating to ocean health.
What Are the Most Endangered Species on Earth?
Animals
Amur Leopard
Only about 100 amur leopards are left in the wild, surviving only in the far east of Russia and northeastern China. Although their populations have stabilized — rising from 30 individuals in the 1970s to roughly 100 now — they have been considered “critically endangered” since 1996. They are primarily threatened by poaching for their spotted fur, habitat loss and lack of prey. Their prey base isn’t sufficient to sustain big populations, and so to help the leopards, local deer and hare species need to be protected from hunting as well.
African Forest Elephant
Once listed together with African savanna elephants, African forest elephants are now considered separately. These critically endangered elephants are found in thirty-seven countries in sub-Saharan Africa, and are mainly threatened by poaching and habitat loss to agricultural development. Their ivory tusks are highly valuable, and are a main reason why these elephants are poached. However, even if poaching stopped now, it would take a long time for populations to recover, since elephants reproduce slowly. Between 1928 and 2021, their populations declined more than 80%. Now, only 415,000 individuals exist in the wild in about 25% of their historic range. African forest elephants are important agents of seed dispersal. Many seeds they eat — some too large for other animals to ingest — remain intact after digestion, and thus spread to other areas while the elephants roam.
Black Rhino
Black rhinos were heavily poached between 1960 and 1995 — largely for their two horns. Their population consequently dropped by an astounding 98%, but they’ve made a large comeback since then due to conservation efforts. They are still critically endangered, and around 6,000 exist in the wild today in Kenya, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe.
Cross River Gorilla
A Cross River gorilla at the Limbe Wildlife Centre in Cameroon. Julie Langford / CC BY-SA 3.0
While they are very difficult to study given their habitat and wariness of humans, it’s estimated that between 200 and 300 Cross River gorillas are left in the wild. They live in the montane forests and rainforests of Cameroon and Nigeria in an area about twice the size of Rhode Island. This region has been increasingly encroached upon by humans, clearing their forest habitat for agriculture or raising livestock.
Javan Rhinos
Once found across southeast Asia, only one wild Javan rhino population of seventy-five individuals exists in Java, Indonesia inside the Ujung Kulon National Park. Their population has risen from about thirty in the 1960s, but they are still critically endangered and the most threatened of the five species of rhinos. Given their tiny population, their lack of genetic diversity through inbreeding is a cause for concern about their long-term survival. The invasive Arenga palm is a big reason for their downfall — it continues to threaten the rhinos as it overtakes the park and alters their historic habitat. Rising sea levels from climate change also threaten their geographic region, as does the threat of tsunamis and volcanos from Anak Krakatau nearby. Poaching for the rhino’s horns has historically been an issue as well and remains so.
Tigers
All subspecies of tigers — the Malayan, Sumatran, South China, Indochinese, Bengal, and Amur tigers — are either endangered or critically endangered. Three subspecies of tigers are already extinct. The South China Tiger is the most critically endangered of all. With no sightings in the last thirty years, it’s considered extinct in the wild, although 150 remain in captivity. Malayan tigers have an even smaller population, with only 80-120 mature individuals remaining in the wild in the forests of Malaysia. Sumatran tiger populations are of great concern as well — there are only about 400 left in the wild on the island of Sumatra: the only place left where elephants, orangutans, rhinos and tigers live together in the wild in a delicately balanced ecosystem. As apex predators, tigers play a crucial role in maintaining the balance of ecosystems. Currently, only 4,500 total individuals remain in the wild.
Hawksbill Turtle
One of only seven species of marine turtles, the hawksbill turtle is critically endangered. Since the 1990s, 80% of its population has been lost, leaving only between 20,000 and 23,000 in all of the world’s major oceans. Hawksbills are often bycatch in large-scale fishing operations, and are poached for their beautiful shells (known as “tortoise shells”) to make jewelry and other valuables — the IUCN estimates that millions have been killed within the last hundred years for their shells. Habitat destruction is another key factor. Their nesting grounds are heavily influenced by coastal development, and climate change is impacting the coral reefs that they feed on. These turtles are very important to the functioning of marine ecosystems, especially maintaining the health of seagrass beds and coral reefs.
Vaquita
This small porpoise only lives in the Gulf of California off of Mexico. The vaquita is critically endangered — but more than that, it’s the world’s rarest marine mammal and most endangered cetacean. Currently, only ten individuals remain. These creatures are highly susceptible to entanglement in the gillnets used to fish shrimp and finfish, and it’s still a victim of bycatch fishing for totoaba, although it’s illegal.
Kākāpō
The kākāpō is a fascinating nocturnal, flightless parrot native to New Zealand, and it almost went extinct. Habitat loss and the introduction of invasive species by European settlers like rats, stoats and cats — which were especially detrimental, given that the bird doesn’t fly and hadn’t adapted to mammalian predators — were major drivers of its population decline. Only about 250 are alive today, according to New Zealand’s Department of Conservation, but the species has seen some growth in recent years thanks to the efforts of Kākāpō Recovery.
Plants
When we think of endangered species, we might think only of animals, but plants are also in danger of extinction. Similarly to captive animals, some plants exist only in cultivation now, like the Middlemist Red (the rarest flower on Earth), the Franklin Tree and the Wood’s Cycad. Among the many listed by the IUCN Red List, these are three of the most highly threatened plant species.
Western Underground Orchid (Rhizanthella johnstonii)
The species Rhizanthella johnstonii occurs in Western Australia. Fred Hort / Flickr / CC BY 2.0
This orchid is considered crucially endangered in its native Australia with only fifty remaining individual plants. It lives its whole life underground and relies on a specific kind of mycorrhizal fungus to survive. Habitat loss is a big reason for its decline, particularly for agriculture. Drought has impacted species that it depends upon for nutrients, as has the invasion of weeds and compaction of soil by humans, particularly when hunting for it.
Texas Prairie Dawn Flower
Texas prairie dawn flowers. Carolyn Fannon / Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center
Formerly known as Texas bitterweed, this plant was renamed by school children in an attempt to improve negative attitudes towards it during conservation efforts. Now dubbed the Texas prairie dawn flower, this extremely rare annual wildflower is only found in the Texas Gulf Coastal Plain in the Fort Bend, Gregg, Harris and Trinity counties of Texas. Harris County — the home of Houston — is rapidly developing and contributing to the destruction of the flower’s habitat.
Ceroxylon quindiuense (Quindio Wax Palm)
Colombia’s national tree, the Quindio Wax Palm, is native to the montane forests of the Andes in both Colombia and Ecuador. Its endangered status arose after deforestation and agriculture began encroaching upon its territory. The palms’ seedlings die in the hot sun or are eaten by other creatures, so they aren’t able to reproduce outside of a forest. Wax palm forests are important to the survival of the yellow-eared parrot, among other species.
Fungi
Even though we often can’t see them, fungi are a crucial component of our lives. They are in everything, from the water we drink, the ground under our feet and the air we breathe. According to National Geographic, about 168 mushrooms have been assessed as threatened worldwide.
White Ferula Mushroom
White ferula mushrooms. tripsis / Flickr / CC BY-SA 3.0
This extremely rare mushroom is only found north of the island of Sicily in an area of less than 100 square kilometers. Their critically endangered status is due largely to overharvesting — as a gourmet food item, two pounds of white ferula sells for fifty euros.
Why Should We Protect Endangered Species?
Once a species is gone from the Earth, there is no way of getting it back. Protecting natural biodiversity has benefits we can predict, and some that we can’t. No one creature exists in a vacuum, but is connected to a large, delicate web of all species. Losing one species has a great impact on the balance of that web, especially when we lose a “keystone” species that helps hold the whole system together.
Protection of Food Chains
Species depend upon one another to survive. Since one species is a source of food for another, losing one can be disastrous to countless others, sending a ripple of disturbance down the food chain. We can see examples of such “trophic cascades” — that cascading effect of species loss down the food chain — throughout history. From the late 1800s to the 1920s, wolves in Yellowstone National Park were hunted nearly to extinction. In response, the populations of elk and deer they once preyed upon exploded, and decimated aspens and other trees that held stream banks together and supported birds. Insect populations burgeoned without their avian predators. Wolves were listed as endangered in 1974 and their recovery was thus mandated under the ESA. After wolves were reintroduced in the park in the 1990s, these decimated food chains recovered. The loss of apex species — the largest predators at the top of the food chain — like Yellowstone’s wolves is especially harmful. Because they tend to live longer and reproduce at slower rates, it also takes longer to recover their populations.
Scientists warn that the loss of plant and animal species due to climate change could cause an “extinction domino effect” of “co-extinctions,” which occur when one species dies out because it depended on another, causing subsequent extinctions down the food chain. In the worst-case scenario, this could kill off all life on Earth, according to a recent study from Flinders University in 2018.
Maintaining Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services
Balanced ecosystems are important. They provide us with crucial ecosystem services like flood regulation, water purification and nutrient cycling, which won’t function as well without all native species. California sea otter populations, for example, dropped in the 19th century from unrestricted hunting. The otters used to eat purple sea urchins, which eat kelp. Now, urchin populations have grown in the absence of otter predators, meaning they consume more kelp. Kelp forests provide important ecosystem services — like protecting the coast from storm surges and absorbing climate-warming carbon dioxide — but are less successful as their population diminishes.
Pollinators also provide vital ecological benefits. Over the past several decades, pollinator populations have been declining in North America. As of 2020, seventy species of pollinators including bats, birds and insects are listed as threatened or endangered. An estimated 75% of leading food crops depend on pollinators to grow — our entire food system depends on them. About 300 species of fruit depend on bats to get pollinated, including mangos and bananas. All pollinators face different threats, like imported diseases, invasive species and shrinking habitats, especially if patches along their migration routes are too fragmented. Pesticides pose another significant danger to pollinators. These toxins impact reproduction or harm the health of bees during direct contact. Additionally, insects and other animals could be beneficial to farmers as biological controls to keep pests in check. If we lose these species, we will rely even more heavily on synthetic chemicals to replace this service.
Preservation of Knowledge
Plants and animals also provide us with resources, like materials and new types of medicine. They’ve helped us create anti-cancer agents, blood thinners, pain killers and antibiotics, including penicillin, which was derived from a fungus. In all, 50% of the 150 top prescribed medicines were originally derived from plants and animals. Biodiversity presents us with the opportunity for new ways of feeding and sustaining our growing population, but by losing species to extinction, we lose that opportunity to innovate.
Loss of Livelihood
Whale-watching tourists in the Pacific Ocean off Puerto Vallarta, Mexico on March 8, 2022. Troy Mai / Flickr
Biodiverse communities are a source of income for many communities. Taking fishing communities, for example; if the fish they depend on are overfished to extinction, these people won’t be able to make any money. Biodiversity also has recreational value, providing us with opportunities for watching species like whales and birds, hiking on trails full of natural beauty, and more. The wildlife tourism industry is a multi-billion dollar sector, and the loss of species means the loss of major aesthetic value in these places, meaning tourism-centric economies will suffer.
Takeaway
Endangered species protection is a complex and intersectional issue. Species become threatened or extinct in a lot of different ways, some more indirect than habitat loss or poaching. Thus, to meaningfully address extinction risks, we must also consider climate change, our food systems and agricultural practices, and pollution.
Legislation is one of our strongest tools in fighting extinction, with the Endangered Species Act being a highly successful example. The whooping crane is a famous success story: the tallest bird in North America suffered from loss of habitat and hunting. In 1941 when it was listed as endangered, there were only twenty-one individuals left in its population — but after being listed as endangered in 1970, it now has more than 500. Other influential pieces of legislation throughout history include the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 and the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972.
The Endangered Species Act turns 50 years old in 2023, but it and other legislation that protects endangered species are constantly under threat. Under the Trump administration, the ESA was stripped of vital provisions, ultimately paving the way for development, oil and gas drilling, and mining in critical habitats of endangered species. Although the Biden administration has begun restoring protections under the Act, these actions remind us that legislation is a powerful tool in preventing harm to threatened species: one that can be taken away under leadership that neglects environmental conservation. To protect endangered species and their habitats, it’s crucial that we vote for individuals who prioritize legislation related to environmental protection and large-scale action against climate change.
The post Endangered Species 101: Everything You Need to Know appeared first on EcoWatch.
https://www.ecowatch.com/endangered-species-facts-ecowatch.html
Today’s quote comes from Pope John Paul II’s message for the celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1990. He wrote, “Modern society will find no solution to the ecological problem unless it takes a serious look at its lifestyle.”
Earth911 inspirations. Post them, share your desire to help people think of the planet first, every day.
The post Earth911 Inspiration: A Serious Look at Modern Lifestyle appeared first on Earth911.
https://earth911.com/inspire/earth911-inspiration-take-serious-look-lifestyle/
Green Living
Best of Sustainability In Your Ear: Making Billions of Square Feet of Commercial Space Sustainable with CBRE’s Rob Bernard
The built environment, particularly office buildings other urban facilities, are responsible for 39% of the global energy-related emissions, according to the World Green Building Council. About a third of that impact comes from the initial construction of a building and the other two-thirds is produced over the lifetime of a building by heating, cooling, and providing power to the occupants. Our guest today is leading a key battle to reduce the impact of the built environment. Tune in for a wide-ranging conversation with Rob Bernard, Chief Sustainability Officer at CBRE Group Inc., which manages more than $145 billion of commercial buildings, providing logistics, retail, and corporate office services across more than than 100 countries.
Rob cut his sustainability teeth at Microsoft, as its Chief Environmental Strategist for 11 years, as the company was developing its world-leading approach and collaborating with other tech giants to lobby for policy and funding to accelerate progress. He discusses CBRE’s Sustainability Solutions & Services for commercial building owners, as well as the accelerating progress for renewables, carbon tracking, and economic, health, and lifestyle benefits of living lightly on the planet. You can learn more about CBRE and its sustainability services at cbre.com
Take a few minutes to learn more about making construction and building operations more sustainable:
- Earth911 Podcast: Cityzenith’s Michael Jansen Uses Digital Twins to Reinvent Urban Planning
- Earth911 Podcast: Concrete.ai CEO Alex Hall On Mixing Embodied Carbon Out Of the Built Environment
- Best of Earth911 Podcast: Lowering Construction Impacts With Green Badger’s Tommy Linstroth
- Best of Earth911 Podcast: William Ulrich on Learning From Y2K To Design the Circular Economy
- Best of Earth911 Podcast: Autodesk Spacemaker Aides Building Efficiency With AI Insights
- How to Assess Your Business’ Environmental and Social Impacts
- Passive House Design: Changing the Future of New Home Construction
- Subscribe to Sustainability in Your Ear on iTunes and Apple Podcasts.
- Follow Sustainability in Your Ear on Spreaker, iHeartRadio, or YouTube.
Editor’s Note: This podcast originally aired on April 15, 2024.
The post Best of Sustainability In Your Ear: Making Billions of Square Feet of Commercial Space Sustainable with CBRE’s Rob Bernard appeared first on Earth911.
https://earth911.com/podcast/earth911-podcast-making-billions-of-square-feet-of-commercial-space-sustainable-with-cbres-rob-bernard/
An average big-budget movie creates about 3,370 metric tons of CO₂, according to the Sustainable Production Alliance’s 2021 report. That’s like driving over 700 gas-powered cars for a year, or about 33 metric tons of CO₂ for each day of filming. A single TV season can have the same impact as 108 cars. With thousands of productions happening every year in North America, Hollywood’s environmental impact is hard to overlook. Zena Harris, founder and president of Green Spark Group, has spent more than ten years helping the industry turn sustainability goals into practical steps that productions can track. On this episode of Sustainability In Your Ear, she shares how to build sustainable practices into film and TV projects from the very start, instead of adding them at the end when most waste has already been created. Zena started Green Spark Group in 2014 after earning a master’s in sustainability and environmental management at Harvard. She pitched Vancouver’s major studios on a simple idea: sustainability can save money. Her first big project, the X-Files reboot, managed to divert 81% of its waste across 40 filming locations. Since then, her certified B Corp consultancy has worked with Disney, NBCUniversal, Amazon, and other major studios, and she founded the Sustainable Production Forum, which is now in its tenth year.
This conversation comes at an important time. Soon, California’s climate disclosure laws will require studios to report emissions from every vendor in their production supply chain, both before and after filming. Zena points out that while studios are getting ready, most of their suppliers—like small companies that rent generators, handle waste, or provide lumber on tight schedules—are not prepared. The Sustainable Entertainment Alliance has released Scope 3 guidance for productions, and updated Scope 1 and 2 guidance came out in August 2025, but there is still no single tool that everyone uses. The real challenge over the next two years will be closing the gap between what studios must report and what their suppliers can provide. Zena also makes a bigger point about culture. After 12 years in the industry, she sees sustainability experts facing the same obstacles again and again because the way content is made hasn’t changed. The day-to-day work is important, but the bigger opportunity is in climate storytelling. Only about 13% of recent top-rated films mention climate change at all. Tracking the carbon footprint of a TV season is important, but what really matters is how a billion viewers see what’s normal on screen. That’s the influence Hollywood hasn’t fully used yet.
To follow Zena’s work, visit greensparkgroup.com. You can also learn more about the conference she started at sustainableproductionforum.com, or listen to her podcast, The Tie-In, which she co-hosts with Mark Rabin.
- Subscribe to Sustainability In Your Ear on iTunes
- Follow Sustainability In Your Ear on Spreaker, iHeartRadio, or YouTube
Interview Transcript
Mitch Ratcliffe 0:00
Hello, good morning, good afternoon, or good evening, wherever you are on this beautiful planet of ours. Welcome to Sustainability In Your Ear. This is the podcast conversation about accelerating the transition to a sustainable, carbon-neutral society, and I’m your host, Mitch Ratcliffe. Thanks for joining the conversation today.
We’re going to talk about film and television, because every film and TV production starts the same way: with a creative vision, a budget, a shooting schedule, and a huge amount of stuff. Generators burn diesel all day and night at shooting locations. Trucks idle as they wait to move between locations. Sets are built from raw materials only to end up in the landfill when filming ends. Craft services rely on single-use items for literally everything that’s placed on the table for the production team.
Now multiply that by the thousands of productions happening in North America each year, and the scale of the problem becomes clear. The average feature film emits 3,370 metric tons of carbon dioxide, which is like driving more than 700 gas-powered cars for a full year. And a single season of a TV show can match the emissions of 108 cars — and that’s not even counting the supply chain, everything that comes onto a set and everything that leaves. Hollywood has promised to be more sustainable many times, and our guest today has spent the last 10 years figuring out what it really takes to make these promises come to life in practice.
Zena Harris is the founder and president of Green Spark Group, a certified B Corp sustainability consultancy that she launched in 2014 with a mission to change the environmental impact of entertainment. She holds a master’s degree from Harvard in sustainability and environmental management, and she came to this work not as an environmentalist, but as a systems thinker — someone who spent her early career in engineering and HR identifying where organizations were leaking efficiency and money. But when she moved to Vancouver and discovered that nobody was focused on sustainability in what had become one of North America’s largest film production hubs, she saw a gap and filled it.
For more than a decade, she’s worked with major studios — including Disney, NBCUniversal, and Amazon — helping them embed sustainable practices in video production projects, and she’s developed measurable goals and built cross-industry collaborations that make lasting change possible.
She also founded the Sustainable Production Forum, which is now in its 10th year and has become the industry’s premier gathering place for turning sustainability talk into coordinated action.
We’ll talk with Zena about what it looks like when a production plans for sustainability from the very beginning, instead of adding it on at the end of the process like we usually do with all of our waste. And she’ll explain her idea of radical collaboration and why making real progress in Hollywood requires everyone — that includes unions, guilds, city governments, power companies, and those top-talent stars — to work together. We’ll also discuss how she uses the circular economy on set, the accountability gap that remains even as California’s new climate disclosure laws start to roll out, and whether the same systems-thinking approach can help business outside the film world.
To find out more about Zena’s work and Green Spark Group, visit greensparkgroup.com — that’s all one word, no space, no dash. Hollywood has the power to change how people think about sustainability, but can it also change how it works behind the scenes? Zena Harris is tackling both challenges at the same time. Let’s see what she’s discovered, right after this brief commercial break.
Mitch Ratcliffe 3:49
Welcome to the show, Zena. How you doing today?
Zena Harris 3:50
Hi. Thanks for having me. I’m doing great. The sun is shining in Tacoma, Washington, and I’m happy to be talking with you.
Mitch Ratcliffe 3:59
Well, I’m so happy to hear that you live in Tacoma. I lived there for almost 50 years. It’s a beautiful place, and I’m glad you’ve inherited it. I really like it. But you started your sustainability career in Vancouver, and you had no entertainment experience, and your first project was helping The X-Files reboot series divert material at 40 shooting locations — and you reduced their waste by 81%. What gave you the confidence to, you know, just call and say, ‘Hey, can I make you more sustainable?’
Zena Harris 4:31
It was a little more than that. You know, there was a lead-up to it. I had studied the film and TV industry in graduate school — I did my master’s thesis on it — so I had a little bit of a background. And the reason I studied it in grad school: I was in a sustainability master’s program, and I wanted to figure out how to shift culture. The first thing I thought of was, okay, people watch TV, we all love movies — that’s where I should start digging in to see what they’re doing. And they weren’t doing a ton. They were doing a little bit, but not too much.
So I talked to all the studio reps and found out what was going on and created a whole framework, like you do in graduate school, and wrote it all up. And then I pitched it to every studio. I sent out a white paper, essentially, to all the studios, and I was like, ‘Hey, let’s talk about this.’ Flew to LA, met with people in person. And I’m like, ‘I’m in Vancouver. I know it’s a major film hub. Put me to work.’ And one person did. She said, ‘Hey, you know, The X-Files is coming. It’s a big show. We have room in the budget to make this great. Let’s see what we can do.’ And that’s what really got me going.
One of the first people I met in the industry was Kelsey Evans. She is the owner of Keep It Green Recycling, which is a local vendor in Vancouver. Now, I had studied the film and TV industry, I know management practices and sustainability and the science, and she knew — like, really knew — the industry. So we worked together on that production, and we still work together today. She’s a friend of mine. She’s fantastic.
We got a lot of stuff done on that show, and that was my introduction into the film industry in practical terms. Vancouver, because it’s a major film hub, has — let’s just say — 20 shows filming at any given time. Sometimes it’s a lot more. But I knew that the work I was doing on that one show could scale. We needed to do it on all the shows. We needed to engage the industry. We needed to train people. So I started Green Spark Group as a vehicle to do this in the industry more broadly.
I think my past experience — prior to even going to grad school — in HR for a multinational company, and I was also an executive director at an international nonprofit where we had working groups and people from all over the world coming together to solve problems and create programs, all that gave me confidence to step into the film industry, look around, learn from others, apply my skills, and build this momentum locally. The company, locally, ended up — now we work across North America and even in other countries. So it’s been a journey.
Mitch Ratcliffe 7:52
Well, you point out that they said, ‘We’ve got room in the budget to make this great,’ but that isn’t always the case. So what’s the pitch to a new client?
Zena Harris 8:00
Yeah, yeah. Well, those are the magic words: ‘We can save you money.’ That is it. That’s it. I mean, look, this has been a movement over the last, let’s say, 12 years — that’s how long I’ve been working in this space. And it’s rare for folks to say, ‘Yeah, we can figure this out in the budget.’ Sometimes it happens, but most people want to know how they can save money. So if you can show them very clearly that they can save money, that pushes the door open. And then you can talk about lots of other things too.
Mitch Ratcliffe 8:43
So tell us about The Amazing Spider-Man 2. You saved them a lot of money. How’d you do it, and how much did you save them?
Zena Harris 8:48
I did not work on that. A colleague of mine, Emellie O’Brien, worked on that. That was actually one of the first productions publicized for saving a lot of money. I think they saved something like — well, I have the number here — $400,000. The cool thing about what happened with that, and also what happened with The X-Files and some others shortly thereafter, is that the studio recorded behind the scenes. They interviewed crew members to talk about what they had done. Then they published some of the stats in a case study and a video.
People in our industry love watching videos, right? So we did a behind-the-scenes for The X-Files, which caught lightning in a bottle — really created a whole movement in Vancouver. We showed that little five-minute behind-the-scenes video to everyone, and they saw their peers in that video because they were crew members speaking about what they had done. Things like that really sparked action in people and this excitement that, ‘Wow, things I have seen and kind of felt uncomfortable with — like waste, nobody likes seeing waste — people saw solutions in those videos. People saw themselves, saw their peers, and that inspired action, awareness, intrigue — like all the stuff you would want to create a movement. I can’t say enough about those early videos. They really helped kind of put us on a trajectory for more awareness and more action.
Mitch Ratcliffe 10:42
A set is kind of like a microcosm of a city. A lot of stuff comes together and then disperses again. We actually did some consulting a few years ago with Hollywood about recycling the material on site — they use the PCs for the first time and then send them to recycling. It’s amazing how wasteful it could be. Tell us about what happens on a set. What’s the input, and what’s the output?
Zena Harris 11:10
Yeah, you are right. It is definitely akin to a city. I mean, if you think about it, for a large film or TV series, there can be 20 different departments working together to make that project happen. Each of those departments brings in some kind of material, some kind of input. The production office will have lots of office supplies, equipment, office equipment, furniture for the office — that kind of thing. Those things are coming in, and then you use them, and then they go out.
Then you can think of production design and construction. These two departments work really closely together, and they’re the ones creating and then building the sets in the sound stage. You can think about all the materials that might be associated with that. Construction is a big input department, where we’re bringing in lots of wood — and other types of material. It’s not just wood, but essentially we’re building a village inside a sound stage to shoot. And it’s all the wood and any other material that goes into that: wallpaper, paint, all sorts of props, set dressing that will go into that space.
So all that’s coming in, and then we use it for a short period of time, and then we have to do something with it. A lot of times, set walls are kind of standard — they can be reused. These are things that, if we recognize the patterns here, we’re using these things all the time. We’re breaking them down, and then we do something with them. A lot of times the breakdown is fast. You don’t have a ton of opportunity to really think. But if we know that there’s a pattern associated — prep, production, and wrap every single show — we know that we can disrupt that pattern. We can plan for it.
This is where thinking ahead and planning like, ‘Hey, we can reuse these walls. Got a lot of doors here — we’re going to reuse these doors. We’re going to send them to a place that will hold them temporarily, like a reuse center, and then those can be redistributed back into the industry.’ Some productions will store this stuff on their own if they have reshoots they think they might have, or another series they might come along. So all of these are options.
The default historically has been — because this is a dynamic industry, because timelines are short, people need to get out of their stage space — to use it, break it down, put it in the dumpster, get that thing out of here, and move on. So we’re saying there’s another way to do it, and just that alone saves the production a lot of money, because those big dumpsters at the end of it all are expensive to haul away. If we can reduce even a few of those, that is a cost savings, and then that material can be diverted and reused. So everything coming in — food, big material like construction material that people think a lot about, anything coming in — has an opportunity to be diverted, redistributed on the back end. And then that action saves money.
Mitch Ratcliffe 14:59
Well, you describe what’s needed as radical collaboration. I’m wondering if you can explain what that means, because Hollywood’s going through a lot of changes right now, and it sounds like sustainability may be the keystone of some new talent or new careers during the production process. So what are the hardest stakeholders in that radical collaboration to get to move from where they are today?
Zena Harris 15:22
Yeah. I think, like I said, I’ve been doing this for a really long time, and one of the things that I’ve picked up over the years is that people in the industry have been conditioned to point fingers. There are different stakeholders in the industry. Crew will point to the union or the studio, for example, and say, ‘You know, those folks need to do something so that I can integrate sustainable practices.’ The unions will point to crew or studios. The studios will point to production or unions. And so at the end of the day, that doesn’t get us anywhere. We’re kind of swirling in this finger-pointing. And nobody really knows what to do. They’re waiting for something. So progress is slow when you do that.
In order to move the needle, I think one of the things we need to do is actually work together in ways that might seem unconventional or radical. I keep reminding myself of the saying, ‘What got us here won’t take us forward.’ So we have to get over ourselves and do something differently. We know that there’s no single organization that’s going to solve all the problems or change the existing system. We need a different approach, a different narrative around all of this — not just kind of deferring to another stakeholder.
This is what I call radical collaboration, because it’s different. Collaboration between crew and unions and studios and creatives and suppliers and industry organizations — in ways that have been different than we’ve tried before, that really haven’t worked so well, or not to the degree we wanted them to work. So instead of reinventing the wheel on that, we need a whole different tack. I think that in order to see success, we need positive reinforcement for people. We need to actually say, ‘Yes, this worked,’ and in increments too — not just the big things. When people see that positive reinforcement, they actually lean in. They actually have more confidence in what they’re doing. And then this increases momentum. That’s kind of my view of radical collaboration and what I think is needed to keep the ball rolling.
Mitch Ratcliffe 18:07
Well, you’re making a really interesting point, which is that people don’t dislike change. They may be a little afraid of it, but they want to see that the extra effort involved in making the change actually is paying off. As the orchestrator of the sustainability activities on set, how do you communicate that to them so that the Teamsters and the members of the Screen Actors Guild all say, ‘Oh, I’m in’?
Zena Harris 18:37
Yeah, yeah. Well, you know, it’s interesting. You mentioned a couple of different positions there — Teamsters and actors and these sorts of things. Everybody is coming to the production with a different perspective, a different viewpoint, kind of a different mandate within their department. Like, their job is to do this. So everybody sees sustainability in a slightly different way.
One of the things we really strive to do — and I would say this is kind of a standard practice, but what we’re trying to do as a team at Green Spark Group — is go beyond surface-level conversations. Not just say, ‘Here are a few things you could do,’ but really try to have a deeper conversation with people in each of these departments and ask them what they see, what they need to be successful in doing any one of the things that they might want to do differently, and really help them get there. If they’re afraid to talk to someone, well, we’ll help them do that. We will have their back. We will go with them and be a backstop for anything they may not know or feel confident talking about. If it is finding a vendor and they don’t have time to look around, we’ll help them do that.
You know, people say, ‘Meet you where you are.’ But it’s really going beyond surface-level conversations. It’s really tapping into people’s wants, needs, level of confidence, and helping them grow that and helping them shine in their role — whatever it is. I think that sort of human-centric approach is really helpful, and what really moves the needle, or actually builds trust. Because at the end of the day, we can go in there and talk about all sorts of gear. There’s a lot of gear out there. There’s a lot of batteries out there that are going to save emissions. But I have seen multiple times where batteries have been rented, they sit in the gear truck, and people are afraid to use them. Why is that? Let’s talk about that. Let’s really unpack it, and let’s find a safe space to do it. Maybe it’s that lightweight one over there, and we want to just test it out. Totally cool. Let’s make that happen. What’s it going to take to get there?
Mitch Ratcliffe 21:24
This very meta moment — talking about telling stories to storytellers to get them to change their behavior — is a great place to take a quick commercial break. Folks, we’re going to be right back to continue this really interesting conversation.
Welcome back to Sustainability In Your Ear. Let’s get back to my conversation with Zena Harris, founder and president of the Hollywood sustainability consultancy — although Vancouver, too — Green Spark Group. Zena, your mission is to change the climate of entertainment, and that has a double meaning that clearly was deliberate. But I’m wondering, in the current environment and thinking about the stories we tell about why we do things, with all the whiplashing political winds of the last couple of years, how has that changed your message and your perception of what Hollywood’s trying to accomplish?
Zena Harris 22:16
Yeah, I mean, I’ve said this a few times. We have a lot of momentum. Right now, in 2026, there are more organizations, there are more people thinking about sustainability, there are more tools out there for people to use. There’s a lot of momentum in the industry. So for us at Green Spark Group, we are on a mission to change the climate of entertainment, and it’s incremental, year over year, year over year — and so we’re still working on it. It’s very relevant for us today.
We have had a hand in changing a lot in the entertainment industry over the last 12 years. We started programs, we’ve created strategic plans for industry organizations and training in the C-suite, and started the industry’s first conference. We’re uplifting people and trying to give a platform to people to collaborate and share their ideas. But there’s a lot of opportunity out there. There are still a lot of people who are new to sustainability, and they need someone to help them make sense of it all. It’s taking all this wonderful information that’s been created by various organizations — and we’ve contributed as well — and distilling it and helping them make sense of it all, make decisions that are in line with their values, and implement the things that they want to implement. Save the money that they can save, that they know they can, when they start doing the math.
Mitch Ratcliffe 24:11
Is the money the key thing right now? Is it the sustainable savings, or is it still a commitment to the climate, in the context of, again, all the backlash against the idea of environmentalism?
Zena Harris 24:24
Yeah, I mean, the idea of environmentalism, I think, is kind of in the broader ethos. I think when you get down to talking to people one on one, they want solutions to things — waste they’ve seen, or emissions they’ve encountered on production, or food waste, or whatever it is. Whether they call themselves an environmentalist or they just are a caring and concerned person, everybody wants a positive working experience. And they don’t want that tension internally between, ‘I’m doing this great, creative, wonderful thing in my job, and then I look over here and some negative thing is happening environmentally or whatever.’ People want a holistic, positive work experience. So I think that’s core at the end of the day — to tap into that, and, like I said, just go beyond surface-level conversations and really help people figure that out.
Mitch Ratcliffe 25:35
Let me ask about the other side of that equation, about changing the climate of entertainment. Hollywood has enormous cultural reach, but we did a little research and found that only about 10%, 13% was the number we came up with, of recent top-rated films even acknowledge the idea of climate change on screen. Do you hear creatives on the content side talking about climate? Do they ask you? Do they say, ‘You know, this is interesting, I’d like to learn more, and I might tell a story about it someday’?
Zena Harris 26:05
Yeah. I mean, this idea that the industry reach is certainly enormous — the cultural influence of the industry, wherever you’re interacting with it, whether you love a character on screen, whether you follow an actor in real life and kind of just like what they do, whether you follow — like, I’m an operations kind of person, I like looking at how things work and trying to improve that. But this idea of climate storytelling, a lot of people are thinking about it right now. It’s a huge lever. You will hear that batted around a lot. A lot of industry organizations are doing research on it and trying to get into writers’ rooms and in film schools.
There’s a lot of momentum in that space. We have been engaged a few times in that effort, and it’s proven beneficial. So I would say that 13% — there’s a lot of momentum around this subject, and I can see that number increasing over time. People want stories that reflect the current reality they’re feeling in real life. There are a lot of people working in environmental jobs, or in some shape or form, and I think those kinds of professions will be reflected on screen a lot more in the future. So, yeah, I think there’s a lot of momentum in that space.
Mitch Ratcliffe 27:52
I can see a film about a ranger saving a family from a fire.
Zena Harris 27:57
You can think it, they can do it.
Mitch Ratcliffe 28:00
Let’s turn back to the operational question, as you pointed out you focus on that. One of the common problems that production has, along with every other business, is trying to fully measure what’s going on. Like we were talking about, this set is this midpoint in a very complex supply chain where stuff has flowed in, now it needs to go somewhere in order to either be reused or appropriately recycled, but we can’t fully measure all that. What’s still in the invisible category of information? In the same sense that Scope 3 emissions are hard for a typical corporation to measure, is there a comparable issue with production sustainability?
Zena Harris 28:36
Oh yeah, 100%. Look, there are always more things to measure. As an industry, we have focused a lot on carbon emissions from things like utilities, fuel, air travel, and accommodations. We have a really good handle on that. But those are, like, four categories, right? And, as you said earlier, materials are coming onto production — food, wood, office supplies, you name it, it comes onto production. So those are the things we don’t have a solid handle on. There’s embedded carbon and all that stuff.
There are also lots of industry tools, industry carbon calculators out there — some measure more than others.
Mitch Ratcliffe (interjects)
Are any of them any good?
Zena Harris (continues)
Yeah, yeah, they’re good. But some have more inputs than others. Some will only measure those four categories that I mentioned. For years, for example, everybody in the industry wants to know the waste diversion rate, right? But nobody focuses on the carbon emissions associated with that material. We just get a diversion rate, and we call it good. So you have to choose: if you want to know all of that, you have to choose a tool that will allow you to input more of that information. And we don’t have a standard tool yet in the industry that everybody uses, so we can compare apples to apples.
We have guidance in the industry, and that’s really helpful. The Sustainable Entertainment Alliance, which is an industry consortium, has put out guidance on Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3. Their Scope 3 guidance is the most recent, and with new information, new methodology, a lot of people don’t really know what to do with that, and maybe aren’t sure which tool to use to capture some of that stuff. So there’s a lot of uncertainty even around the guidance that’s out there. That’s where you can seek out professionals to help you understand all that stuff.
Mitch Ratcliffe 31:11
One of the characteristics of the change we’re undergoing right now is the recognition of externalities. And in Hollywood production generally — I have some friends who are in the industry — it seems to me that they focused almost entirely on who was in front of the camera and who was behind the camera, and only now are starting to recognize that they’re part of this deeper supply chain. And now California’s new climate disclosure laws are going to require studios to report indirect, upstream and downstream emissions from every vendor by this year. How’s that going to change? And is the industry actually getting the traction on trying to respond to that requirement?
Zena Harris 31:47
The studios are very aware of this. They’ve been preparing for this. The suppliers upstream, downstream are not as [prepared].
Mitch Ratcliffe 31:58
So how are they not prepared? What do we need to do?
Zena Harris 32:00
Well, they haven’t been tracking.
Mitch Ratcliffe 32:10
So they’re the typical company.
Zena Harris 32:13
They are a typical company. These are small companies servicing these projects, these productions. And we’ve been so focused in the industry on pre-production and production — that piece of the content creation process. So if you think of a book that has 10 chapters, we’ve been essentially focusing on one chapter. So you’ve got all of the other ones, and all of the service companies and suppliers and all of that that still incorporates the book, and all of those are contributing in some way.
Now we’ve been collecting data from waste haulers. We’ve been collecting data from people who supply equipment, and even those folks are still trying to get organized with their data. So you can imagine, like every other company, they all have their own operations. So that’s one thing. You can incorporate sustainability into your own company operations, and then you can provide data associated with the product or service that you are providing. And that’s going to matter. Those things roll up into this production reporting, and that production reporting rolls up into the larger studio, who’s going to have to incorporate that into their corporate reporting.
Mitch Ratcliffe 33:54
So do you see this regulation as catalyzing the potential for sustainability at scale in entertainment production?
Zena Harris 34:05
Yeah. I mean, I think it provides people a solid talking point to go up and shake the tree a little bit and say, ‘Hey, we’re going to have to be doing this.’ Look, they’re not going to have all the information they need, probably, in year one. So they’re going to take what they do have, and they’re going to estimate probably across their slate. And then they’re going to work really hard to make that better, more accurate in the coming years. So if you’re not asked in year one as a supplier for certain information, you might be in year two and three. It would be wise, I think, to kind of get your house in order and be able to start reporting on these things, even if you’re never asked. It’s good for you as a company, because you start to understand where your waste is, where your emissions lie, and then you can start making changes accordingly. And yes, that stuff saves money. So it’s good for everyone to be thinking about this, whether you’re asked by a studio or not.
Mitch Ratcliffe 35:16
Well, that’s really the key — that it’s also rewarding to make that kind of additional positive impact, as well as save some money and make more profit in the long run. I mean, that’s what’s rewarding about progress in general.
Zena Harris 35:30
Totally, totally. It’s a ripple effect, right? And then we just get better as an industry, and then an industry that contributes to broader society.
Mitch Ratcliffe 35:40
So after 10 years, how far has the industry come toward the vision that you had when you started Green Spark Group?
Zena Harris 35:50
Oh, gosh. Well, there’s a lot that has happened over these years. Like I said, more people are aware, more people are engaged. But I think that we are swirling within the existing system. Sustainability practitioners that started working on production like I did years ago — we just entered this existing content creation system. And what I’m noticing now is that we’re swirling within the same system. We’re all running up against similar challenges around the world with regard to implementing sustainable practices. So we’re coming up against consistent hurdles, barriers within this system.
For me, that’s an opportunity to look a little bit bigger and say, ‘Okay, well, if we keep running into the same barriers, what if the system shifted? What if the entire system shifted? What are the incentives involved in the system to keep it the way it is?’ And there’s a lot — that’s a whole separate podcast — but all to say, this is where we need to be thinking: how we shift the system, how we have that radical collaboration, how we shift the needle on what suppliers are doing and reporting, and these sorts of things. And that’s what’s going to take us to the next level. We’re going to get over the hump.
Mitch Ratcliffe 37:34
So, given that, imagine that you are Zena, goddess of sustainability, and can put your finger on one thing and change it. What would it be, in order to drive much more rapid transition to a more sustainable production environment?
Zena Harris 37:51
I mean, I think it all comes down to the people — the people in the system that are either allowing or not allowing, either making excuses or open to possibility. It all comes down to that. There are some core elements associated with people, behavior change, these sorts of things. I think mindset is core, absolutely core. I think courage — even to talk about this stuff within your small team or your department, or even in a larger conversation — is pretty critical, to voice some things you’re noticing, or what ideas you have for doing things differently. I think that collective confidence — once you do that, people get on board. They come together. Confidence is critical as well. If you don’t have it, you’re not going to take the next step, right? So there are fundamental human elements that need to be developed, to be encouraged, to be demonstrated. And I think that is going to shift the needle.
Mitch Ratcliffe 39:08
It’s a storytelling challenge in a lot of ways. There’s some carrot, there’s some stick, there’s a lot of nuance to that tale that we need to really make embedded into everybody’s approach to thinking about the work. Zena, thanks so much for your time today. How can folks follow both Green Spark Group and the work you’ve done with the Sustainable Production Forum?
Zena Harris 39:28
Sure. You’re always welcome to check out our website, greensparkgroup.com. We post insights there monthly and have a lot of great information for folks. Also on social media at @greensparkgroup — pick a platform, we’re probably on it. And then the Sustainable Production Forum is online as well, sustainableproductionforum.com, and from there you can get to all of their content, videos, anything you want to know is there too.
And I’ll also just give a quick plug for my podcast that I co-host with my longtime friend Mark Rabin. It’s called The Tie-In, and so folks can also check out stories from crew members, from people doing amazing work behind the scenes. We talk to them all there.
Mitch Ratcliffe 40:21
Zena, thanks so much. It’s been a fascinating conversation. Really enjoyed it.
Zena Harris
Thank you.
Mitch Ratcliffe 40:31
Welcome back to Sustainability In Your Ear. You’ve been listening to my conversation with Zena Harris, founder and president of Green Spark Group, the certified B Corp sustainability consultancy she launched in 2014 to change the climate of entertainment. You can find Zena and her team’s work at greensparkgroup.com — that’s all one word, no space, no dash. And check out their conference, the Sustainable Production Forum, now in its 10th year, at sustainableproductionforum.com, also all one word, no space, no dash.
I think the headline from Zena’s work is a pitch, not a principle: ‘We can save you money.’ That’s how she opens a conversation with a studio, and it’s why The Amazing Spider-Man 2 became an early case study, based on the work of a colleague of hers at Green Spark who helped that production save roughly $400,000 through sustainable practices. The implications of these savings are clear when you stand next to the dumpster at the end of a chute and watch a village’s worth of lumber, furniture, wallpaper, and props get hauled away to a landfill because the stage needs to be empty by Monday.
The sustainability opportunity in film and TV isn’t a values problem — the industry’s values are already stated on the record. It’s an operational capacity problem, and Zena’s work is translating aspiration into line items a production accountant can track. And that’s to the benefit of the environment, even if it’s not visible on the bottom line.
California’s new climate disclosure laws are about to change the equation, too. Beginning this year, studios will have to report upstream and downstream emissions from every vendor in their production supply chain. That’s the chapter of the book, as Zena put it, that the industry has never actually opened. The studios knew that this is coming, and they’ve been preparing for it. Their suppliers — the small companies servicing productions on short timelines — mostly haven’t. That gap is the real story over the next 24 months in the entertainment sustainability business.
Zena’s advice to suppliers is the same advice my recent guest Steve Wilhite, who leads Schneider Electric’s power management division, offered corporate energy buyers just a few weeks ago: get your house in order now, because even if you’re not asked for data today, you will be in two or three years. The companies that can report cleanly will win work, while those that can’t will become a balance sheet burden to the studios.
A digital nervous system is arriving now in Hollywood, and every waste hauler, every generator rental company, every lumber supplier is becoming a data-producing node in a network that didn’t exist just one or two production cycles ago. California’s environmental policy is forcing that network into being, and once it exists, it will not unbuild itself, because people are going to see the benefits. They’re going to see the savings that we’ve been talking about throughout this conversation.
And after 12 years in the business, I think Zena’s comment near the end of our conversation — that sustainability practitioners in entertainment are ‘swirling within the existing system’ — is important to note. The hurdles they hit on one production look identical to the hurdles they hit on the next, because the content creation system itself hasn’t changed. That’s the green living myth problem I discussed recently with author Michael Maniates, but with a Hollywood accent: individual actors are doing the right thing inside a structure that continues to produce the same outputs by default. And that can easily become disenchanting. On-set greening is necessary and it’s real, but the industry’s deepest cultural lever is the one that we discussed in passing.
Only about 13% of recent top-rated films even acknowledge climate change on screen. The carbon accounting for a single TV season matters, but the cultural accounting — for what a billion viewers see, what they feel is normal, and what film and television characters drive and eat and care about — that’s the lever that this industry hasn’t yet pulled. Production sustainability builds the operational muscle and the credibility, but climate storytelling is where that credibility will be built at scale, because it will spread these ideas, changing not only Hollywood’s practices, but the practices of an entire world. One without the other leaves the most influential narrative engine on the planet running on the old script, and it’s time for a change.
So stay tuned. We’re going to keep talking with people rewriting what’s possible on set and on screen. And could you take a moment to help spread the word about the sustainable future we can build together? You are the amplifier that can spread more ideas to create less waste. So please take a look at any of the more than 550 episodes of Sustainability In Your Ear in our archives. Writing a review on your favorite podcast platform will help your neighbors find us. So please tell your friends, family, and co-workers they can find Sustainability In Your Ear on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Audible, or whatever purveyor of podcast goodness they prefer.
Thank you, folks, for your support. I’m Mitch Ratcliffe. This is Sustainability In Your Ear, and we will be back with another innovator interview soon. In the meantime, take care of yourself, take care of one another, and let’s all take care of this beautiful planet of ours. Have a green day.
The post Sustainability In Your Ear: Zena Harris Brings a Green Spark to Hollywood appeared first on Earth911.
https://earth911.com/podcast/sustainability-in-your-ear-zena-harris-brings-a-green-spark-to-hollywood/
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Renewable Energy2 years ago
GAF Energy Completes Construction of Second Manufacturing Facility