Discussion Group - Green Touring

[lampygirl]

Wasn't really sure where to put this so mods feel free to move to somewhere more appropriate...

 

I am aware that lots of people come on here to get help with their homework so I am trying to be careful no to do the same. I would however like to ask for your help in a different way.

 

I am studying for a degree in Events Management, and for one of my projects I have chosen to look at the environmental impacts of touring in rock and roll. I am aware of current research into the facts and figures side, things like the amount of CO2 produced by rock and roll tours compared to touring theatre and other related areas, and a lot of the work done by the Julie's Bicycle group in particular, however what I am potentially looking for is real life views on the subject to use as interpretive research.

 

The areas I am most interested in are; opinions on whether tour managers and crews now feel more pressure to consider the environment when touring, and whether this pressure has changed over the years; whether there are any steps tours can take to reduce their environmental impact, and how realistic changes to the current way of working would be.

 

I have spoken to a couple of touring sound engineers already however they were both fairly new to the industry, and what I am looking for now is a small number of experienced touring crew/ tour managers who may be interested in taking part in a short discussion group, which could be done online, or at least answering a set of questions on the above topic to aid my research. If you would be interested in taking part please could you PM me and I will keep you posted.

 

Like I said I do not want you to do my research for me, I am after real life opinions from the people out there doing this to earn a living.

 

Hope you can help

 

regards

 

Lizzie

[Ashley R]

I am aware of current research into the facts and figures side, things like the amount of CO2 produced by rock and roll tours compared to touring theatre and other related areas

 

The areas I am most interested in are; opinions on whether tour managers and crews now feel more pressure to consider the environment when touring, and whether this pressure has changed over the years; whether there are any steps tours can take to reduce their environmental impact, and how realistic changes to the current way of working would be.

 

Not being terribly experienced in this area (even though you have asked for experienced people) one thing you might consider is just the basic cost of running a few megawatts of PAR cans compared to a rig of nodding buckets, LED's and a few cans if at all any. And I'm pretty sure not many people miss lugging around tens of km's of cable to power these massive rigs and the power to supply it all (in the form of gennys).

 

This is one motivating factor in my opinion to go for 'greener' solutions and helping the environment was a by product of this cost cutting.

 

But then the power companies would be charging more for power than they were 30 years ago when the 64 was King (or abouts then) and it would be totally uneconomical to try and stick a few thousand 64's in a rig. And the reasoning for the power companies to charge more is from a kind of environmental point e.g. if the government puts a carbon tax in place or something along those lines then this ups the power companies running costs.

 

Anyway just my point of view of things. Not exactly one thing you were looking for but it is a contributing factor I believe. I hope what I've written makes sense to you.

[paulears]

Unless I've got the wrong end of the stick, the ability of LED fixtures to not consume lots of power simply means you have have many times more of them.

 

I'm never quite sure if people even consider green issues unless perhaps the client does first. I'd have to be honest and state that I don't have green issues on my priority list whatsoever. I've just replaced a load of LED lamps with halogen because it looks better and actually lights the subject better. When somebody said they were having trouble reading the music, it seemed a really sensible thing to do.

[Big Jay]

take a look at what White light are doing and have a look at this document they have produced.

 

http://www.whitelight.ltd.uk/greenguide

[andy_s]

I think the issue of power consumption during performances, while not to be discounted, is somewhat of a red herring in this context, a useful analogy I heard at a green conference once considered what used the most electricity: a 3kW kettle boiled twice a day for 15 minutes at the crew teabreak times, or a 100w lightbulb which is left on for 24hrs a day...

 

The main issue to be considered is the environmental cost of transport and travel. and here the quantity of kit and the weight of it is indeed relevant. One way of reducing environmental impact is to reduce the amount of kit on the road, and the numbers of wagons needed to transport it. with the really enormous shows, with two sets, two teams and two fleets of wagons leapfrogging each other, maybe a more relaxed tour schedule that allows for one set etc to fullfil the needs of the tour might be have environmental advantages?

[charlyfarly]

Some years ago I was interested to read about the availability of battery dumps at festivals and venues....a splendid idea when you think how many are used and thrown away; at least they can be recycled safely rather than being sent to landfill. However in the past 5 years or so I have only encountered one festival that had a dedicated battery dump (in Holland).

I have asked and have just been met with a shrug of the shoulders and been pointed to the regular bin bag of assorted rubbish.

I have pondered using rechargeables but sometimes they just don't have enough "oomph" for the job or are not recommended for use in high spec equipment and judging by the fact that our 2-way radio chargers got trashed/left behind on a regular basis, the same thing would happen to any AA/PP3 chargers.....fine for static engagements but not so easy when on the road.

[kerry davies]

I have PM'd the OP (ranting) but the vast majority of carbon footprint lies with the audience travel as most research confirms and that is insoluble. For example, Prince did all those gigs at the Dome to avoid the carbon footprint of touring. From memory, around 65% of his audience flew in long-haul for the event making a pigs ear of his intentions.

 

Current use of large scale video screens rather than enormous lighting rigs, LED technology and raising MPG hold out some hope of energy savings but bio-diesel has already been ecologically discredited. For every step forward humans seem capable of two steps backward. For real differences to happen there needs to be a bit more common sense than using disproportionate amounts of resource to produce a Prius which massages a few privileged egos.

 

Personal feelings are that Green issues simply obfuscate the real problem of over-population. Lovelock, Gaia and Daisyworld seem plausible to me and personal experience of single-issue politics has convinced me that more holistic thinking is needed.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud Julies' Bicycle, A Greener Festival etc but the only things that change society are self-interest and money. People are not going to reduce their breeding on altruistic grounds and capitalism relies on an ever growing consumer market. "We're doomed, I tell ye!"

[dbuckley]

Although from a related industry, you might like to surf to Greening the Screen.

[Stan Hope-Streeter]

Personal feelings are that Green issues simply obfuscate the real problem of over-population. Lovelock, Gaia and Daisyworld seem plausible to me and personal experience of single-issue politics has convinced me that more holistic thinking is needed.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud Julies' Bicycle, A Greener Festival etc but the only things that change society are self-interest and money. People are not going to reduce their breeding on altruistic grounds and capitalism relies on an ever growing consumer market. We're doomed, I tell ye!

 

Ah, common sense at last....

 

Touring will never be "green". It involves lots of travel purely for the purpose of entertainment, and working practices are driven by considerations of cost, because the end result has to maximise profits for all those involved. And the "profits" to be made from being "green" are social and environmental, not financial.

 

Changing this would require a major, worldwide, social and political revolution. Which isn't going to happen.

[Jivemaster]

There may be things you can do the the edges of the situation but fundimentally touring and the whole entertainments industry is not green in concept. Moving artistes, crew and punters for entertainment simply isn't green!

[Seano]

Not being terribly experienced in this area (even though you have asked for experienced people) one thing you might consider is just the basic cost of running a few megawatts of PAR cans compared to a rig of nodding buckets...

a useful analogy I heard at a green conference once considered what used the most electricity: a 3kW kettle boiled twice a day for 15 minutes at the crew teabreak times, or a 100w lightbulb which is left on for 24hrs a day...

Or, possibly, regarding the above - what uses more power, half a dozen pars flashed and dimmed, or a nodding bucket struck up continuously whether there's light coming out of it or not?

I don't know but I suspect the power used during a gig is pretty inconsequential compared to the load of heating/air conditioning venues, transport etc., anyway.

 

One way of reducing environmental impact is to reduce the amount of kit on the road, and the numbers of wagons needed to transport it. with the really enormous shows, with two sets, two teams and two fleets of wagons leapfrogging each other, maybe a more relaxed tour schedule that allows for one set etc to fullfil the needs of the tour might be have environmental advantages?

Most stadium tours will have 2 or 3 stages (and staging crews) leapfrogging each other though, and its pretty common to have 2 rigging packages (with an advance rigging team). Maybe even an 'A' and a 'B' lighting rig. But I don't think I've ever seen two sets, or two complete show crews.

 

I suspect the 'more relaxed' tour schedule might actually result in rather more air travel - anything more than a few days off generally means artists and crew jumping off the bus and flying home.

 

People are not going to reduce their breeding on altruistic grounds and capitalism relies on an ever growing consumer market. We're doomed, I tell ye!

A Malthusian eh? You might be right. As long as we're living on a finite planet, population growth (and economic growth) can't continue indefinitely. If the only thing that limits our population is human misery, people are going to be miserable.

 

Cheery thought, ta. :unsure:

 

Touring will never be "green". It involves lots of travel purely for the purpose of entertainment, and working practices are driven by considerations of cost, because the end result has to maximise profits for all those involved. And the "profits" to be made from being "green" are social and environmental, not financial.

 

If you want to look at it like that, the entertainment industry can't be 'green' because its an unnecessary industry. But in the scheme of things, its hardly the only one. How about the manufacture of rubber ducks? Bottled water?* So much crap we also don't need. There aren't a lot of raw materials used in the manufacture of a live show at least. Re-use is better than recycling, and a touring show gets a lot of use out of the set. (Lighting, sound etc., obviously gets reused far beyond the life of a single show.)

 

Given the price of diesel, actually reducing unnecessary travel has both a social and financial benefit. Again, we don't actually do so badly compared to many other industries. At least the trucks of a traveling show don't travel empty so much.

Compare that to, say, food: Raw materials driven to distribution centres. Much of it out to factories and processing plants. Back to distribution centres. Shuttled around a network of national and regional warehouses, and finally broken down into deliveries to individual shops and supermarkets. Large numbers of those trucks making the return journey empty.

I don't know that we do so badly.

 

* - on the subject of bottled water, I was quite shocked last year to find that a famous singist (who has been known to proffer a somewhat sanctimonious opinion on green issues on the telly from time to time) had this stuff on the rider. I went into catering to find the fridge full of it. Holy cow. Check out that website - it has a "click here to see why are water is green" button. What!?! Its WATER. Shipped literally half way around the world, on a big diesel powered ship that could be off doing something more useful instead, to a place that already has a plentiful water supply of its own. A plentiful supply even of all manner of poncy mineral waters if that's what floats your hypocritical celebrity boat. Aaaaargh!

</rant>

[ramdram]

lampygirl, what on Earth are you being asked this sort of nonsense for? Green issues? This is entertainment we are on about, pure extravagance. Nothing green about it at all.

 

Were I you I would be more concerned about actually getting a job when you leave college.

 

I sincerely hope you are being given some sort of (sub) course on how to market yourself in order to make a living.

[Ashley R]

Not being terribly experienced in this area (even though you have asked for experienced people) one thing you might consider is just the basic cost of running a few megawatts of PAR cans compared to a rig of nodding buckets...

a useful analogy I heard at a green conference once considered what used the most electricity: a 3kW kettle boiled twice a day for 15 minutes at the crew teabreak times, or a 100w lightbulb which is left on for 24hrs a day...

Or, possibly, regarding the above - what uses more power, half a dozen pars flashed and dimmed, or a nodding bucket struck up continuously whether there's light coming out of it or not?

I don't know but I suspect the power used during a gig is pretty inconsequential compared to the load of heating/air conditioning venues, transport etc., anyway.

 

Whoops forgot about that :unsure:

 

You could say that a office block here in Oz or one in Beijing (im talking at least 10 stories high) in the middle of summer when its 40+ C outside could use more power on all its Air conditioners running for 10 hours a day for weeks on end than the average touring show might consume and put out in CO2.

 

 

lampygirl, what on Earth are you being asked this sort of nonsense for? Green issues? This is entertainment we are on about, pure extravagance. Nothing green about it at all.

 

Were I you I would be more concerned about actually getting a job when you leave college.

 

I sincerely hope you are being given some sort of (sub) course on how to market yourself in order to make a living.

 

The bigger the better = Most likely more power and more of everything consumed.

 

This topic on a whole is a weird and interesting one, I remember reading an article on PSLN (I think!) which the heading boasted about an entire rig being completely LED and green. boasting a stack of LED moving washes and stacks of LED cans etc. etc. all the latest and greatest kit in the world of LED. But one of the points that were made was from an economical point of view, where someone had said along the lines of that they were happy that they didn't have to lug around tonnes of power distro or the complications involved with requiring enormous amounts of power thus meaning that they required less trucks, less crew, less of everything to get the show done. = more money in the pocket for the people higher up and being environmentally friendly was never the main objective but it was achieved by aiming for the main objective (more $$$)

 

(I must stress I'm not talking from an experience point of view but these are all issues and ways of looking at this idea from a different angle)

[Simon Lewis]

lampygirl, what on Earth are you being asked this sort of nonsense for? Green issues? This is entertainment we are on about, pure extravagance. Nothing green about it at all.

 

Exactly!

Except... whilst virtually every scientist agrees with the mechanisms leading to climate change, there are disagreements on the extent of the effect.

The media, however, has accepted the arguments and are now very effective climate change evangelists.

The wider public has swallowed this too, although they rarely understand the science, modelling or scientific concept of risk.

Going against what is now generally held public opinion is seen as bad PR and may therefore be a negative factor on the balance sheet. Presenting a few "green inititiatives" pacifies opinion and enhances the company's standing. Some initiatives may be genuine, helpful to the environment and to the business in the long term. Others may be cynical greenwash.

 

Where does the entertainment industry fit in? Well, it's good PR to toe the climate change party line.

General initiatives such as BS8900 (Guidance for managing sustainable development) and the more specific BS8901 (Specification for a sustainable event managment system with guidance for use) will affect us, with the early adopters (Olympic Games committee, and no doubt in time local authorities) beginning to require demonstration of compliance. PLASA are promoting this initiative too.

Professional bodies (such as the Engineering Council) require sustainability and environmental management issues to be part of accredited courses.

 

Overall, we may disagree with the science or its application, but this is an issue that won't go away (and not necessarily because of climate change itself). So, yes, lampygirl and her tutors probably do need to ask the question.

 

Simon

ex environmental analyst and slight ecosceptic.

[ramdram]

I don't "know" about the green aspect and as mentioned earlier it's probably a "greenwash" sort of thing. (Good eco sceptic term that.)

 

However, what might be a useful exercise is to instill the notion of using less energy overall.

 

I can only describe one of the venues where I do volunteer everything and it was a common sight to see almost all the lanterns blazing away...during the day...with NOBODY in the auditorium. When challenged, the tech manager manque had no plausible explanation at all. The lanterns had been set for the next show the night before when the place was in darkness, ergo no need to light them up at all, until early evening in time to change any duffers before curtain up.

 

And, for some unknown reason he had turned off the pre heats on the dimmers and simply switched everything on and all channels to maximum warp when he arrived on duty. The bill for new bubbles was horrendous....but not as horrendous as the lecky bill.

 

Same with the smoke machines...DMX circuits tested to virtual depletion of the fluid...not to mention filling the space so you could not see the stage from the control box...I mean that literally btw. In the end the SM would simply switch the kit off backstage until the stage cleared enough for the actors to know where the audience was...usually listening out for the sound of coughing to die out...before even attempting a few words.

 

Same as the sound system; amp up to max and some rubbish playing to an empty theatre. The times we had to replace the light bulbs in our Eons...Why you may ask? Because the boy was an idiot. We all know someone like that, so this sheer waste of energy is being repeated across the planet.

 

IF these youngsters had been taught to preserve energy, until the show starts, sort of thing, we would not have to worry so much about "green issues".

 

It's good housekeeping that should be taught, not all getting around for a group hug to discuss the environment and banging on about being green and hugging trees.