www.ecotheater.com

Yesterday I interviewed Monona Rossol, the tireless chemist, industrial hygienist, and artist. It was an eye opening conversation to say the least. Rossol, a woman with a varied background, is a well of information on health and safety in the arts. Her work with non-profit Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety (ACTS) takes her around the country, educating (and inspecting) all kinds of arts facilities on the dangers inherent in the operation of their organizations.

I wanted to speak with Rossol because the toxic chemicals used in theater production are plentiful. I also thought she might be able to tell me what I wanted to hear: You can produce theater without all of this toxic stuff going every which way. But, she was not so cooperative. When we first began to talk, she asked me to remind her what it was I was writing about. I said, "Green theater." She laughed, saying, "Have you seen any? I haven't!" She then launched into a depressing litany of the realities of theatrical production, and the facilities and materials used to create it.

She cited four main points as the primary reasons for such poor health and safety behavior in the arts:
1) Insufficient education in health and safety. Academic institutions are simply not providing proper training to their theater students. Why? "They say, 'Well, that's how it is out in the real world, so they may as well learn it now,'" Rossol told me, adding that "school is supposed to be the place where you have the time and the patience and care about a student [enough] to teach them the right thing."
2) The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is under funded, and so cannot enforce safety regulations. "They only show up after the accident," Rossol said.
3) The fines meted out by OSHA are too weak, according to Rossol, who believes that arts organizations consider the fines nothing more than "the cost of doing business."
4) According to Rossol, who has worked hard to implement changes in theaters across the country, arts organizations don't tolerate whistle blowers. "If you're the one to complain [about a safety infraction], you're a wet blanket," Rossol said. "It's much easier to fire you than it is to fix the problem."

There are, however, bits of hope and progress scattered about too. Most notably is the crossover of enforcement that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has--a bureaucracy with a lot more teeth than OSHA. Rossol told me that the EPA's fines are much more effective than OSHA's, and thanks to the overlap of regulations, many of the infractions that OSHA misses are cited by the EPA.

And what about reducing the toxic materials in theater production? Rossol dismissed this notion pretty quickly. She said that folks just aren't informed enough about the hazards of any materials, whether they be touted as non-toxic or not. She also made what was for me the most important point of all: what do you mean when you say "green" anyway? There are, according to Rossol, two distinct considerations. The first is whether something is safe for humans; the second is whether something is safe for the environment. And unfortunately, the two do not always meet. As an example, Rossol tells me about some of the green products that have become popular in home use. For instance, biodegradable laundry detergents, Rossol claims, may be better for the earth, but can be much more toxic to humans than phosphate based products. The same goes, she says, for many of the earth friendly home cleaning products.

So, what gives? Good question. After speaking with Rossol it seems to me that, once again, looking at issues with an either/or, black-and-white attitude is counterproductive. Certainly, we can't expect to rid the world of theatrical production of all toxins and dangers, but we can certainly do better than we have. We must also learn to strike a balance between what's good for the planet, and what's good for our bodies. That said, what is bad for the planet is also usually bad for us and our bodies--perhaps not in the immediate way that most concerns Rossol, but certainly in the long term. This has been proven time and time again through the blatantly irresponsible actions of corporations contaminating ground water and air, making their employees and the surrounding communities ill for decades.

But what can theater artists do? First, those theater artists (and educators) in positions of power--especially production managers, technical directors, prop managers, costume shop managers, and others like them--can begin taking the regulations that OSHA and the EPA have in place seriously. Contact Monona Rossol at ACTS and ask for advice about cleaning up your shops, making them friendlier and safer for your staff and the environment. Also, it might be advisable to read one of Rossol's books, like The Artists Complete Health and Safety Guide.

Remember that Rossol is primarily concerned (and justifiably) with the health and safety of people, but her expertise runs very deep, and she is quite informed on all sorts of matters that concern efficiency, safety, pollution, and health. She is also a very busy woman, and reports that she fields about 35 inquiries per day. Add your name and organization to that list--your employees and your community will be forever grateful.

I live in Austin, Texas. I have spent the last nearly three years working in many of the theaters here. I'm about to leave this town--not because I dislike it, or harbor any ill will toward it, but simply because life has called me elsewhere. As I prepare to head north (to Madison, Wisconsin), with visions of taking my theater life in a green direction, a good friend of mine, and active theater artist in Austin, Natalie George, has started talking about a far-off idea that's begun to germinate here: a theater co-op that would enable the Austin theater community to pool resources, thereby reducing waste and promoting sharing. The idea hasn't gone much further than the initial brainstorm stage, but it's a good dang start.

Natalie, along with local artists Connor Hopkins and Thomas Graves (both company members of Austin's very cool Rude Mechs), are hoping to open a shop facility for use by various local theater companies. This would be the first step in establishing a more sustainable process for theatrical production. Of course, this would be limited to the generally small companies in town--perhaps the Rude Mechs, Refraction Arts Project @ The Blue Theatre, The City Theatre, The Vortex, Salvage Vanguard, among others I'm sure, as well as small dance companies. In other words, the folks already not stepping with too large a footprint on the planet.

But, hey, listen, this is action, and action I can appreciate. That's the central problem with being a writer that tends to keep to himself. My action is here, and hopefully in my future writing work. I hope that the idea--organized by Thomas Graves, it should be noted--comes to fruition and leads the innovative artists in Austin to a place where they can feel good about not just their work, but how their work gets done too. Hmmm..sort of makes me sad I'm leaving Austin now.

I'm hoping to talk with Thomas and Connor about this project in more detail, and will write a more comprehensive entry when I've got more info.

May 2, 2007 - Austin's Co-Production Collective, part II

Thomas Graves is a man after my own heart. I've been searching for him for a long time. Wait, does that sound odd? But it's true, and my wife need not be concerned. Graves is taking action in his community. More specifically, he's taking action in the Austin theater community. Spurred on by his colleagues ideas--equal parts misgiving and hope--he has formulated a plan for change. And it's nice to see such grassroots activism in the theater. Not activism or innovation in the way you might expect, though. As I wrote in my last entry here on ecoLogue, this activism is about making Austin theater more sustainable, in every sense of the word.

Graves has a well formed plan, designed to be accomplished in bite size bits. First on the list is establishing a web site with information about the project, as well as creating an online database of information for the city's small performing arts organizations. Included in the online offerings will be a "comprehensive list of contact info" for local technicians, designers, and managers, as well as "how-to" information on managing technical aspects of production, drafting contracts, and nitty gritty details like leading production meetings. Phases two through four of Graves' "co-production collective" game plan will build momentum, beginning with the hosting of workshops on all aspects of production in order to "build the skill set" of the community as well as promoting safe practices.

This will, Graves hopes, then lead to the creation of a collective inventory of "props, scenery, costumes, building materials, and basic tools that are shared among performance groups in Austin." This, for me, is the critical step in helping the theaters of Austin maintain a more ecologically sound mode of production. How? It will allow small companies to avoid the constant need to evaluate what to save and what to toss in the landfill at the end of each production. While some items will inevitably still find a way to the dump, the decision making process will be alleviated by the knowledge that they can simply contribute their scenery, props, and costumes to the co-production collective, confident that the items will be available for their (and others) use in the future should they need them. The sharing of tools and other basic needs for production will help those companies that cannot afford their own, in addition to preventing over consumption.

The final planned phase of the project will be the opening of a "professional production house," for the communal use of all members. This will allow for a safer production process--especially where performance groups with small or nonexistent shops are concerned.

The use of the co-production inventory will be regulated by a simple "giving structure" for participating groups, that can be utilized either through specific monetary donations per quarter or volunteer hours working in the facility.

The beauty of this project is that it is taking aim at many of the issues that make theater production so unsustainable by promoting sharing, locality, and waste reduction. And it looks like it can do this without putting a squeeze on anyone's pocket book (in fact, it just might save some performing arts groups some cash), in a safe, educational fashion.

May 3, 2007 - Is waste inherent in theater production?

In 2004, Andrew Lloyd Weber opened The Woman in White, which has so far been the only theatrical production to use projections to the crazy extent that it did. The projections, designed by William Dudley, were used for everything from scenery to props. The design was described to me by projection designer Michael Clark (700 Sundays, Jersey Boys) as something "that had to be tried--just to see how far they could take it." Clark also implied that the such use of projections is borderline irresponsible. Many people, I've been told, found the whole thing disorienting and irritating. I can't say what it was really like, because I never saw the show.

So, will such things become the future of theatrical production? Or, perhaps more importantly, should they? Projections, for sure, are on the rise in theater--it's an interesting development, and one undoubtedly fueled by the prominence of television and movies in our lives. But, the directions in which projections are headed will take theater beyond the typical 4:3 screen images, and into much more innovative and creative uses as in The Woman in White. And it may be the only thing that can save theater from its inherently wasteful practices--especially where big money theater is concerned. Austin's co-production collective won't work on Broadway (or even, for that matter, in big time regional, non-profit theater).

So, why projections? Well, today I spoke with Tom Rupp, who has been the technical director of CENTERSTAGE in Baltimore since 1986. (He's been building shows a long time. Before taking the job in Baltimore, he worked for Actors Theatre of Louisville for eight years.) When I asked him if there was really anything to be done about the waste generated in theatrical production, he considered the prospect carefully. He spoke about how his shop uses a great deal of steel ("about 60%," of all scenery they build he said), which is always salvaged and recycled. "There's no profit margin there," he said, telling me that the price they get for the steel barely pays for the gas they have to put in the truck to get it to the scrap yard. "The unfortunate reality," he said, "is that typically your best and worst work is going to end up in the dumpster." With a materials budget of roughly $18,000 per show, Rupp buys a lot of lumber, and is not able (due to lack of storage and the uniqueness of the scenery) to keep most of it around after strike. Any way you look at it, that's some serious waste. But, is there any way to avoid it without limiting the artistic process? Rupp had a few ideas, but there are problems with all of them, and none of them really avoid the pesky need for creative freedom in the design process.

First, Rupp brought up aluminum--an easily recyclable material, but an expensive one. He also mentioned the tactic being touted by Thomas Graves, Connor Hopkins, and Natalie George in Austin: stock scenery. And then he mentioned holograms--or, projections. "Maybe in a few years all scenery will be holograms", he said, "and all we're building are step units and risers, and projecting everything." Perhaps, he chuckled, that was the future of theater. We could send the scenic artists and carpenters back to school to learn about projection technology. Maybe that's not such a bad idea.

May 8, 2007 - Critical elements of change...

Everyday I think about this subject more, and everyday I try to talk to someone who might help me see it a little more clearly. Most recently, I had lunch with Natalie George and Michael Massey, a theater professor at St. Edward's University in Austin. He is not an expert on this subject by any means, but just having the opportunity to speak with folks and get an idea of what they think is enormously helpful. Nowadays I even dream about green theater--and the question that keeps rolling around in my brain, persistent, nagging, is whether or not it's even possible. And, if it is, do those in power (the artistic directors, the business managers, the board members) care enough to make it happen? Or, maybe that's the wrong way of looking at it--the question really is: do they believe the issue is critical enough to influence the decisions they make about their mission, and their funding? I'm not sure. But I have come up with a rough list of the elements that are at the center of the dilemma, the things that must be scrutinized and addressed if any of us are to help curb the world's destructive path toward catastrophic environmental and human health dead ends.

1) The building --
    The buildings that house the performing arts may be the most detrimental to the environment of all. According to the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), commercial buildings are responsible for 70% of the electricity load in the United States. Furthermore, the USGBC estimates that "if half of new commercial buildings were built to use 50% less energy, it would save over 6 million metric tons of CO2 annually for the life of the buildings—the equivalent of taking more than 1 million cars off the road every year." Those numbers are staggering. What's worse, there is only one performing arts facility in the entire country that has taken the steps necessary to reduce its impact on the environment (see ecoLogue, April 26, 2007). This is not for lack of newly constructed or renovated facilities--consider the Guthrie's new spaces, for which they spent nearly $200,000 on "utilities" in 2005! If theater facilities did their part in reducing the negative role that buildings play in our lives, we would make enormous strides.

2) Theatrical lighting systems --
    Chris Coleman of Portland Center Stage (PCS) told me last month that the necessary lighting equipment for the new Gerding Theater made it difficult to meet the USGBC LEED Platinum rating. Other areas of efficiency were ramped up significantly on the project in order to offset the amount of energy required by the desired system. While theatrical lighting companies, such as Electronic Theatre Controls, Inc. (ETC), have made moves toward efficiency (witness ETC's ever popular line of Source Four equipment), they have a long, long way to go.

3) Material waste --
    This is a subject that has come up time and again in ecoLogue--even in its short life. The fact is, theatrical production revolves around a process of creation and subsequent destruction. So much effort is devoted to imagining, designing, and building theatrical scenery--and yet, very little (or so it would seem) goes into what happens to all of it once the final curtain has fallen on a production. And even those who do consider the demise of scenery, allowing it at times to weigh heavily on their minds (see May 3, "Is Waste Inherent in Theater Production?"), can only do so much. Remember, reuse and recycle come after the all important reduce. This must become the central word in theatrical production. The problem, of course, is our fear of limiting the artistic process. No artistic director in the world wants to tell his or her creative teams to limit themselves in order that they may reduce the waste generated by their productions. But, is there a time that artists must step forward and play a role in change, rather than merely using what they may to comment on it? Reducing the use of non recyclable materials alone would go a long way in reducing a theater's waste. Conceiving of a way to reuse and store (safely--perhaps off site) scenery would be another.

4) Toxic materials --
    Just have a look at the ecoLogue entry from April 27 up there ("Monona Rossol and the toxic, unsafe theater we create"), and you may begin to understand the often toxic stuff that we theater artists work with on a regular basis. Actually, that entry doesn't really go into detail, but suffice it to consider these fields: scenic carpentry (welding, working with foam of all sorts, adhesives, stains, finishes, et cetera), props (ditto), and costumes (including wigs, makeup, millinery, crafts and dye--all using a myriad of toxic chemicals). Of course, there are laws and regulations in place that dictate the safe use of these materials, as well as their proper disposal, but guess what? According to Monona Rossol of Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety (ACTS), most theaters don't abide the law. As has been written here before, simply acting in accordance with OSHA and EPA regulations would help reduce harm to both the environment and theater artists themselves.

There are, to be sure, other areas that will affect the environment and human health in theatrical production, but I think the four listed above are the worst offenders.

June 13, 2007 - New Avenues

You'll have to excuse my absence--my wife and I were traveling in Europe for a few weeks and also have relocated from near the bottom of the country to near the top. We now live, officially, in Madison, Wisconsin. It's a great town and we're both very excited to make it our home.

I've encountered a few other exciting things recently that have more to do with the topic at hand too. Thanks to now having some access to the enormous networking capabilities of Theatre Communications Group (TCG), I have made contact with someone who is doing his best to lead theater and live performance in a more sustainable direction.

On Friday (June 15) I attended one day of the Midwest Renewable Energy Association's (MREA) Renewable Energy and Sustainable Living Fair. On the way there I was pulled over by a Wisconsin State Trooper for traveling 5 mph above the speed limit. Huh? Anyway, after giving me a verbal warning ("Slow it down, okay?") he asked about the Energy Fair. I explained the gist of it and he went on to tell me that he owns sixty acres of land in the area and would love to put a wind farm on it. "Who could I contact about that?" he asked. I gave him a web site to check out, and I was on my way...

The fair lasts all weekend, but unfortunately I only made it up to Custer, Wisconsin for the first day of the fair. I attended to benefit my family and the building of our future home in the country outside of Madison, but of course am always reminded of the interconnectedness of it all--how much the act of building a sustainable, green home for myself and my family can affect our community, and the world at large in a positive way. (While I'm at it, I'd like to plug a book that I think should be read: The Sacred Balance, by David Suzuki. It is an inspiring, eye opening book, that reminds one of the often hidden, but so important connections in the Earth's systems.)

What it got me thinking about, though, was what an impact could be made by folks who manipulate the purse strings in the arts. I know, I know, some of you are thinking: what purse strings? But, they are there, and there are board members, and executive directors, and producing directors that control them. What if they made the same step I'm making with a home for their theater facilities?

Here in Wisconsin is a very cool outdoor theater in the country called American Players Theatre (APT). It has been around since about 1980 and has grown into a very successful, financially viable operation producing great classical theater with very high production values. I learned recently that they have begun a fundraising campaign to build an indoor theater facility in the nearby village of Spring Green. It sounds very exciting, but my first thought was, "are they going to build it green?" And if not, is it really so exciting? So, I contacted two members of the senior staff at the theater who are colleagues (perhaps you'd even call them friends) and asked if green building was on their radar. Fortunately, it is. But it also didn't sound to me as though it were necessarily a top priority. The gist was this: yes, we'd love to build green, but expect to be limited by a lack of funding and will build whatever we can afford to build, green or not. It reminded me of Chris Coleman of Portland Center Stage telling me that he initially didn't "get" why he should create a sustainable, green theater facility--and now still seems to see the project through the eyes of a marketing director rather than as having done something because it was the right thing to do.

The APT saga is only beginning to unfold. I sincerely hope that the APT powers that be (the ones with the purse strings, remember?) consider the matter carefully.

In New York City there is a law called local law 86. Passed in 2005, it has just now taken effect, and is responsible for at least one thing in the green theater movement so far: convincing (through brute force, I suppose) Theatre For A New Audience (TFANA) to build their new space in Brooklyn's BAM Cultural Center to meet Silver LEED status or better. Local law 86 states simply that any non City building (whether new construction or renovation) that receives either 50% of its capital or $10 million or more from NYC's treasury is subject to the constraints of the ordinance, which requires compliance with USGBC's LEED rating system. (It may be of note, that ALL city agency buildings are now required to meet this standard.)

I say that it convinced the historically vagabond theater company because that's exactly what TFANA Managing Director Dorothy Ryan told me just yesterday. "Our [initial] attitude was probably, well, if the up front cost isn't too high we'll certainly look at it," she said. "But other than that [green building] is a luxury." Fortunately, with the help of city funds, and local law 86, Ryan and the rest of TFANA have come to see the advantages of building green. "The really good part of this story," Ryan told me, "is that the more we've paid attention, the more we've learned, the more that we've really explored this, [green building] is something that our team has really embraced in a very genuine way."

Ryan's admission of TFANA's initial unwillingness seems to be further indication of a preexisting attitude in the arts. While the typical reaction to green building that theaters and their directors seem to have (so far we can cite Portland Center Stage, American Players Theatre, and TFANA--all initially opposed to green building) may be understandable for the frequently cash-strapped arts organization mindset, it is nevertheless slightly bothersome.

So, what is it? In the simplest of terms, it is the money. Michael Broh, production manager of American Players Theatre (APT), told me recently that though everyone involved with their new theater project is happy to consider the green building option, "if it came down to building a less sustainable building, or not building at all," he said, "I think we would build the less sustainable one." It is here that APT and I do not see eye to eye. The benefits, in my way of thinking, of adding an indoor space and possibly extending their operating season and expanding their repertoire, are not worth adding another conventional building (or two) to the world to further pollute and contaminate. Isn't the business of theater dirty enough? Must we add more of them? There must come a time when the artists (and, frankly, business folks) running the theaters own up to their responsibility to their communities the way they would expect any other business entity to do so. With the attitudes that seem to exist--the notion that there just isn't enough money to build green, to build conscientiously--one can only come to this conclusion: the driving force behind these projects is nothing but self-interest, and perhaps greed.

Ahem.

I am convinced that if more theater managers were either forced (as in the case of Dorothy Ryan and TFANA), or just took the time, to consider the long-term advantages of building green, most of them would come to the same sort of revelations that the folks at TFANA did. Perhaps all municipalities can follow in the footsteps of local law 86--there is nothing like folks with money (be they governments or rich benefactors) putting worthy conditions on the money they dole out.

Yesterday I spoke with Tom Key, executive artistic director of Theatrical Outfit- (TO)--the SPT at number five in my first greenList. Of all the theater leaders I have spoken with in the course of my research on green theater, I have so far been most impressed with Key. It wasn't that he is more intelligent, articulate, or charming--but, simply, that one can hear in his voice the sincerity of his actions as the artistic director of the first producing theater in the United States to build green.

Theatrical Outfit's theater, The Balzer Theater, was fully completed in January of 2005--over a year and a half before Portland Center Stage (PCS) gained such noteriety in the American theater community for their green renovation of Portland's historic armory building.

I asked Key (more than once--perhaps I couldn't believe my ears) why he and TO decided to build according to the USGBC's LEED rating system. He spoke of how intrigued he was, as a thirty-plus year Equity actor, by the idea of having "clean, quiet air" in his theater. He also said that he and the rest of the folks at TO wanted to be "good citizens," and talked about the savings, especially concerning water and sewage (Key says that as a result of the buildings rainwater capture system for use as graywater, they save about 70% on their water and sewage bills), that TO has already realized. At one point he said simply that TO "wanted to do the right thing." Not once did a marketing angle arise in our conversation--even after I asked if that had been a motivation. It wasn't, he said. When I asked what he tells other theater leaders when asked advice on going green, he says he tells them "to go for it." He has no regrets, no reservations, and seems to be the first person in such a position that sees his sustainably built theater as something that just needed to be done.

Remarkably, while the building cost TO about $5 million, Key claims that the cost of the building was raised only $200,000 as a result of adhering to LEED regulations. That's an additional cost of just 4%.

Their building, built in 1934, is a former restaurant called Herren's that held historical and cultural significance in downtown Atlanta because it was the first restaurant in the city to desegregate voluntarily. Theatrical Outfit retained the integrity of the exterior, but essentially gutted the inside, completely eliminating one of the three floors in order to give more room to their modest 199-seat, semi-thrust performance space.

I think we can say that Key and the rest of the crew at Theatrical Outfit most certainly did the right thing.

July 9, 2007 - A Small Voice

No one wants to hear what I have to say. I wonder, is it my tone--self-righteous? Is it the relatively small industry whose attention I am trying to get? Sometimes, even speaking with those in the theater world who are trying to make a difference, taking small but significant environmental steps toward the future, is like, well, pulling teeth.

The thing is, I love theater. I do. But, I can see the forest. Most people in theater cannot--they see only trees. Which is to say, most theater artists are committed to the art above all else. So, who am I to say that there are things more important than the art, there are things that artists (of all kinds) must be conscious of, must be responsible to. The health of our planet and our communities is certainly among them.

I have begun to envision my own kind of theater--one that puts responsibility to the community and the planet on an equal par with the work it produces. A truly green theater--an eco theater. With an environmental ethos written in stone, right into the mission, alongside producing quality theater. This would mean incorporating such concerns into every aspect of production, from the type of scenery used to the lighting systems and designs, to incentives at the box office to encourage audience members to travel to the shows as sustainably and conscientiously as possible. Everything must be considered. Can it be done? I don't know, but it seems like a worthwhile proposition to me.

July 11, 2007 - More good news...

I got an email from a friend the other day. The subject line: "Another green theater." It read:

Maybe one to add to the list:

http://www.bdcnetwork.com/article/CA6334919.html?industryid=42777

According to the article contained in the link on the web site of Building Design + Construction, the project, located in Charlotte, North Carolina is known as ImaginOn. It is a huge children's center that houses Children's Theatre of Charlotte, as well as a children's library. Though the article was written over a year ago and states that the project is awaiting LEED certification, the project has since been certified by the USGBC as a Silver rated project.

Looks like it is another one for the list, and I'll be sure to include it in my next greenList

July 13, 2007 - HELP!!

A friend of mine needs help with establishing a web site for his planned non profit initiative for greening up theater in America. He is searching for a kind, but talented soul who can design a professional web site pro bono. If you, or anyone you know, would be willing to lend a hand for this worthy cause, please get in touch.

July 14, 2007 - Is change inevitable? (Mike's birthday message)

Today is my thirty fourth birthday. And, as on most birthdays as one becomes more of an adult and less of a child, there is a strange combination of cynicism and hope in the air. At least in the air around my head.

The hope I hear in Georgia's voice. Georgia is my mother-in-law. She refuses to accept the cynically grounded message that I suppose could be considered inherent in ecoLogue--and that isn't to say that she won't or doesn't read it, but her heart leads her toward more positive messages. A week or so ago she gave me a copy of Paul Hawken's new book, Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No One Saw It Coming. The movement, according to Hawken, is the green or environmental movement. I haven't read much of the book yet (I'm working on a library book by Judith Levine called Not Buying It: My Year Without Shopping--but that's another story), but because I know Georgia is not an environmentalist and has read it, I most certainly will. If nothing else, I am interested in what sort of story or voice attracts a person who otherwise would rather not think about the sort of problems that I am trying to deal with here and in my work (and I'm not the only one--her son, my brother-in-law Andrew, is a twenty something who aspires to be an environmental lawyer and recently landed a coveted internship with the Environmental Law & Policy Center in Chicago--kudos, by the way, to Andrew!). But, I like to hear her hope, as blanketed in denial as it sometimes seems to be. It is an extreme sort of place to be, but it has merit, and I appreciate that.

But then there is the cynicism--or, as we cynics like to say--there is the reality. Maybe I'm in a different sort of place than folks like Georgia, maybe I see the world from a different place. I suppose we all have different vantage points, colored as they are by our lives up to this point, our upbringings, our wealth (or lack of), and many other complicated factors. But, in fairness to myself and other concerned environmental advocates like me, I like to think that our action, our concern, and our activism is motivated by hope in the end. If we couldn't see the hope, if we couldn't hear the hope in the voices of all the Georgia's, then we'd certainly be more likely to lay down and die--we simply would not see the point in making our case to the world.

Recently, I have interviewed a handful of the managing directors of some of the country's leading regional theaters. I have been speaking with them for a writing project unrelated to ecoTheater, but I have so far managed to get a couple of them to talk about their theater's green initiatives, or if they have any at all. In both cases, I like to think that I brought up a subject that was not on their radar, and in one case was surprised to hear a "thank you" of sorts, for inspiring the idea of a theater partnering with environmental organizations. For a managing director such a thing is, in many ways, an "angle," a way to reach out, a marketing tool, an unexplored funding niche--but that doesn't matter to me. I have learned in the last few months in speaking with both artistic and administrative leaders in American theater that the most important thing is making sure the subject appears, at first as nothing but a flickering blip, on their mental radar. I hope that I have accomplished that.

It seems that my cynicism drives my hope. Is that even possible? Well, either way, soon I will be posting about those conversations and others--I've been chatting quite a bit with theater folks the last couple of weeks...

July 19, 2007 - LEED standards don't stand in the way of artistic expression

Today I spoke with Scott Bowne, the production and facilites manager for Theatrical Outfit (TO)--number 5 on my Summer 2007 greenList. They may have been alphabetically #5, but chronologically, they were #1. Remember Tom Key ("We wanted to do the right thing"), TO's executive artistic director? Key was the first--and thus far, only--leader of a theater going (or gone) green to tell me without hesitation that he was eager to build green.

Since Bowne has only been in his current position with TO for less than a year, he's still trying to catch up with the idea of managing a green facility. And, unfortunately, the idea hasn't quite fully infiltrated their way of producing theater.

But, what was most interesting about our conversation was Bowne discovered that the USGBC wasn't interested in inhibiting theater artists from doing their jobs, and creating the kind of work they should. Bowne encountered this especially when TO was mounting a production of Doris Baizley's Shiloh Rules and the dilemma of using fog or haze came up. After putting a call into the equally-new-at-this-LEED-stuff staff of Portland Center Stage, Bowne says he was reassured to learn that the folks at the USGBC, while concerned about the air quality issues of theatrical fog or haze, weren't in the business of telling artists how to create art. Of course, such issues are not new to the theater business either, and Bowne still had to keep in mind the health of the performers and audience. Since TO's Balzer Theatre has a state of the art ventilation system that monitors CO2 levels while introducing fresh outside air to control air quality, the hazing issue became one that caused little problems. The Balzer's ventilation dissapated the haze so quickly that it became somewhat of a non issue. "We decided not to combat that," Bowne said, and so the haze made brief appearances at the top of each act.

The hope is that Bowne will continue to learn and grow into his position (which he has held for less than a year, after a long career with Alliance Theatre). He has the opportunity to make a difference with a company that has already taken huge steps in their commitment to sustainability.

July 20, 2007 - NYTW leads the way toward a green future for American theater

I've written a lot in ecoLogue about LEED, the USGBC, and green building in general. It seems to be the area given the most credence and taken most seriously by everyone. But, as I believe I've written before, it isn't the only way for theaters to improve their sustainability and take action to lessen their waste, and pollution contributions.

Michael Casselli is the production manager for New York Theatre Workshop (NYTW), the company that appeared at #2 on my Summer 2007 greenList primarily for the upcoming green renovation of their shop facilities. But what might be most significant about Casselli and NYTW is that their commitment to sustainable theatrical production extends far beyond building according to LEED standards, as they plan to do with their shop facilities. They want to green up their entire production process, from top to bottom, and Casselli is hard at work making that happen. He is blessed with leadership at NYTW that believes that making production sustainable is not only a worthy goal, but one that requires commitment--a commitment they are willing to make. Therefore, he is in a quite unique position to make a difference. Environmental concerns are a constant part of Casselli's style of management, and he considers every step of the process of putting up a show--from how designs might be implemented in more environmentally friendly ways, to how to reduce waste by reusing, recycling and providing used materials to area non profits and artists for resue. At the close of a production, for instance, Casselli places an ad on craigslist letting the community know that most production materials that would normally be thrown in the dumpster will be available for pick up and reuse. He estimates that NYTW donated about 80% of their production of All That I Will Ever Be in this fashion, with non profits likeBrooklyn's 3rd Ward reaping the benefits.

But, I ask Casselli, what about the cost? What about the lack of time to devote to worrying about such things? I mean, you've got shows to put on, you're a non profit, you have funding issues, I'm sure, like all non profits--isn't this all a waste of time and money? I ask because this is what I have found the standard attitude toward the type of thing Casselli is doing to be, and I'm curious what he thinks of it. "That argument is cynical and very counterproductive for the long term ideal," he says. "Not only for the industry, but for the planet itself."

"At some point," he continues, "people have to stop saying that because we're expending resources at such a rate that eventually stuff is going to run out. It's not leading us down a very good path." He also has little sympathy for those who claim to not have the information to make the sort of changes needed to ensure sustainability. "If you don't have the know-how, get the know-how," he says simply, challenging production managers, technical directors, and others to do the right thing.