Why it's okay that art emits more carbon dioxide than domestic air travel

The contribution of art and culture to CO₂ emissions in France is twice as high as that of domestic air travel, reports the newspaper Le Monde. This is based on research by the French Ministry of Culture, which will be published on Monday. According to the study, the visual and performing arts are responsible for 1.3 percent of CO₂ emissions, with the Paris Opera alone burning through almost 43 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, although the figures were not broken down by vocal range. The festival season, which is just beginning, is also considered particularly harmful to the environment, with a large proportion of the audience arriving by plane and car.

It's actually good and right to look at the carbon footprints of cultural institutions and event organizers. This also helps determine where the most carbon dioxide is produced: in the performance of the art itself, in the stage sets, in the heating or cooling of the institutions, in ticketing, in the commuting of stars, or in the audience's travel. Only then can we figure out where savings can be made – and where, please, not. When walking the tightrope between artistic freedom and environmental protection, one can – as so often happens – fall off the wagon on either side.

I have a lasting memory of Katie Mitchell's energy-neutral theater performance "Breathe," in which the actors themselves had to provide the lighting using bicycle dynamos. This was also justified in the context, and the eco-characters soon agreed that we shouldn't bring any more children into the world. Not because the world was so bad for children, but the other way around. They left the theater with mixed feelings and hardly dared to breathe out. That's not a long-term solution, or one we aspire to as individuals.

Art and culture are indispensable

When compared to domestic air travel and the question of what to forgo, art and culture can only win. Unlike with domestic flights, in art we must distinguish between qualitative and quantitative savings. First and foremost, carbon dioxide emissions are a sign of life. The best thing would be to produce ever higher-quality art and culture. All the better if we emit as little CO₂ as possible in the process. But this differentiation is inappropriate for domestic flights; here the goal is much clearer and should be pursued consistently: Make them superfluous. Reduce them to zero. You're not foregoing anything. As soon as the train is developed into a reliable and convenient alternative. There is no alternative to art and culture.