The Not-So-Green Witch: Carbon footprint of Wicked films revealed
UK government data show two blockbuster productions generated emissions on par with thousands of cars, driven by elaborate on-location sets and fuel use
New data from UK government sources, cited by The Times, show that the two Wicked films produced a substantial carbon footprint. The emissions were equivalent to running about 5,019 cars for a year, according to the Times report citing government data. The emissions were about 13 times higher than the new Knives Out thriller and nearly four times higher than Deadpool & Wolverine.
Both Wicked films were shot concurrently in the United Kingdom using lavish real-life sets for their most elaborate sequences, a production choice that the report notes significantly boosted the carbon tally. The projects were overseen by Western Sky Limited, a Universal Pictures unit, and relied on large-scale on-location builds rather than sole reliance on computer-generated imagery. In the on-site builds, producers erected intricate environments such as Shiz University and Munchkinland on farmland overlooking the Grand Union Canal near Ivinghoe, Buckinghamshire, and traced the Elphaba-Nessa journey along the Cuckmere River near Seaford, East Sussex. A drone view of the Buckinghamshire set illustrates the scope of these constructions.
The Times report details a striking array of real-world features: nine million tulips planted to recreate Munchkinland, a full-sized 48-ton train built to travel to the Emerald City, and sets towering as high as 50 feet, including a 20-foot-high rotating library. The scale of the builds meant longer heating and lighting requirements, translating into higher fuel use on site and greater overall emissions. The films’ reliance on physical sets for major moments stands in contrast to a CGI-centric approach that some productions adopt to reduce on-site energy demand.
Emissions are broken down into three categories, known as scopes. Scope 1 covers emissions from direct fuel use on set, such as diesel or gas used by generators powering cameras, lighting, and heaters. Scope 2 accounts for emissions from electricity produced on-site, while Scope 3 captures indirect emissions from suppliers and services connected to the production. For Wicked, the first two scopes alone totaled more than three times the annual output of Blackpool Pleasure Beach and more than double the energy footprint attributed to the O2 Arena in London. Gas accounted for most of the energy usage, with some adoption of renewable diesel or hydrotreated vegetable oil and selective use of an electric heavy-duty truck and hybrid generators.
Beyond the films themselves, the report situates the Wicked projects within a broader UK context. Hollywood productions have increasingly been drawn to Britain by tax incentives, including a film tax relief that offers up to 25 percent back on eligible UK expenditure if at least 10 percent of the production costs are spent in the country. The Times notes that the combination of competitive incentives, skilled crews, and varied landscapes helps attract big-budget productions, even as environmental costs come under sharper scrutiny.
The new data emphasize that emissions from fuel use typically constitute the largest portion of a production’s carbon footprint, followed by electricity use and supply-chain activities. Limitations in infrastructure on sound stages—such as limited grid power access or charging points—can impede electrification on set, prompting producers to rely more on gas-powered generators and other fossil-fuel-dependent equipment. While some productions are experimenting with renewable diesel, hydrotreated vegetable oil, and electrified machinery, the Wicked shoot demonstrates how the choice to build expansive on-location sets can disproportionately increase emissions.
Comments from Universal Pictures were requested but not immediately available for this report. The analysis highlights a tension facing the film industry: balancing high-fidelity, immersive visuals that audiences expect with ongoing efforts to reduce environmental impact. While CGI and other digital approaches offer greener alternatives, producers often weigh these against artistic and practical considerations, including on-set realism and safety.
As climate considerations gain prominence across sectors, the industry is under increasing pressure to adopt mitigations—from advancing electrification of production facilities and fleets to expanding the use of on-location planning that minimizes fuel burn, and leveraging increasingly efficient, lower-emission power sources. The Wicked case adds to a broader conversation about how big productions can reconcile creative ambitions with environmental responsibilities, without diminishing the scale or spectacle that define contemporary filmmaking.