In his free gift with the Mail on Sunday, the Artist Currently Known As Prince managed in a single sentence to sum up the Gaia hypothesis and 2000 years of Christianity. "Planet Earth must now come into balance with the one that caused it all to be," he wisely sang. The world's in a bit of a mess and the Purple One suspects we might not be caring sufficiently for the "water and fragile atmosphere". He is not alone in his concerns.
Think of all the greenhouse gases released in pub conversations debating the merits of flying musicians to perform in Al Gore's Live Earth concerts. Then think of the artists from every discipline who are making the environment a central concern of their work.
I've just read, for example, The Burning, the debut novel by Thomas Legendre, in which an economist frets about the failure of standard economic models to account for the true value of natural resources and the consequent impact on global warming. At the forthcoming Edinburgh Fringe you can join comedian Mark Watson on his 24 Hour Jamboree to Save the Planet and join his Crap at the Environment network. Or you can pass your guilt onto the kids by sending them to Green Meanie, "an ecological allegory for children."
This is all well and good, but what if artistic activity itself is bad for the environment? Can you weigh Prince's good intentions against all the extra copies of the Mail on Sunday? (Even one copy of that misanthropic paper seems excessive to me.) Is it enough for the Live Earth people to "showcase the latest state-of-the-art energy efficiency, on-site power generation and [deathly phrase] sustainable facilities management practices"? Is it self-defeating to go to a power-guzzling theatre to watch a play about saving the planet?
In London, the Arcola Theatre has decided to take action. This week the seven-year-old organisation has launched a project called Arcola Energy and aims to become the world's first carbon-neutral theatre by installing biomass heating, solar panels and fuel cells. It is going a step further by creating the first centre for new energy technology in the arts, providing space for engineers to develop ways to tackle climate change and making a place for arts and science professionals to come together.
It's a positive move and the good news is the Arcola isn't alone. Researching an article on theatre and the environment earlier this year, I spoke to architect Steve Tompkins who was behind the three-year refurbishment of London's Young Vic. "Green thinking was central to the redesign," he said. "Sustainability is about quality of life, about delight, poetry and optimism, not just about solar panels. The two aren't mutually exclusive. A well-designed, passively ventilated, carefully shaded building with well controlled sunlight is also an enjoyable place to be."
It was a similar story with Paul Reynard at Plymouth Theatre Royal, whose use of staff education and "off-the-shelf" technology had reduced water consumption by a third and electricity by up to 25% in a year. "I'm not an eco-warrior, but I hate to see waste," he said. "It was more difficult than you might expect because people in the workplace think it doesn't matter if a light is left on or a tap is running because it's not coming out of their pocket. Theatre is a consumer of timber and metal and a lot of it can be reused, not just recycled, where previously it would go into a hole in the ground."
So what are the best examples of environmentally friendly theatre? Is it in Watson's Fringe show that takes place on the streets of Edinburgh? Or is it at London's Globe, where there's a big hole in the roof? Reply with your nominations - because, as Prince says, "the only thing between us now is the truth we understand".
