How to Rank the Star Wars Films, Green Edition: Aviation Emissions From Best to Worst

4/5/2026

Star Wars left in the Tunisian desert at one of the location sites. Image by Rod Long on Unsplash.

Aircraft for spacecraft

bCoinciding with Star Wars Day in 2018, I ranked the franchise’s canon feature films according to the amount of screen time that named, speaking women characters had in each case (you can still read my original blog post, and a related article accounting for gender and racial inequalities).

This year, I’m in the middle of writing a book, A Star Wars World, which explores the franchise’s use of labour and nature around the world, with case studies examining how production specifically impacts on people, animals, and plants in Britain. For 2026, then, I want to turn attention to the potential environmental impacts of Star Wars. I’ve done so by calculating (approximate, indicative) greenhouse gas emissions produced by crew taking flights between studios and location shoots.

The results are based on a single crew member flying between each film’s production bases, which are/were studios near airports in San Francisco, London, and Sydney, to places used for location shoots.

My calculations suggest that the 2018 spin-off film Solo has the lowest emissions at 4084 kg CO2e. The worst, with the highest emissions, is the 2005 prequel film Revenge of the Sith at 17501 kg CO2e.

Findings are listed in Table 1, or via a PDF for screen-readers at the end of the page.

Table 1. Table showing estimated greenhouse gas emissions as an equivalent of carbon dioxide (kg CO2e) produced by one crew member flying to all the locations used during production for each of Star Wars films, with time in whole years for a mature tree* to sequester the equivalent carbon.

*Tree-planting is not a solution for human overconsumption of carbon. (The chances of a 20-year old mature tree surviving deforestation and overdevelopment and making it to 194 are surely low). I’ve included the number of years it’d take a mature tree to sequester the equivalent amount of carbon produced by the flights for each film only to help make the results more tangible. Data used to make these calculations can be found here.

Just behind Revenge of the Sith is Attack of the Clones (2002) at 14823 kg CO2e. The results might come as a surprise given that these two films were the first in the franchise to be shot entirely digitally with frequent use of greenscreen technology. However, Star Wars histories (such as Trisha Biggar’s 2005 official account in Dressing A Galaxy) suggest that the prequel’s producers celebrated excess and over-consumption. It’s in keeping with the films’ aesthetics of imperial superabundance that the prequel titles would have high aviation emissions.

Other practical and digital production activities may generate emissions equivalent to or exceeding those produced by flying, and challenge our assumptions about the environmental sustainability of various technologies. For example, in a study for the Environmental Impact of Filmmaking project, my co-author and I found that digital animation often leads to higher emissions than practically making props and costumes. While Solo appears to have the lowest emissions count based on my flight data, it may score poorly if accounting for all aspects of production.

Carbon calculators like the one offered by industry certifier BAFTA albert do help. But as academics and industry practitioners alike attest, even the albert tool is limited, as it does not fully account for the breadth and scope of production activities. It’s challenging to quantify every aspect of the filmmaking process, especially when you consider global supply chains.

It’s also crucial to keep in mind that emissions produce a particular kind of environmental harm. Greenhouse gas emissions comprising carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, fluorocarbons, and other substances—we reductively refer to them as ‘carbon’ emissions for ease—can provide us with what seem like neat, quantifiable and comparative datasets related to global heating. They do not give us vital information about other harmful outcomes of huma activity, though. These include: waste production; light, sound, heat, and chemical pollution; water consumption; and impacts on natures, including the disturbance of people, animals, and plants, which could cause or contribute to population declines.

Consequently, my ranking of the Star Wars films by aviation emissions is not so much a definitive list as a spotlighting exercise that uses the data to focus our attention on broader ecological and ethical concerns about blockbuster filmmaking practices.

Below, you’ll find a rationale for the exercise, some notes on my method, an appendix on airports and routes, and some suggested further reading.

Skellig Michael, off the coast of Ireland, was another location visited for a shoot. Photo by By Jerzy Strzelecki - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Commons Wikimedia.

Why Aviation Emissions for Star Wars Productions?

Human-caused global heating is contributing to what scientists call the sixth mass-extinction of life on Earth. As numerous studies (such as these ones by Interdigital and Arup) point out, both the aviation and the screen industries contribute massively to our production of greenhouse gases, which are a major cause of harmful climatic change.

Blockbuster-scale films like those in the Star Wars franchise warrant particular scrutiny for three main reasons.

First, the resource intensity of their production. Many industry figures say that despite sustainability initiatives being commonplace, the films are getting bigger and more resource intensive, not less so. The likely outcome is an increased industry contribution to global heating.

Second, the neo-colonial implications of Global North media exploiting and impacting on communities and natures in the Global South. Star Wars production is extractivist (relying on mining of metals and minerals for computer hardware, oil for fuels and energy production, etc.), and enriches corporations in the USA and UK while producing poor labour and environmental conditions for workers and natures globally. The result of extractivism tends to be increased inequality and worsening outcomes for affected human, animal, and plant lives.

Third, the role that we as audiences can potentially play in agitating for more ecologically sustainable media making. This blog post doesn’t go so far as to offer potential solutions (I’ve published some recommendations elsewhere, and more will appear in A Star Wars World). But it’s important that we’re attentive to the various ways that the films we like, love, and engage with are produced—perhaps especially so when the producers are multinational corporations that frequently evade accountability to governments, and us.

People will have different stances on how we might act to bring about change. My research-informed position is that blockbuster-scale production cannot feasibly continue if we want to live in a more socially and environmentally just world.

Notes on Method

The calculations are based on just one member of crew travelling to every site (whether a studio or location shoot, capturing principle or plate footage) for the duration of each film’s production. I used the ICAO carbon emissions calculator (created by the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organization) except for the USA domestic flight between San Francisco and Yuma, which required the myclimate tool.

Calculations assume that where England was the studio ‘home’ for a production then a crew member would fly back there following each location shoot trip in Europe, North Africa, or West Asia. Where Australia was the production base, that’s the return point for location shooting in South and East Asia. Location shoots in North and South America involve return flights from the USA owing to the franchise’s digital production in California (with Skywalker Ranch and Industrial Light & Magic facilities located near San Francisco). The assumed routes and airports are listed in Appendix A below.

During production for the second two prequel films, I’ve generously assumed that crew moved from one North African or European location to another rather than flying to and from Australia, except where no direct routes existed. In these cases, I’ve assumed the crew member would fly via England, where studio work was still being undertaken.

Regarding airports, I’ve assumed crew used the nearest airport to a main filming site. Many more domestic flights would have been taken, though—especially in places like Tunisia and England, where numerous locations have been used across both countries. My ordering of flights does not necessarily follow the actual production order.

Calculations are for the main production period only and do not include flights taken during pre-production. Star Wars histories are rich with details relating to travel, for example, detailing ILM staff travelling between the USA and England during production for Return of the Jedi, and the costume designer’s extensive international travel to source fabrics for The Phantom Menace. However, attempting to tracing the precise itineraries of hundreds of crew members is beyond the scope of this exercise. Similarly, the vast amount of freight including props, sets, costumes, rigging, and cameras needed to support production (and some of which may be hired locally) is not accounted for here.

Finally, the calculator doesn’t allow users to factor in changing fuel efficiencies over time, so all the figures are based on average emissions per flight at the time of writing in 2026. Planes and fuel use now will be more efficient than in, say, 1976, so to account for that and the higher emissions of executives flying in first class, I’ve used business class as the standard where possible.

The outcome is that these figures, even for a single crew member, are extremely conservative. George Lucas, the Star Wars series’ creator and director of four franchise films, is in the top 25 individuals for private jet use in the world at the time of writing; his Star Wars-related flights alone would likely dwarf the numbers I’ve come up with here. The aim of my exercise is to draw attention to the intense resource use of blockbuster film producers, which, even at the most generously low estimate, are evidently cause for concern in the context of human-caused global heating.

APPENDIX A: Airports and Routes Used to Calculate kg CO2e for Each Film

A New Hope
USA (San Francisco), England (Heathrow), Tunisa (Tunis for numerous sites), England (Heathrow), USA (San Francisco), Guatemala (Guatemala City for Tikal), USA (San Francisco)

The Empire Strikes Back
USA (San Francisco), England (Heathrow), Norway (Oslo), England (Heathrow), USA (San Francisco)

Return of the Jedi
USA (San Francisco), England (Heathrow), USA (San Francisco), USA (Yuma), USA (San Francisco)

The Phantom Menace
USA (San Francisco), England (Heathrow), Tunisia (Tunis for numerous sites), England (Heathrow), Italy (Naples for Caserta), England (Heathrow), USA (San Francisco)

Attack of the Clones
USA (San Francisco), England (Heathrow), Tunisia (Tunis for numerous sites), Italy (Milan for Lake Como), Spain (Seville), England (Heathrow), Australia (Sydney via Zayed), England (Heathrow via Zayed), USA (San Francisco)

Revenge of the Sith
USA (San Francisco), England (Heathrow), Tunisa (Tunis for numerous sites), Italy (Catania for Mount Etna), Switzerland (Zurich for Grindelwald), England (Heathrow), Australia (Sydney via Zayed), China (Guilin Liangjiang via Shangai for Guilin), Thailand (Phuket via Chengdu Tianfu for Phang Nga Bay), England (Heathrow via Zayed), USA (San Francisco)

The Force Awakens
USA (San Francisco), England (Heathrow), Abu Dhabi (Zayed International), England (Heathrow), Iceland (Reykjavik for Krafla volcano), England (Heathrow), Ireland (Farranfore from Stanstead for Skellig Michael), England (Heathrow), USA (San Francisco)

Rogue One
USA (San Francisco), England (Heathrow), Maldives (Malé and Kadhdhoo Airport via Zayed for Laamu Atoll), England (Heathrow via Zayed), Jordan (Queen Alia), England (Heathrow), Iceland (Reykjavik for Krafla volcano), England (Heathrow), USA (San Francisco)

The Last Jedi
USA (San Francisco), England (Heathrow), Ireland (Farranfore from Stansted for Dingle Peninsula), England (Heathrow), Iceland (Heathrow), England (Heathrow), Croatia (Dubrovnik), England (Heathrow), USA (San Francisco), Bolivia (Alcantarí via Atlanta, Bogota, Santa Cruz Viru Viru for Salar de Uyuni), USA (San Francisco)

Solo
USA (San Francisco), England (Heathrow), Italy (Venice for Misurina), England (Heathrow), Canary Islands (Gatwick for Fuerteventura), England (Heathrow), USA (San Francisco)

The Rise of Skywalker (2018, for 2019)
USA (San Francisco), England (Heathrow), Jordan (Queen Alia), England (Heathrow), USA (San Francisco)

Blog