We knew that the live-action "Snow White," starring the uber-woke and uber-vocal Rachel Zegler, was the biggest grenade Disney has produced in some time. We knew that it lost a lot of money - even by Disney standards. More recently, we learned that Disney has stomped the brakes on a live-action "Tangled" movie, presumably until they can figure out how to make a live-action movie that doesn't suck.

My nine-year-old granddaughter will be disappointed in that last tidbit, but then, she hasn't seen the new "Snow White" yet.

See Also: The 'Snow White' Debacle Has Gotten Even Worse As the Final Losses for Disney Are Tabulated

Disney Cries 'Uncle,' Cancels Live-Action 'Tangled' Movie After Snow White's Box Office Bomb

But do you want to know how we can tell now that the new "Snow White" and all seven vertically-challenged people have been well and truly tossed under the bus? The film is now being attacked for its carbon emissions.

By analysing more than 250 Disney film sets, Snow White was revealed to have created at least 4,258 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

This was the second most polluting Disney film, after The Little Mermaid live action remake which contributed to 5,983 tonnes, since 2019 when the environmental reporting requirement was introduced.

The combined emissions total more than Birmingham's and Luton's annual CO2 contributions, according to The Observer.

Now, this information might have still been released, and the film production still criticized even had the movie been a roaring success, but I'm inclined to think not; as the old saying goes, "Success has a thousand fathers, while failure is an orphan." On that basis, "Snow White" is the red-headed stepchild of a rented mule.

Here's the giggle-inducing bit:

Snow White also created more greenhouse gases than the latest Fast & Furious film Fast X, despite the blockbuster principally being set around cars.

So, Vin Diesel and a bunch of hot cars roaring around the landscape produced lower carbon emissions than this Disney grenade. Makes you think, doesn't it?

According to the Daily Mail, CO2 emissions during film production come in three "scopes," the first being fuel emissions from generators that power the cameras and other equipment, making one wonder if the studios aren't connected to the grid for some reason. The second involves the creation of electricity, which is a little unclear since that's what the generators do. Or is this power off the grid? And finally, there are emissions tied to the delivery of services, presumably snacks and drinks for the crafts table and so on. Of course, none of that takes into account the gasoline burned getting actors/actresses to wherever they are staying to the studio, much less any of the various peripheral activities around the planning of the film.

In other words, it seems pretty clear there's some guesswork going on here, but then, that's hardly unusual where carbon emissions are concerned. It's tempting to point and laugh at this last straw on the Disney camel's back, and it's surely a sign that even the most woke are abandoning this grenade. A big success, of course, would have been forgiven the carbon emissions. Maybe Disney needs to reassemble the team that made "George of the Jungle," the one time Disney made a live-action film based on an animated television show and absolutely put it in the ten-ring.

Disney's got a long way to go to regain their former glory, although at this point, just making a film that won't make people want to walk out of an in-flight movie would be a step up.

Help RedState continue to tell the truth about the Trump administration's accomplishments as we continue to usher in the Golden Era of America. Join RedState’s VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership today.