Is F1 about to experience a climate change debate related existential crisis?

[AJI]

Is F1 about to experience a climate change debate related existential crisis?
Your honest opions on the subject are valued.

Personally, I think yes!

Ps Maybe the mods can move some of the debate from '2020 Australian GP might be threatened' to here?

[Maplesoup]

Majority of emissions are from transport not the actual sport itself. Air and sea freight are heavy on pollution, the discussion shouldn't be able how the sport can decrease the carbon emissions, we need planes and ships that run on biofuels or renewables.

[3jawchuck]

F1 is aiming to be carbon neutral at least: https://www.fia.com/news/formula-1-anno ... arbon-2030

If the sport is to continue to exist, there probably has to be a conscious effort to incorporate and even be at the forefront of the technological development that will aid in making us less polluting in general. Softer methods, like not travelling to and not holding events in places that refuse to do their part in the reduction of emissions would also be a good idea.

[Scorpaguy]

...another huge energy outlay for the sport is all of us uncaring, earth-killing fans that insist on traveling to these races. We use kerosene spewing jets for transport, spectate from purpose built facilities that have virtually no other use, eat/drink from single use plastic utensils, and buy crap souvenirs made from sweatshops. Seems the world would be a better place if we just picked a more sustainable hobby. I know I will...


...nah!

[AJI]

Majority of emissions are from transport not the actual sport itself...

It was posted in one of the other topics that the fans traveling to and from the events (or any major event for that matter) are far more damaging than the sport itself. F1 just has the triple whammy because the sport is based on burning hydrocarbon with no emissions restrictions and it's superstar image requires superstar support and travel.

Removing 5 events from the season would be the simplest way to massively reduce F1 emissions.

[AJI]

...another huge energy outlay for the sport is all of us uncaring, earth-killing fans that insist on traveling to these races. We use kerosene spewing jets for transport, spectate from purpose built facilities that have virtually no other use, eat/drink from single use plastic utensils, and buy crap souvenirs made from sweatshops. Seems the world would be a better place if we just picked a more sustainable hobby. I know I will...


...nah!

Is that a 'not' joke?

[Jolle]

Majority of emissions are from transport not the actual sport itself...

It was posted in one of the other topics that the fans traveling to and from the events (or any major event for that matter) are far more damaging than the sport itself. F1 just has the triple whammy because the sport is based on burning hydrocarbon with no emissions restrictions and it's superstar image requires superstar support and travel.

Removing 5 events from the season would be the simplest way to massively reduce F1 emissions.

Reducing the amount of races is not sustainable and deleting five races only cuts the impact by 25%.

I wonder how much of the environmental impact comes from the race teams (the stuff we love) and how much is from the circus around it.

At the moment Fornula one is limitless in about everything. For starters... work with local catering, no silly huge motor homes, the whole FIA village, etc etc. There are about 30 engineers per team looking at screens at every race at the track. Just do stuff like that more at the factory. Have races make their side of the event less wasteful. Etc etc.

[AJI]

Reducing the amount of races is not sustainable and deleting five races only cuts the impact by 25%.
...

Why is reducing the amount of races not sustainable and 25% is a HUGE reduction that could be introduced for the 2021 season.
Let's start with the bore-fest tracks. Sochi, it was nice knowing you, but it's just not working out...

[LM10]

Reducing the amount of races is not sustainable and deleting five races only cuts the impact by 25%.
...

Why is reducing the amount of races not sustainable and 25% is a HUGE reduction that could be introduced for the 2021 season.
Let's start with the bore-fest tracks. Sochi, it was nice knowing you, but it's just not working out...

25% is a huge reduction, yes, but it's pretty insignificant related to worldwide emissions - as is F1 in general. The entire F1 emissions in 2018 were at about 250 k tons, making it less than 0,001% of global emissions in that year.

First step should be reducing emissions for traveling. As for cars, there is no faster way doing that than let F1 engineers do what they do best - innovating.

[AJI]

Reducing the amount of races is not sustainable and deleting five races only cuts the impact by 25%.
...

Why is reducing the amount of races not sustainable and 25% is a HUGE reduction that could be introduced for the 2021 season.
Let's start with the bore-fest tracks. Sochi, it was nice knowing you, but it's just not working out...

25% is a huge reduction, yes, but it's pretty insignificant related to worldwide emissions - as is F1 in general. The entire F1 emissions in 2018 were at about 250 k tons, making it less than 0,001% of global emissions in that year.

First step should be reducing emissions for traveling. As for cars, there is no faster way doing that than let F1 engineers do what they do best - innovating.

I'm Australian, and we're currently using the 'we're only a tiny part of the problem so stop picking on us because even if we make a 100% reduction it's insignificant' argument.

Whether it is significant or not is besides the point. That statement is hurting our public image.
I see that statement being used in this thread regarding F1.

Re: innovation
They don't seem to be too keen on innovating a new cat and particulate filter onto the back of an F1 car that could revolutionise the ICE emmissions for the automative industry.

[Zynerji]

Why is reducing the amount of races not sustainable and 25% is a HUGE reduction that could be introduced for the 2021 season.
Let's start with the bore-fest tracks. Sochi, it was nice knowing you, but it's just not working out...

25% is a huge reduction, yes, but it's pretty insignificant related to worldwide emissions - as is F1 in general. The entire F1 emissions in 2018 were at about 250 k tons, making it less than 0,001% of global emissions in that year.

First step should be reducing emissions for traveling. As for cars, there is no faster way doing that than let F1 engineers do what they do best - innovating.

I'm Australian, and we're currently using the 'we're only a tiny part of the problem so stop picking on us because even if we make a 100% reduction it's insignificant' argument.

Whether it is significant or not is besides the point. That statement is hurting our public image.
I see that statement being used in this thread regarding F1.

Re: innovation
They don't seem to be too keen on innovating a new cat and particulate filter onto the back of an F1 car that could revolutionise the ICE emmissions for the automative industry.

Doesn't the thermal efficiency gains of current F1 engines help remove the need for a cat already?

[AJI]

Doesn't the thermal efficiency gains of current F1 engines help remove the need for a cat already?

I assume it helps, but I don't think you could consider them clean enough to not use a cat..? Pehaps someone with more knowledge on the subject can chime in?

I know NOx emmissions are still a concern and they don't do innovating in that area

[LM10]

I'm Australian, and we're currently using the 'we're only a tiny part of the problem so stop picking on us because even if we make a 100% reduction it's insignificant' argument.

Whether it is significant or not is besides the point. That statement is hurting our public image.
I see that statement being used in this thread regarding F1.

Re: innovation
They don't seem to be too keen on innovating a new cat and particulate filter onto the back of an F1 car that could revolutionise the ICE emmissions for the automative industry.

Do you mean you're using this argument for the current fires or for other factors?

[AJI]

I'm Australian, and we're currently using the 'we're only a tiny part of the problem so stop picking on us because even if we make a 100% reduction it's insignificant' argument.

Whether it is significant or not is besides the point. That statement is hurting our public image.
I see that statement being used in this thread regarding F1.

Re: innovation
They don't seem to be too keen on innovating a new cat and particulate filter onto the back of an F1 car that could revolutionise the ICE emmissions for the automative industry.

Do you mean you're using this argument for the current fires or for other factors?

It's a general argument being thrown around right now due to the fires. Our co2 emmissions=bushfires apparently. Forget the fact that we've been in drought for years, fuel reduction burns have been greatly reduced, we have big fires every 7~10 years, and 183 arsonists have been arrested... The general narrative is - "the fires are this terrible ONLY because we are meeting our current targets and that's clearly not enough!" Obviously, climate change doesn't help, but co2 is getting one hell of a beating in Australia right now.

I don't want to start a climate change debate here even though I just poked the bear. This topic is for the discussion on how F1 will deal with the very scenario I described above. The greens will come for F1, you can be sure of that, and the F1 stakeholders need to have a better answer than 'but we're tiny so what's the difference...' It ain't working for Australia and F1 is arguably in a more precarious position...

[nzjrs]

This week we had Greta go after Roger Federer, because his main sponsor hasn't divested from fossil fuel investment enough for her tastes.

Whenever they come for F1, the attack will be whatever sticks, I don't think I could predict what that would be, and I think making quantitative arguments to defend F1 doesn't work in a trial by media situation.