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

[Just_a_fan]

The whole "this is a little contributor compared to X" argument is used by just about everyone who doesn't want to change. Australia was mentioned by an Australian earlier in the thread. True, Australia, as a whole, isn't a huge compared to say the USA or China but that isn't the whole story.

Comparing Australian, UK, USA and China:
Australia: 2017 produced 1.08% of world CO2 which was an increase of 46% on 1990's output. 2017 per capita: 16.5 tonnes CO2/yr
UK: 2017 produced 1.02% of world CO2 which was a reduction of 35.6% on 1990's output. 2017 per capita: 5.7 tonnes CO2/yr
USA: 2017 produced 13.77% of world CO2 which was an increase of 0.4% on 1990's output. 2017 per capita: 15.7 tonnes CO2/yr
China: 2017 produced 29.34% of world CO2 which was an increase of 353.8% on 1990's output. 2017 per capita: 7.7 tonnes CO2/yr

The per capita figures are the interesting comparison, in my opinion. Politicians will point out that China is a much bigger producer than the USA or Australia and thus the US and Australia shouldn't be targeted. But per capita, the US and Australia are "baddies". Not saying China or the UK are "goodies" by the way, as everyone can easily reduce some of their output without big changes to their lifestyles. This is just pointing out how easily it is target based on one figure - I'm coming to this from an F1 perspective, honest.

It makes me think that CO2 should be given a personal budget - everyone gets, say, 5 tonnes / yr and how you "spend" that is up to you. Trading is allowed so if I'm a really good "goodie" I can sell a couple of tonnes to you. I have absolutely no idea how such a system would be implemented, of course, because I'm thinking on my feet here. But it would make individuals more aware of their own personal impact. Looking at global CO2 production for 2017 and current population, the current worldwide per capita output is about 4.8 tonnes CO2 / yr. Of course, fully two thirds of all CO2 is produced by 10 countries, so for most of the world's population the actual output figure is much less than that. But that's humanity's per capita production: 4.8 tonnes / year.

Going on from that to F1, F1 needs to show that its per capita output isn't an issue. This can't just be based on the team members, of course, as they would be well over 100 tonnes / person for the season. But spread the "cost" over the viewing population of several million (hundreds of million?) and we're down to maybe 1kg CO2 / person / season. If F1 argued that people sitting watching their TV for 2 hours instead of driving their own cars to the mall (or wherever) was less polluting, then that would be a powerful riposte to those who say "F1 is killing the planet". See, I said I'd get to F1 eventually.

(figures used sourced from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _emissions)

[izzy]

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.

Greta is amazing, she just retweeted and it gets all the attention not the Swiss activists who staged the protest. And now Roger has said he's going to talk to his sponsors, that is her effect! Awesome. Personally i'm waiting for someone to ask him why he needs 4 kids, when obviously that doubles CO2, plastic and everything in a generation

[Just_a_fan]

Personally i'm waiting for someone to ask him why he needs 4 kids, when obviously that doubles CO2, plastic and everything in a generation

You could ask him yourself, of course...

[izzy]

Personally i'm waiting for someone to ask him why he needs 4 kids, when obviously that doubles CO2, plastic and everything in a generation

You could ask him yourself, of course...

i can't really, it's not fair but i don't have Greta's millions of followers
anyway even she doesn't dare at this point, nobody says anything about this 100% obvious issue

[Just_a_fan]

Personally i'm waiting for someone to ask him why he needs 4 kids, when obviously that doubles CO2, plastic and everything in a generation

You could ask him yourself, of course...

i can't really, it's not fair but i don't have Greta's millions of followers
anyway even she doesn't dare at this point, nobody says anything about this 100% obvious issue

I was joshing (hence the winky)

The population thing is the elephant in the room. In the 49 years I've been alive, the world's population has more than doubled to 7.7 billion. Doubled! That's just crazy.

Note: I don't have children so I'm not part of that particular argument (other than my own existence, of course).

[izzy]

I was joshing (hence the winky)

The population thing is the elephant in the room. In the 49 years I've been alive, the world's population has more than doubled to 7.7 billion. Doubled! That's just crazy.

oh yes me too i was't offended
and yes elephant in the room is it, exactly!! 10Bn by 2050 apparently

[PlatinumZealot]

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?

I think it is a fad. Unfortunately , the sport is so boring that we have environmental change and Veganism to talk about. For me F1 has a tiny environmental footprint and while the sport is viewed by millions, its influence, i would say is more environmental positive, (lightweight hybrid cars etc) than negative (no billowing black smoke smoke coming from the tail pipes).

[Jolle]

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.

Agree with you on the innovating stuff.

About numbers and percentages, I have different feelings. I hear these arguments a lot: “it’s only a very small percentage” or “the impact is tiny compared to the whole problem” etc etc. In that way of thinking there is no problem, because 100% of the problem is made up of 0,000001% polluters. Your hamburger isn’t the solution but it is part of the problem.

Formula one never looked serious at this problem. Knee jerk solution would be cutting races but that only goes so far, with no races in 2030 if they want to reach their neutral pledge

As you say, F1 has thousands of well paid top engineers, a lot of money and important partners. They should easily be neutral within no-time if they really want to (or need to). And with the changing climate (commercial, not the outside one) probably a must, if F1 wants to attract new sponsors and manufactures. At another forum there was a question if Hamilton could walk away if F1 doesn’t make big steps soon, I’m more afraid that Daimler and Renault can’t be associated with a conservative polluter.

[AJI]

I think it is a fad. Unfortunately , the sport is so boring that we have environmental change and Veganism to talk about. For me F1 has a tiny environmental footprint and while the sport is viewed by millions, its influence, i would say is more environmental positive, (lightweight hybrid cars etc) than negative (no billowing black smoke smoke coming from the tail pipes).

I wish it were a fad. If Climate Emergency was a brand it'd be bigger than Apple!

[LM10]

An interesting article. "Two-stroke engines & eco-fuel: F1 aims to be greener than Formula E"

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/news ... -formula-e

[PlatinumZealot]

Piston ring would have to be really stronger and detonation can be a big issue. Less cooling between power strokes.

[AshSIreland]

As you say, F1 has thousands of well paid top engineers, a lot of money and important partners. They should easily be neutral within no-time if they really want to (or need to). And with the changing climate (commercial, not the outside one) probably a must, if F1 wants to attract new sponsors and manufactures. At another forum there was a question if Hamilton could walk away if F1 doesn’t make big steps soon, I’m more afraid that Daimler and Renault can’t be associated with a conservative polluter.

A lot of chat about travel and racing itself, but that's overlooking one of the biggest variables: the team's factories

Using an Input/output method for carbon footprint involves looking at the amount of money spent, and assuming that more money spent means more CO2e produced. The teams employ thousands of people, in huge factories that churn through tons of material using tons of energy. Given that they spend 100s of millions, they're probably one of the biggest factors.

That is why an effective cost-cap would cut F1 emissions as much as anything else

[Jolle]

As you say, F1 has thousands of well paid top engineers, a lot of money and important partners. They should easily be neutral within no-time if they really want to (or need to). And with the changing climate (commercial, not the outside one) probably a must, if F1 wants to attract new sponsors and manufactures. At another forum there was a question if Hamilton could walk away if F1 doesn’t make big steps soon, I’m more afraid that Daimler and Renault can’t be associated with a conservative polluter.

A lot of chat about travel and racing itself, but that's overlooking one of the biggest variables: the team's factories

Using an Input/output method for carbon footprint involves looking at the amount of money spent, and assuming that more money spent means more CO2e produced. The teams employ thousands of people, in huge factories that churn through tons of material using tons of energy. Given that they spend 100s of millions, they're probably one of the biggest factors.

That is why an effective cost-cap would cut F1 emissions as much as anything else

Yes and no. Yes they are big polluters but not within the reach of the FIA and are the responsibilities of the teams themselves. Taking a company as Daimler as example, they are working towards being greener. The FIA could however simply implement a rule that restricts the environmental impact of a team.

The problem until now (let’s say the Bernie years) that environmental impact was not on the agenda (with other absentees like human rights, etc etc).

How long is it ago that we all agreed that tabac is bad and that we don’t advertise it? 20 years? Still Philip Morris is one of the biggest sponsors. Time for F1 to catch up...

[AJI]

...
How long is it ago that we all agreed that tabac is bad and that we don’t advertise it? 20 years? Still Philip Morris is one of the biggest sponsors. Time for F1 to catch up...

It's quite ironic. Without tobacco F1 would never have evolved as quickly as it did, teams would still be garagistas and drivers would be mere mortals...

My friends think its funny that I like this obscure little sport that they never hear anything about. Maybe I'm making too much of it being a potential target for green activists?

[Just_a_fan]

F1 is about money. If F1 can make money from environmental ideas, it will try to do so. It'll be "greenwash" of course, but that won't stop them trying.