Ok, here is my two cents. I think as a foundation for my thought as to “F1 and the climate” its best to understand my base thoughts around climate change. I apologize for the length of this post in advance. I cross my fingers in the hope that this is a "one and done" post by me on this topic.
In its simplest terms,
I believe in science and the scientific process I also believe that science has recently become politicized (and polarized) due to things such as climate change and the COVID pandemic response. We are sadly in a "post truth" society. The polarization has created loud voices shouting from either end of the spectrum. One end is saying “immediate” doom and the other waving their hands and saying, “absolutely nothing to see here”. As with most things the truth is complex and probably lies somewhere in the middle. I tend to believe it is much closer to the “doom” side than the “move along” crowd.
Humanity has a history of looking at the vastness of the globe and feeling that our ability to impact it is limited or non-existent. The over exploited Atlantic Cod (as one example) begs to differ. Once thought to be a boundless resource has been effectively fished out. So yes, I think humanity is negatively impacting the climate in a significant way and I think there is significant evidence to support this. I also think there are cyclical and natural climate changes that are also at play, but don’t explain everything.
As to fossil fuels. Do I think their days are numbered? When stated that simply the answer is clearly “yes” as it is a finite resource. The real question is how many days are left? I don’t know the answer. It’s extremely unlikely it will be in my lifetime, but as a viable commercial fuel product, its end of life is probably sitting right there on the near horizon. And yes, fossil fuels (particularly crude oil and natural gas) are foundational components for many things used by society. I think that most likely economic pressure (higher costs due to eventual lower and lower demand for fuel) may drive innovation to create alternatives. It will take time and it will not be easy. I 100% believe that we need to transition to renewable energy sources. It will be a long, complex, and messy journey, but a necessary one.
And yes, how we are trying to solve this is messed up. For example, the US CAFE standard (used to define fuel economy standards for US vehicles) are written in such a way that they support the creation of the stereotypical “Big American Car”. In short, the system uses a vehicles wheelbase along with a specific curve that defines the desired fuel economy. But the shape of that curve says that small vehicles have to have insanely high efficiency levels. The answer? Build bigger cars that have lower fuel economy expectations. Coincidently (or not!)… these same larger cars tend to have higher profit margins! This has resulted in the death of small vehicles in the US that could be affordable and efficient (if not to the lofty goals of a rigged CAFE system).
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...tation-wagons/
What do I worry about? If you look at the entire spectrum of opinions, you will find that most everyone agrees that the climate is changing. The disagreement is about who or what is at fault. My concern is that there is not as much discourse around what the impacts will be and how will humanity (really the entire planet) adapt in the most pain free and non-destructive way.
Now onto F1…
F1 is both a sport and a business. And the revenue streams for the business side are to sell access to entertainment as well as provide marketing opportunities. Those willing to provide money for the marketing (particularly those who are involved in power unit supply) are focusing on “green solutions”. Or, looking like they have green solutions.
It seems the number one way to knock these efforts is that any type of “green initiative”
must be an all or nothing solution. If you are pushing electric rechargeable batteries, then by God the entire supply chain from start to finish must be 100% carbon neutral, environmentally friendly and without any objective flaws or negatives. Which of course they are not. Nothing is that clean. It’s easy to call out the fuel spent flying and shipping the F1 circus around the globe. It is just so hypocritical it is sickening. Who are these guys kidding? Am I right? (tongue in cheek here
)
So the argument is if it can’t be 100% correct or “perfect”, then why do it at all?
With that logic you can effectively tear down anything and everything. It's a false silver bullet. The reality is that nothing is that black and white or simple. So, I don’t agree with the “look at the hypocrisy” view as it is overly simplistic. It is what it is. F1 is probably doing the right things (push for renewable/green energy) for the wrong reasons (marketing in support of business goals). Let’s hope it’s two steps forward with an occasional step backwards vs. three steps backwards. We just need to be moving the ball down the field.
If you are a motorsports enthusiast, especially one who appreciates motorsports of old with loud fire breathing engines, the smells of hot brakes and burning rubber, AND someone who supports a “green” future, you clearly have some potential internal conflicts! Count me included. How I manage this cognitive dissonance is that I firmly believe the world is not black and white. That it is an ongoing and evolving shade of grey. That I do like old school internal combustion engines (I currently am about to start working on a performance build of an old school air cooled 911 engine and believe me, my goal is that nostalgic experience!) but I also think all of this can co-exist with a path to a future green state. You just need the right balance and scale of each.
I think F1 will need to drop its marketing moniker of “top of the technology pyramid”. I mean it stopped doing that decades ago. Yes, it is still very high tech in things like materials, composite construction, and aero dynamics, but with respect to power, suspension and a few other smaller things, it is mostly firmly locked into the past. The current high efficient ICE solutions (MGU-K and MGU-H) is likely going to be the pinnacle of F1 ICE engine technology. Future F1 ICE solutions will be simpler.
I “hope” that F1 tries to stop trying to lead the climate change charge. I “hope” that the future of F1 is a reversion to “old school” engines from decades ago. Pure NA engines with high RPMs and maybe even no hybrid component Probably using fully synthetic fuels, but still throwbacks. I think F1 could become the next “horse buggy racing” and I am OK with that. I do think the manufacture need to be kicked out and the sport probably needs to shrink a bit. It's size drives the need for big money and big money brings agendas that don't align with what many fans want from a racing perspective. F1 needs more service toward the "sport" side than the "business" side. But that is a topic for another thread!
I think discussions like this are valid here, but man, if this dissolves into "but the expert I listen to says" as a way to continue a polarized and politized climate (and frankly "science on trial") discussion, I am out. I have zero interest in that game. Especially as I don't think it is a path to "truth" nor a productive discussion.
Richard