F1 and the climate

[crmalcolm]

And on the 'sustainable' note - another article about the 2024 season from the BBC - https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/67787837

Titled 'F1 2024: A guide to the season - including calendar, sprint races, teams and drivers' - the following is included:

In announcing the calendar, Formula 1 said it had moved towards a "greater" regionalisation, with the intention of making the season more sustainable.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I mentioned in my earlier post that was concerns about discussions devolving into "my expert says" back and forth. My experience is that polarizing topics like this have this type of anecdotal stories. The usually have a fragment of truth or have some genesis in reality, but take on a life of their own including "facts" of their own and often without any attribution as to source. So for example the "97%" topic. I frankly had not heard of this until you posted it. I was curious. Because the story you provided in which it was a vote at a conference and the process was manipulated to generated desired outcome (nearly 100% agreement). I thought if true, that sounded quite overt. So I did a tiny bit of reading.

Here is what might be a good article on the topic of the "97%" value.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenerg...h=11abb5961157

So the "97%" topic is a "thing" in the culture war in which both sides have decided to battle over and is weaponized by both sides. In short the initial 97% value came from doing analysis of published articles and their conclusions and not a conference in which some type of vote was taken and manipulated. And it then became a weapon for those who believe in the human impact on the climate. Is the 97% value accurate? There are multiple studied that generate different values. You have one clock, you know what time it is, you have two clocks you never know what time it is. So the 97% may not "the truth", but the truth might be 98%, 80% or any other number... including 97% (probably less than 97%). Based upon aggregation of multiple similar studies, it sounds like most all are predominately in the above 80% or "strong consensus" (my wording) category. The article goes into more details.

My point is that most arguments like this in which "facts" are tossed out, are probably various anecdotal talking points depending upon who or where you get your information from. For example that Forbes article might be right, or wrong. I don't know. But at least I am listing a source for a specific data point.

Richard

Thank you Richard.
My source was an article I had seen online and confirmed from other sources.
There are myriads of articles on this point and others often taking either a different tack or unearthing a different source for the information.

As I have already stated earlier I'm not interested in arguing about climate change.

But what I see from many people posting is that their knowledge of the whole subject is anecdotal and then they will argue from generalities.
That isnt constructive or helpful.
The posts that contain a large amount of reading material are helpful if people want to read a viewpoint and don't do their own research.

My posts were in reply to statement s by others about climate change to another view other than the commonly held narrative because people should understand that catastrophic climate change is not a slam dunk at all.

There is a lot of information, scientifically valid that would dispute the commonly media generated view and some people have posted in that vein.
Everyone needs to be respectful and if they agree with the official narrative or not, they should be willing to hear an alternative and not simply shut others down because it is different from their conclusions about what they have seen.

The truth is out there, and it will become apparent over time what the real picture is, regardless of what conclusions people hold at present.

It would be my hope that people would become a lot more critical in their thinking about what they read and believe, and be willing to be more skeptical, be willing to examine in a debate like this what the various formal groups in science and economics and business hope to gain by it, and actually research for themselves who is pulling the levers that form media and opinion.

I'm not going to inflame argument and polarize people. I'm confident in my sources and understanding of what is going on in the wider picture of which this issue is just one of many 'issues' that supposedly face the future of mankind on the planet.

People probably know that I'm on the skeptical view of the popular narrative but I'm not here to convince the world of my understanding about it at all.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I think there are many other places better suited for the debate over climate change.

I understood this thread to be more about the sport of F1, and the implications of changes to the sport (and how it is run) - in the context of a world that is trying to tackle climate change.

Whether climate change is real or not, the motivations of governments and multi-national bodies are not really relevant to the discussion here.


Maybe the best stance to start from, if this conversation is to remain productive, is to assume that:

F1 operates in a world, where many people are concerned about climate change.
As part of that, F1 will be scrutinised for its practices in relation to environmental concerns.

Treat the validity of climate change as an unknown. Start from the assumption it is true. Rather than challenge the assumption, lets accept it and discuss the implications?

Maybe there is an argument to move this discussion out of the F1` section and into a more general part of the forum, but I do think it is a valid subject to discuss.
One of the many things that I enjoy about the TenTenths community is the education I receive from the discussions, about motorsport and other subjects. There are a wide range of opinions shown on here and generally the posters explain their reasoning in a calm and eloquent manner (I just ignore the knee-jerk playground type of responses). I am genuinely concerned that 'people' nowadays are prepared to simply believe what they read or hear without question, and feel that this is maybe a reaction to the 'instant gratification' you can get from quick answers by putting a question into a search engine, this is not research. I thank all of you who have taken the time to explain your reasoning, whichever direction your thoughts are based. We can all learn from other people, no-one knows everything.

[TrapezeArtist]

Thank you Richard for a well thought-out post. I don't agree with everything but I don't have time to dissect it in detail and no-one is going to want to read through it anyway. The big elephant in the room (mammoth in the room?) in the whole climate change issue is population. None of the sticky issues of resources, emissions and pollution would be problematical if they existed on a small scale. But we are trying to service a world population that has been growing exponentially since the early 20th century. The world population has more than doubled in just my lifetime! That is just totally unsustainable and either humanity has to find a way of de-populating in an orderly manner or nature will do it for us (and that won't be pretty).

[Rusty Nail]

Absolutely on the button.

Mass sterilization is the only thing likely to work to solve that problem in the time frame available. That I think would bring up major and probably insurmountable ethical problems.

However it is amazing how adaptive and resilient the human race can be. If faced with near extinction due to climate change who knows what measures may suddenly become acceptable.

Nevertheless, as you say, if mankind fails to take action, nature will solve the problem in its own way. As it always does.

[S griffin]

To be fair F1 had done quite a bit in recent years to make the sport more sustainable and better for the environment. I admire Vettel for helping raise the issue in his last few years of F1, certainly he's been quite a good voice on the subject. Certainly his run in Mansell's Williams using greener fuel has helped those in F1 think more about where to go next on the subject

[flatlandsman]

When you think about the air miles and some of the sponsors like Aramco, it is laughable to even think f1 cares a damn about the environment, it is a token thing, that is all, more races, more freight, sorry but this sport is about as green, as brown.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by flatlandsman

When you think about the air miles and some of the sponsors like Aramco, it is laughable to even think f1 cares a damn about the environment, it is a token thing, that is all, more races, more freight, sorry but this sport is about as green, as brown.

I assume Formula One plans to achieve token carbon neutrality by planting offset trees etc? Do all the night races run the flood lights on renewable electricity?

Synthetic fuels or hydrogen ICE (where the hydrogen gas or synthetic petrol - hydrogen gas + captured carbon - are made using renewable electricity) are certainly technically carbon neutral if very inefficient - the perfect excuse to bring back the V12s?

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by flatlandsman

When you think about the air miles and some of the sponsors like Aramco, it is laughable to even think f1 cares a damn about the environment, it is a token thing, that is all, more races, more freight, sorry but this sport is about as green, as brown.

A bit like all of the World Leaders flying to Davos to discuss climate change! Why isn't the hypocracy of this shouted out?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

A bit like all of the World Leaders flying to Davos to discuss climate change! Why isn't the hypocracy of this shouted out?

Aren't they all, wherever they are held. Just like the dwarf from Sweden who has come over to the UK to attend a protest; I'm damn sure she didn't swim or row her way here.

[Tel 911S]

As someone else has said , the total emissions from F1 are very small compared with football around the world .But they would never dare to try to stop that as the masses would be down on them like a ton of bricks .

When the Covid lockdown was on , with very little aircraft flights , and a reduction in traffic around the world of about 80% , it made absolutely no difference to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere , proving that the total human emissions are insignificant .

There have been hundreds of scientific papers published showing that CO2 has
no measureable effect on the climate , and not one proving it makes any difference .
The whole Global Warming fraud is a load of lies to try to destroy the economies of Western countries .https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...tory-lesson-2/

[Mike Harte]

Tel, not wishing to get sucked in, however passenger use of aircraft, cars and all forms of transport is only one part of the equation. To really calculate the air pollution created by going from one place to another, the figures should also take in to account the production of the the aircraft or ship, whatever. Creating these modes of transport produces huge amounts of pollution and in the case of many buses and coaches, they probably put out huge amounts of harmful particles going by the clouds of black smoke that comes out of their exhausts, especially when the go up any incline.

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Tel, not wishing to get sucked in, however passenger use of aircraft, cars and all forms of transport is only one part of the equation. To really calculate the air pollution created by going from one place to another, the figures should also take in to account the production of the the aircraft or ship, whatever. Creating these modes of transport produces huge amounts of pollution and in the case of many buses and coaches, they probably put out huge amounts of harmful particles going by the clouds of black smoke that comes out of their exhausts, especially when the go up any incline.

You are right .
CO2 is in no way pollution , but a very minor trace gas in the atmosphere , and essential for plant growth and therefore life to exist on this planet .

But particle matter is a form of pollution , as in smoke from exhausts , chimneys etc .
Since the clean air acts in the 60s , [ UK , USA and other countries ,] the amount of pollution here has declined by 75% , leading to cleaner air , and in fact more sunshine reaching the ground and causing a slight increase in temperature.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...an-air-acts-2/

But CO2 is what the UN is using for its excuse to take enormous amounts of CARBON Taxes from countries which go along with its plan to destroy capitalist economies .https://www.investors.com/politics/e...oy-capitalism/

[crmalcolm]

Erm - F1?

[MaxLL]

I propose to set a price for each race: each team should plant 1,000 trees It will be the best contribution to ecology.

[crmalcolm]

A few examples that (I think) are actually on-topic for this thread:


During the 2023 season, DHL used a fleet of trucks using biofuel.

Across the nine European rounds, 18 trucks were powered by HVO100 drop-in fuel (hydrotreated vegetable oil) and travelled more than 10,600 km, transporting an average of 300 tonnes of vital freight per race. This delivered an 83% reduction in carbon emissions.

Ellen Jones: “Reductions such as 83% with the use of the biofuel-powered trucks provide a fantastic platform to build upon, which we will analyse and then continue to deliver in our 2024 season, ensuring that these savings move from a single initiative to business-as-usual carbon reductions.

“Transport and logistics make up a significant portion of our carbon footprint in our sport, and it is crucial to have likeminded partners like DHL that are committed to working with us to drive these down and help us realise our Net Zero target.”

'In 2026, alongside the introduction of the next-generation hybrid engine, F1 cars will be powered by advanced sustainable fuel, following on from this year’s F2 and F3 championships being powered by 55% sustainable fuel in partnership with Aramco.'

[crmalcolm]

The Singapore GP in 2023 had a major focus on circular economy.

When it came to reducing carbon footprint, a whopping 85% of grid electricity consumption was carbon neutral; B7 biodiesel was used to power 48% of the Circuit Park; and a successful trial with energy-efficient LED lights meant all existing track lights were replaced with LED bulbs for 2023 – reducing energy usage from track lighting by around a third.

There were also continued communications via multiple touchpoints encouraging fans to take public transport, while a transition from printed tickets to digital e-tickets, as well as continued implementation of digital project management and reporting systems, significantly reduced the amount of paper and plastic waste.

The move towards a circular economy saw a ban on the sale of single-use plastic bottled still water, eliminating 160,000 used plastic bottles compared to 2019, with an increased number of water refill stations inside the Circuit Park encouraging fans to use their own water bottles.

Having collected used cooking oil from food and beverage operators to be converted to biodiesel since the 2011 running of the event, the 2022 weekend saw 2,100kg collected, equating to the reduction of more than 4,000kg of CO2 in emissions.

[crmalcolm]

The 2023 Sustainability Report from Mercedes details some significant improvements:

'Mercedes revealed they have made a 21% reduction since 2022 in their air travel emissions – saving 2,600 tonnes of C02. This has been aided by pioneering book and claim and investment into Sustainable Aviation Fuel.

Some other improvements made by Mercedes include 98% of waste diverted from landfill to energy recovery and recycling, and a reduction of gas emissions by 13%, as they make the move towards full electrification.

Lastly, they have made an 88% reduction in emissions through a biofuel freight trial which has been used throughout the European portion of the 2023 calendar, having previously targeted over a 60% reduction in emissions.

Mercedes revealed that through these initiatives they are on track to meet the targets they set in their 2022 sustainability report – which was to reduce their Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 100% and 50% in their Scope 3 emissions by 2026 – and they have now set additional Net Zero targets.'

[crmalcolm]

In 2023, all ten teams achieved FIA Three-Star Environmental Accreditation

'The FIA Environmental Accreditation Programme was launched in 2011 to help the motorsport industry assess and enhance their environmental performance, with performance across a range of 17 criteria measured, ranging from energy use and supply chain management to transport planning, noise management and carbon emissions.

To ensure that impartiality is maintained during the auditing process for the accreditation, the audits are carried out by an independent, qualified auditor.'

Felipe Calderon: “At the pinnacle of motor sport, it is vital that the FIA Formula One World Championship sets the highest standards for environmental sustainability.

“This renewal of FIA Three-Star Environmental Accreditation recognises that the championship continues to prioritise and achieve best practice in reaching its goals."

[crmalcolm]

Is there any chance of this thread staying on topic and discussing 'F1 and the climate' - or is it doomed to a continual series of claim and counter-claim revolving around political bias, conspiracy theory and pseudo-science?

[S griffin]

I think we are back on topic now, just as long as we can not let silly claims with no evidence get in the way.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I think we are back on topic now, just as long as we can not let silly claims with no evidence get in the way.

Well....

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Well....

[MaxLL]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

A few examples that (I think) are actually on-topic for this thread:


During the 2023 season, DHL used a fleet of trucks using biofuel.

Across the nine European rounds, 18 trucks were powered by HVO100 drop-in fuel (hydrotreated vegetable oil) and travelled more than 10,600 km, transporting an average of 300 tonnes of vital freight per race. This delivered an 83% reduction in carbon emissions.

Too bad they haven't invented a garbage-powered engine yet. The environment would be much cleaner and more ecological

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by MaxLL

Too bad they haven't invented a garbage-powered engine yet. The environment would be much cleaner and more ecological

Well , there has certainly been a lot of garbage coming out here lately .

Bio Fuels are not as green as claimed , because the total amount of energy used in making more than makes up for the slightly less amount of emissions when it is used .https://theconversation.com/biofuels...eres-why-64463
But it is claimed to be better because ,being a lot less energy efficient , a lot more of it is needed, therefore increasing the cost for everyone which is the main aim of all of the Green propaganda.