Sportscar Racing and Global Warming

[AU N EGL]

Then we should not bring up that NASCAR still uses LEADED race fuel.

[canam]

Wow. Some reactions--even a suggestion that a 'good' big war will have a positive effect (I trust is was 'tongue in cheek'). I am surprised.

The reality is political. Despite how much some of you disagree, the powers that be will not care what you think...nor will the bulk of popular opinion. Motor racing--despite its low carbon footprint--is frivolous: a bunch of 'rich' guys going round and round in the hope that they will end up where they started from. All the while they will be spewing CO2 into the atmosphere. (And don't start with this technology thing argument 'cos no one will listen)

While we can all talk about rights etc., they won't care (so many have been trampled over in the last 20 ears what 's the loss of another one). It is, after all, a minority sport. Will anyone really miss Bernie's Circus or France's Follies. Not really--not when they want to fly to Hawaii for a holiday. Keep in mind that sportscar racing is pretty low down the food chain and will be long gone by the time Bernie's Bandits have a tough time.

The longer the heads stay in the sand, the easier it will be for the politicos to have their way. Proacitivity is the only way.

[chewymonster]

Let me preface this with the fact that I think that Global warming is occurring but I don't think it is as drastic as the greenies make it out to be.

While auto racing can be used as an example/test bench (like the Audi R8/10) for better road technology, its own contribution to global warming is trivial when compared to normal cars. That is like saying that we shouldn't have sports such as NBA as the players use up too much fuel for flying.

The real problem in the US is that there is no regulation of fuel consumption and henceforth C02 emission. Here more than 1/2 of all vehicles sold each year are gas guzzlers (which is qualified as fuel economy of worse than 22.5 mpg combined city and highway) The problem is that these 8 million or so vehicles (SUVs and pickups) that are sold each year don't pay the gas guzzler tax. Car do pay the gas guzzler tax, but I am sure there are only about 100,000 or sell cars sold each year that get such poor fuel economy that they have to pay the gas guzzler tax. BUT there are about 8 million SUVs and pickups sold each year that guzzler gas (and produce lots of C02, around 325 grams per kilometer in the European standard) that don't pay the gas guzzler tax and are free to guzzle and produce C02.

Making sure that more than 1/2 of all vehicles sold each year don't make so much C02 (again around 325 grams per km) is the real way to curb vehicle C02 production. Diesels like the one on the Audi R10 help dramatically with this problem as they use around 30% less fuel and produce 20% less C02, and the best part is that absolutely no changes are required to drive a diesel.

[skycafe]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

Then we should not bring up that NASCAR still uses LEADED race fuel.

I think they changed this year, which utterly stunned me as I couldn't believe they hadn't changed twenty years ago.

Back in 1974 during that energy crisis, autoracing suffered a great deal. It was a highly visable actvity using fossil fuels at a time when the regular US public has having trouble finding any fuel for their own automobiles. Remember also that autoracing at that time was much less visable and mainstream then it is now, and yet you had the cancelation of the 24 hours of Daytona and the Daytona 500 being shortened to about 420 (don't recall exact figure).

"We" should have gotten smart on this subject ages ago, and incentivised development of methods to reduce consumption of fossil fuels and the production of emissions. It should have been along the line of 'we will put a man on the moon within this decade.' It would have been hugely difficult, would have demanded a huge sum of money, and at the same time would have expanded all sorts of new economic segments, developed a cavalcade of technology and helped to ensure a savings of expense due to hastening climate change. That climatic change, and I do believe the data on it, is going to cost untold sums. The methods and production of food are likely to be impacted. If we are facing a rise in oceanic levels, which we are measurably seeing now, of the nature that is predicted, vast areas of land, including buildings will be under water. If you look at the Gore film and you see the map showing the impact of water levels rising on the East Coast of the US, you see huge areas along the coasts which includes everything from Miami to New York being under water. Since vast sums of money are invested in those areas in land and building costs, and those areas produce huge levels of economic activity, you then face total collapse of economies. Floridians face huge home insurance cost and availability problems now after the recent active hurricane seasons and the economic damages resulting from those storms. Just the wiping out of Miami by a rising sea would take down the US economy because of all the lost investment. Imagine New York City....

A close friend of mine is stunned that I am an environmentalist but that I also love motor racing. Motor racing is not the problem, it will however be a very visable target for critics.

I live in an area where lots of people drive huge hulking SUV's. Those people will demand that any racing activity be curtailed before long before they are required to park their SUV's.

So, I am a 'greenie,' 'tree hugger,' etc., but I hope with all my being that my children's grandchildren will still be thrilled to both be able to go catch a fish in clean waterways, but also be thrilled that racing cars hurtle along Mulsanne at night.

robert

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by skycafe

So, I am a 'greenie,' 'tree hugger,' etc., but I hope with all my being that my children's grandchildren will still be thrilled to both be able to go catch a fish in clean waterways, but also be thrilled that racing cars hurtle along Mulsanne at night.
robert

Clean waterways have absolutely nothing to do with global warming.
If one believes BS Algore put out, heck, there will be more water and more fishies.

It would be nice if a true Cat. 5 hurricane would take out New Orleans permanently, withing a year, permanent movements would be underway to remove people from where they do not belong, as the voters will after that, no matter how sorry they feel for the New Orleans deceased, not keep flushing good money in a hole.

Up here we used to have nasty winters, the choices were: move or move, some did; tornado alley choice: move or move, some did; coast people move or move, they are not better or more special.

According to Algore's figures, apparently when Greenland was settled, what became New York city must have been under water.
It must have been all the farting Bison, that caused that Global warming.
Bob

[skycafe]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Clean waterways have absolutely nothing to do with global warming. Bob

Correct, and no intention to imply a relationship of that sort. However, the thought that rivers and lakes and oceans offered limitless dumping grounds for all sorts of things is the same thought process that says you can limitlessly dump it in the atmosphere.

Among my passions are desires to preserve vibrant wild areas, and to enjoy motor racing. A motor racing fan is not likely to see it as a damaging activity to the environment. A non motor racing fan will, and therefore racing will become a target.

I don't mind the coming of the diesel, the Audi R10 is an impressive thing, and I would love to see the Peugeot run. I assume that I may be thrilled to see electric vehicles if they approximate the performance envelopes I am used to seeing. Heck, if we have something that runs on turnip greens and can still belt down the Hulman Straight at Sebring at 190 mph, I guess that is fine. I hope it also makes glorious noise!

robert

[canam]

I think the Nasamax was beltind down the Mulsanne at nearly 340kph and it ran on potatoes!

[Nordic]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6247371.stm

I thought this was quite interesting.

Does sound a bit like what the fag companies where saying in the 50's about a link between smoking and cancer.

Whatever the car makers are going to say, the trend is going to be towards the thinking that we do have the power to influance climate change and our past actions combined with those that happen in nature will have a marked affect.

The governing bodies need to adopt to that thinking and get ahead of the game, use racing as a test bed for better engine designs and to showcase new, cleaner fuels.

As an aside, I bet that the combined travelling of all the teams when racing or testing, drivers and us getting to and from races, is less than that produced by football, (either US or the rest of the world type!) and the amount of travelling the fans do in a season.

[canam]

Originally Posted by Nordic

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6247371.stm

I thought this was quite interesting.

Does sound a bit like what the fag companies where saying in the 50's about a link between smoking and cancer.

...and still do, despite the billion dollar 'not-guilty' out of court payouts.

[AU N EGL]

Some of the extreem envorinmentalists are just as bad on propaganda ( doom and gloom) on one side of the fence as the nay sayers on the other.

That UN conference that just ended in Paris is being discreted for not allowing moderates to attend. I am sure more details and name calling on both sides will come out. Besides if it is from the UN and anything like the oil for food program scandle . OR just how the UN handles money in general, down the toilet, that information will go nowhere.

There are many motorsports fans who are also interest in the envoirnment. Many on a small scale of simple recycling of used up house hold items, to some on a large scale who have large tree farms.

I believe that ppl are really interest in protecting our envoirnment, I am. But I dont believe the BS that comes from the extreemest on either side.

[dj choc ice]

Originally Posted by Lightning Bug

The big problem is this kind of attitude. Don't you care about making the world a habitable place for our grandchildren, even if we've long gone?

so why should my fun and everyone else's fun be ruined?, that is not fair in any way shape or form, **** over a massive group of people yeah that will solve the problem.

so what do me, and many other do at the weekends?, watch football, i dont bloody think so, skiing, oh i forgot all the snow will have melted in the next 25 years, well there it is, both my favorite things will go down the plughole, how the hell do you think that makes me feel?!!

[Erki]

I thought the talk was about switching to green fuels, not stopping racing altogether.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by Erki

I thought the talk was about switching to green fuels, not stopping racing altogether.

Part of the challenge is "green" fuels AT THIS TIME may not produce the energy equivalents of, pollute just as much as, and cost more to produce then petroleum products.

Currently most green fuel productions are HEAVELY subsidized by governments to offset OVER PROUDCTION (farming) of grains, QUITEING the green environmentalists, yet PROFITING big business. And governments can SAY, LOOK we are doing something about the environment.

Not saying this wont change in the future.

[Nordic]

Originally Posted by dj choc ice

so why should my fun and everyone else's fun be ruined?, that is not fair in any way shape or form, **** over a massive group of people yeah that will solve the problem.

I would rather have my 'fun' ruined than screw up the planet for future generations.


It does not really matter what the actual impact on the planet is, the simple fact is no one really knows, for every one report that is doom laden another will be produced to counter it.

The fact is, if enough people belive global warming is man made and can be slowed then pressure will mount, govenments will jump on the band wagon and changes will be forcedon to us. This is why is important that the govening bodies are proactive and are seen as leaders.

By doing this then they can dictate to some extent the terms and motorsport will have a future.

Doing nothing is no longer an option. public opion will see to that.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by Nordic

The fact is, if enough people belive global warming is man made and can be slowed then pressure will mount, govenments will jump on the band wagon and changes will be forcedon to us. This is why is important that the govening bodies are proactive and are seen as leaders.

Here in itself is the challange.

Global warming MAY not be 100% man made, and only the envormental extreemists say it is.

Has man effected the enviornment? YES, to what end? no one really knows, but there are good theroies by high educated climtolgiest and other well respected educated ppl. However, THESE, pp were kept out of the recent UN envornment meeting in Paris.

The earth moves in cycles. 25 year, 100 year, 1000 year and million year cycles. Not with in oneor two human life times.

Governments jump on the band wagon as enough ppl keep yelling the "sky is falling, the sky is falling" and THAT is the real danger.

Do we forget about the envorimnet ?? No. Yes we need to work on protecting and improving. PPl need or should stop the over reaction BS by both sides, Governments and envorimental extreamests.

What is one of the Biggest Lies of mankind?? A government saying, I am here to help.

Take personal resposiblty and clean up your personal area and comunitees, will do

[Hammerdown]

Amen to that.

The big problem motor racing faces is that it is an obvious scapegoat, and the majority would far rather scrifice one of those than do anything that affects their own lives.

As others have said here, more CO2 is produced by people travelling to large events than by the events themselves.

In F1, far more CO2 is produced by 'shipping' all of the equipment to the races than the racing itself.

I have seen figures for CO2 emissions from the NY marathon, and they are truly staggering (can't find them at the moment). I haven't seen figures for motor racing, but I can't imagine they're higher. Not many people will advocate banning marathon running.

Having said all that, it would be far better to be proactive about it and lead the way, rather than being victimised by the car haters.

[Nordic]

I feel that we have reached the stage that govenments are reacting to what they percieve as public opion and are often guided by very vocal single interest groups.

The pressure groups are well reported within the media, they are seen as being on the side of the public and protecting our interests from the evils of big industry. However many are not as open as they should be and have vested interests in swaying opion, often stiffleing debate.

My personal opion is that yes the climate is changing and we have played a part, but at the same time the climate always has changed, from the time before mankind could have any affect.

In that case should we do nothing? no they are many other issuses tied in like air quality, oil supply, congestion, waste.

The news ways of thinking should be a plus, new ideas create new jobs that will take the place of those lost, could even make us less rely less on volitle states for Oil.

[davemk7]

the problem i see is ordinary people afford new technology, it's not going to happen. We as a race need to give the technology away for free and screw the anrachy.

motorsport needs to be proactive though, there again if it isn't global warming it'll be noise. Stop the few and shut them up.

[TWK]

China is the world's second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, but as a developing country is not yet required (by Kyoto) to reduce its emissions.

With China accounting for a fifth of the world's population, increases in its emissions could dwarf any cuts made by the industrialised countries.

The average Chinese person consumes only 10-15% of the energy an average US citizen uses, but with the economy developing at high speed many analysts expect China's total emissions to overtake America's by mid-century.

Fossil fuels play a major role - China is the world's biggest coal producer and oil consumption has doubled in the last 20 years. The country faced power cuts in 2004 as soaring growth outstripped electricity generation.

Carbon dioxide emissions from China might pass those from the United States as early as 2009, according to the World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2006, released earlier this month by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris. The recent forecast moves up by over a decade the agency's previous forecast of China's emergence as the nation with the greatest emissions, a position currently held by the United States. The revision is based on the 13 percent-a-year average expansion in Chinese coal use since 2003.

China's robust economic growth is largely responsible for the surge in coal use. China now burns over 2 billion tons per year, nearly twice the level of the U.S. Nonetheless, total Chinese energy use is currently one-third less than in the U.S. because of greater U.S. dependence on oil, gas, and nuclear.

Statistical uncertainties have now called into question the reliability of Chinese data. Energy use appeared to decline dramatically in the late 1990s, while the more recent surge appears to "conveniently" correct it. To craft effective policy addressing global climate change, energy security, and environmental pollution, policymakers need a better understanding of the long-term relationship between energy use and economic growth, especially in China, so they can make better projections and thus better decisions.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by TWK

Statistical uncertainties have now called into question the reliability of Chinese data. Energy use appeared to decline dramatically in the late 1990s, while the more recent surge appears to "conveniently" correct it. To craft effective policy addressing global climate change, energy security, and environmental pollution, policymakers need a better understanding of the long-term relationship between energy use and economic growth, especially in China, so they can make better projections and thus better decisions.

Very good to know.

For those ppl that dont know the US has put in $49 billion US dollars into envornmental reseach, and redcing pollution globally. More then almost all other countries combine.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by Nordic

The fact is, if enough people believe global warming is man made and can be slowed then pressure will mount, govenments will jump on the band wagon and changes will be forcedon to us. This is why is important that the govening bodies are proactive and are seen as leaders.

Doing nothing is no longer an option. public opion will see to that.

Dong nothing is the only intelligent option.

In this country, fortunately-other political issues will out weigh the climate lies, so they will never be able to force stupidity on the huddled masses.{a major war is coming, which will make this whole debate seem foolish.)

The country is being divided and separated already by politicians on other concerns, and when it hits the pocket book, even the huddled ignorant masses stop baaing lilke sheep, and pay attention.

At the same time, the socialist pigs running public education are filling the sponge brains of todays youths with lies, and damned lies, while the parents are sitting home scratching their buttocks.
IF the conservatives want to do something here rather jump on the "global warming" bandstand, shutdown the mussolinis running public education so future discussions are not addled morons reciting the feces values they were taught.

Some of you may remember the Mobil Economy runs that used to be BIG news on most automobile magazines, well RACING is not a new form of mobil economy run.
It is RACING, if it is brought down to the level of some high school lab experiment, it will die, and that is good.
But short track racing in the US, is going nowhere, and if the politicians try to force their moronics on it, they will soo be handed their walking papers.
Bob

[canam]

Hee Haa. Come on Strangelove, lets sort the this one out good and proper. Drop the big one and stop climate change.

1950s were a good time. Cold War, Head in the Sand populace, Ozzie and Harriet, Joe McCarthy and the odd 'linchin or three.

I thought things have moved on since then but, given what I've read, guess not.

[JHamilton]

We know nothing....

http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Tim...June241974.pdf

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by canam

Hee Haa. Come on Strangelove, lets sort the this one out good and proper. Drop the big one and stop climate change.

1950s were a good time. Cold War, Head in the Sand populace, Ozzie and Harriet, Joe McCarthy and the odd 'linchin or three.

I thought things have moved on since then but, given what I've read, guess not.

Trying getting beyond the Weekly Reader

[renkadima]

It appears that there is some way to go before we achieve total agreement on this board However, the news that Cessna Jets will be sponsoring a trophy in the FIA GT Championship this year is perhaps not a particularly positive sign that climate change is high on the priority list.