Formula One And The Environment

[MOWOG]

I saw some comments elsewhere about the fans booing Vettel on the podium. But in reality, they were booing something else:

Environmental activists Greenpeace on Sunday staged an audacious protest against race sponsors Shell at the Belgian grand prix. Shell is the Spa-Francorchamps race's high-profile title sponsor, as well as backing the famous Italian team Ferrari.

First, paragliders took to the skies with banners protesting the oil multinational's Arctic oil drilling plans. Abseiling activists then mounted the roof of the main grandstand and unfurled a huge banner that read 'ARCTIC OIL? SHELL NO!'

After the race, as Sebastian Vettel, Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton took their trophies, another abseiling protester tried to get onto the podium, amid the boos of the crowd and the resistance of the Shell-branded grid girls.

Although unsuccessful in their final bid, the activists did manage to place another Shell-branded banner prominently in front of the podium, reading 'Save the Arctic'.

All of which raises some questions about Formula One's self-proclaimed desire to be more environmentally responsible. In truth, how can any sport that depends on the burning of fossil fuels be "green"? The whole idea is ludicrous. Plus, if you calculate the amount of petroleum needed to move the 11 teams and their mega-tons of equipment around the globe to 20 or so venues, the idea that the sport is in any way being a good steward of the earth is idiotic.

Personally, I loathe those who say they are doing one thing while actually doing quite the opposite. Why pretend motor racing is "environmentally friendly." It's not. Even electric cars have to get that electricity from somewhere and it's not from piezio-electric harvesting devices powered by the heartbeats of baby arctic seals. And then they expend vast amounts of energy to manufacture the cars and transport them to wherever they need to go to actually race.

I understand the new engine formula for next year and beyond was driven largely by a desire to present a "greener" face to the world at large. But let's cut through the crap. The motor racing we love is a profligate expender of precious resources. There, I said it. It's true. So could we please just shoulder our share of responsibility for the eventual collapse of the world's ecosystems and move on? We need real racing, not half baked and semi-deluisional branding schemes.

Just my 2 cents, of course, and worth precisely what you paid.

[Holm86]

Those activists doesn't deserve any attention. How did they get those parachutes in the air not using fuel themselves??? Did a friendly eagle give them a ride??

Though i do agree that it is stupid to enforce a green image to F1 with the new engine regulations.

[i70q7m7ghw]

I don't think the protests were anything to do with Formula 1 or fuel efficiency, I think it was more specifically against Shell drilling in the Arctic.

[Kiril Varbanov]

That was utterly stupid, sorry Greenpeace. This isn't the way to achieve your goals, which are awesome as ideas, but sometimes too idealistic and do not fit the world we live in.

'Green' as a concept is something that's also being overblown, overhyped and abused - as a term. I'm personally staying away from it. Hypocritically, no one talks about one airplane flight across the world, for example, which consumes as much fuel as all the cars on the grid, roughly. F1 races are 20 for the whole year, flights are every minute.

On a completely related note, the aero industry is taking the fuel usage very seriously, and a reduction of 0.5% is considered a large success. I understand that reducing weight has been a primary objective, and a partner company that delivers lighter forks and spoons (!) is welcome to do business with aero firms.

Whether Shell are allowed to drill in the Arctic - that's not really our business. Last time they were not backed by Obama's people, because they failed to plan for short drill session and the machinery couldn't bear the cold.

[WhiteBlue]

F1 has just about the same justification as an entertainment industry as the soccer world cup or the olympic games. If you set up an energy balance for all the things these sport events do you will probably find that F1 is doing pretty good and they can show that they are constantly trying to do things better and better. So on a general level you cannot criitzise F1 any more than other sports.

The particular action of Greenpeace in Spa wasn't very successful because Bernie and his team denied them the media multiplier that they were seeking. They wanted to see millions of TV viewers all over the world their message and they failed miserably with that. So there isn't much point in further discussing this in my humble opinion. They screwed up, they lost and they went home or to jail.

[bjpower]

this "green F1" annoys the hell out of me. no other sport is asked to be green.
how come soccer does not have to be green? I really don't thing F1 matters a dam in the world carbon scale of things.

during a race they burn through 150kg of petrol. that's what 3 normal car tanks. its not really a hell of a lot.

[wesley123]

this "green F1" annoys the hell out of me. no other sport is asked to be green.
how come soccer does not have to be green?

Because soccer doesn't have 22 cars burning fuel 70 days in a year. Also soccer doesnt need those huge airplanes to move the freight between tracks/homebases over 100 times a year.

Also soccer doesnt require a large in house facility to create parts out of materials.

during a race they burn through 150kg of petrol. that's what 3 normal car tanks. its not really a hell of a lot.

150 x 22 = 3300 x 3 = 9900. So that is around 10000kg of fuel per race weekend. Do that times 20 and you'll get 200000kg of fuel per race year. Then we still have to add fuel used with testing. Resources used to build the cars. Oh and the fuel all those huge airplane use as well as the team trucks. Oh, and then we also need to add the resources used every race weekend.

[Holm86]

this "green F1" annoys the hell out of me. no other sport is asked to be green.
how come soccer does not have to be green?

Because soccer doesn't have 22 cars burning fuel 70 days in a year. Also soccer doesnt need those huge airplanes to move the freight between tracks/homebases over 100 times a year.

Also soccer doesnt require a large in house facility to create parts out of materials.

during a race they burn through 150kg of petrol. that's what 3 normal car tanks. its not really a hell of a lot.

150 x 22 = 3300 x 3 = 9900. So that is around 10000kg of fuel per race weekend. Do that times 20 and you'll get 200000kg of fuel per race year. Then we still have to add fuel used with testing. Resources used to build the cars. Oh and the fuel all those huge airplane use as well as the team trucks. Oh, and then we also need to add the resources used every race weekend.

I agree with you. F1 uses a lot of fuel. That's why these green engines annoys me. Why not sell the new engine concept on efficiency instead of just using green. F1 will never be green. But technologies developed in F1 could help the automotive industry to become greener.

[SectorOne]

I don't think the protests were anything to do with Formula 1 or fuel efficiency, I think it was more specifically against Shell drilling in the Arctic.

Yes the CEO (who is an F1 fan himself) said that fossil fuels are heating up the planet, this melts the ice in the arctic which is perfect for oil companies so they can go drill there and subsequently burn more fossil fuels and increase the temp of the planet.

That was his take on the thing, i honestly am i little bit inbetween regarding how much humans really contribute to warming the planet.
In the 70´s NY Times had a front page saying the next ice age was coming so i don´t put much faith in scientists when they are trying to attribute X percent as being done by humans rather then simply being on a rock travelling around a giant nuclear reactor.

[SectorOne]

150 x 22 = 3300 x 3 = 9900. So that is around 10000kg of fuel per race weekend. Do that times 20 and you'll get 200000kg of fuel per race year. Then we still have to add fuel used with testing. Resources used to build the cars. Oh and the fuel all those huge airplane use as well as the team trucks. Oh, and then we also need to add the resources used every race weekend.

And it´s still much less then a two-way trip from Tokyo to New York...

[wesley123]

150 x 22 = 3300 x 3 = 9900. So that is around 10000kg of fuel per race weekend. Do that times 20 and you'll get 200000kg of fuel per race year. Then we still have to add fuel used with testing. Resources used to build the cars. Oh and the fuel all those huge airplane use as well as the team trucks. Oh, and then we also need to add the resources used every race weekend.

And it´s still much less then a two-way trip from Tokyo to New York...

That is true. It still is less than that trip. But still, Formula 1 is a big market and they consume a lot of fuel every year, which can easily be reduced and have a big effect on image as well as the environment(but mostly the sport it's image).

[pob]

if you calculate the amount of petroleum needed to move the 11 teams and their mega-tons of equipment around the globe to 20 or so venues, the idea that the sport is in any way being a good steward of the earth is idiotic.

Carbon offsets have been bought for the f1 cars going round the track and haulage to and from circuits since ~1997.

[WhiteBlue]

I have said it before. A soccer world cup or one edition of the olympic games is going to produce a lot more air traffic and fuel consumption than F just to get the people there.

[langwadt]

this "green F1" annoys the hell out of me. no other sport is asked to be green.
how come soccer does not have to be green?

Because soccer doesn't have 22 cars burning fuel 70 days in a year. Also soccer doesnt need those huge airplanes to move the freight between tracks/homebases over 100 times a year.

Also soccer doesnt require a large in house facility to create parts out of materials.

during a race they burn through 150kg of petrol. that's what 3 normal car tanks. its not really a hell of a lot.

150 x 22 = 3300 x 3 = 9900. So that is around 10000kg of fuel per race weekend. Do that times 20 and you'll get 200000kg of fuel per race year. Then we still have to add fuel used with testing. Resources used to build the cars. Oh and the fuel all those huge airplane use as well as the team trucks. Oh, and then we also need to add the resources used every race weekend.

I agree with you. F1 uses a lot of fuel. That's why these green engines annoys me. Why not sell the new engine concept on efficiency instead of just using green. F1 will never be green. But technologies developed in F1 could help the automotive industry to become greener.

indeed, with the right rules there could be thousands of the world brightest with a budget in the billions working on making engines more efficient

Sport and in the extreme case war, tend to advance technology faster and in more extreme ways in part because they don't have to be concerned whether it can be build and sold at a profit in the next quarter

I could easily imagine that the fuel used by the cars and the team is dwarfed by the amount of energy that is used by spectators and tv viewers

600million viewers per race, lets say 100W TV for one hour -> 60000MWh

gasoline ~10KWh/l -> 6 million liters of gasoline

[tristancliffe]

Ban football. All the cars and coaches (many thousands per match) going to all the matches (many thousands per year) uses more fossil fuels than F1.