F1 reducing it's carbon footprint
Discussion
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/147100/f1-plan-t...
I distinctly remember a certain M. Mosley saying F1 was carbon neutral a long time ago as he had seen the potential threat of a lawsuit from environmental groups in the future as being a very real possibility.
I distinctly remember a certain M. Mosley saying F1 was carbon neutral a long time ago as he had seen the potential threat of a lawsuit from environmental groups in the future as being a very real possibility.
2fast748 said:
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/147100/f1-plan-t...
I distinctly remember a certain M. Mosley saying F1 was carbon neutral a long time ago as he had seen the potential threat of a lawsuit from environmental groups in the future as being a very real possibility.
It really might not be that far off being carbon neutral, depends how they calculate it which is sometimes a little contrived. The thing is, from a moral point of view it's already extremely green in terms of motor sport - simply due to the size audience that get the benefit of watching the spectacle.I distinctly remember a certain M. Mosley saying F1 was carbon neutral a long time ago as he had seen the potential threat of a lawsuit from environmental groups in the future as being a very real possibility.
Mosely was referring to carbon offsetting - actions or the funding of actions that compensate for the carbon the activity produces. On this it has been very active for many years, largely unreported. The trees planted along the route of the old Hockenheim being one of many examples. All tyres are recycled. Cooking oil from hospitality suites being turned into diesel are others. F1 has also been a buyer of carbon credits in the past.
The new strategy is looking at carbon production which, as Duce says, is already comparatively low.
Proportionally, the largest 'single' carbon contributor in F1 are wind-tunnels. They suck up huge amounts of energy. IIRC, the stats are something like 1 hour of wind tunnel time generates more carbon than a mid-haul flight.
The new strategy is looking at carbon production which, as Duce says, is already comparatively low.
Proportionally, the largest 'single' carbon contributor in F1 are wind-tunnels. They suck up huge amounts of energy. IIRC, the stats are something like 1 hour of wind tunnel time generates more carbon than a mid-haul flight.
Net Zero Carbon
F1 Media (@F1Media) Tweeted:
Formula 1® announces plan to be Net Zero Carbon by 2030 https://t.co/IYt7Kf5mzf
F1 Media (@F1Media) Tweeted:
Formula 1® announces plan to be Net Zero Carbon by 2030 https://t.co/IYt7Kf5mzf
Deesee said:
Net Zero Carbon
F1 Media (@F1Media) Tweeted:
Formula 1® announces plan to be Net Zero Carbon by 2030 https://t.co/IYt7Kf5mzf
Jeez, the responses - fuddled thinking and misapprehension following that tweet makes for tough reading!F1 Media (@F1Media) Tweeted:
Formula 1® announces plan to be Net Zero Carbon by 2030 https://t.co/IYt7Kf5mzf
Whatever. Of course they have a carbon neutral plan, all big businesses want to show off that kind of thinking. And it's entirely achievable without changing the sport itself one bit, so no big deal really.
The electrification of F1 will be the big story and that's going to have to start at least on paper before 2030.
Here’s the press release
F1 Media (@F1Media) Tweeted:
Press Release - Formula 1® announces plan to be Net Zero Carbon by 2030 https://t.co/BRuk44OcQC
Can’t see electric F1, it’s hybrid for the next x yrs.
F1 Media (@F1Media) Tweeted:
Press Release - Formula 1® announces plan to be Net Zero Carbon by 2030 https://t.co/BRuk44OcQC
Can’t see electric F1, it’s hybrid for the next x yrs.
Deesee said:
Here’s the press release
F1 Media (@F1Media) Tweeted:
Press Release - Formula 1® announces plan to be Net Zero Carbon by 2030 https://t.co/BRuk44OcQC
Can’t see electric F1, it’s hybrid for the next x yrs.
The future of F1 will be electric. But they won't be vocal about such considerations until the masses start to question why the top motor sport cars still use old fashioned means of propulsion. And they will. Using ICE to 'go fast' in 2030 would be equivalent to using steam to go fast in the 1950's. People will start to question why the obvious alternative isn't being utilised.F1 Media (@F1Media) Tweeted:
Press Release - Formula 1® announces plan to be Net Zero Carbon by 2030 https://t.co/BRuk44OcQC
Can’t see electric F1, it’s hybrid for the next x yrs.
Kawasicki said:
Are they planning to offset the co2 produced by all the spectators at every event, whether they turn up physically at the tracks or even if they view online?
That’s a huge undertaking!
Not really. That’s a huge undertaking!
It comes down to the assignment of responsibility. So spectators at a circuit might reasonably fall under the responsibility of F1. Those viewing at home would fall under the responsibility of the broadcaster and thus any CSR policy implemented by them.
You can attain an accurate estimation of the number of cars the spectators used to get there and most ticket sales are done in advance so you can also calculate distances travelled. It would be impossible to get 100% accurate data but a margin of error sufficiently small enough to arrive as some meaningful metrics.
Offsetting though is different to what is being proposed here. Offsetting is essentially buying your way out of jail (so to speak). With this, you accept that you produce carbon but rather than do anything about it, you offset it by investing in things that take that carbon you produce back out of the atmosphere. Tree planting is the obvious but you can invest in solar energy farms, tidal energy projects, wind farms or buy carbon credits and let others do all that.
What F1 is looking at is operating in such a way that it produces less or no carbon in the future.
StevieBee said:
Not really.
It comes down to the assignment of responsibility. So spectators at a circuit might reasonably fall under the responsibility of F1. Those viewing at home would fall under the responsibility of the broadcaster and thus any CSR policy implemented by them.
You can attain an accurate estimation of the number of cars the spectators used to get there and most ticket sales are done in advance so you can also calculate distances travelled. It would be impossible to get 100% accurate data but a margin of error sufficiently small enough to arrive as some meaningful metrics.
Offsetting though is different to what is being proposed here. Offsetting is essentially buying your way out of jail (so to speak). With this, you accept that you produce carbon but rather than do anything about it, you offset it by investing in things that take that carbon you produce back out of the atmosphere. Tree planting is the obvious but you can invest in solar energy farms, tidal energy projects, wind farms or buy carbon credits and let others do all that.
What F1 is looking at is operating in such a way that it produces less or no carbon in the future.
How can they achieve that though? Putting aside the electric future of essentially all vehicles, right now F1 means fossil fuel for the entire show = carbon.It comes down to the assignment of responsibility. So spectators at a circuit might reasonably fall under the responsibility of F1. Those viewing at home would fall under the responsibility of the broadcaster and thus any CSR policy implemented by them.
You can attain an accurate estimation of the number of cars the spectators used to get there and most ticket sales are done in advance so you can also calculate distances travelled. It would be impossible to get 100% accurate data but a margin of error sufficiently small enough to arrive as some meaningful metrics.
Offsetting though is different to what is being proposed here. Offsetting is essentially buying your way out of jail (so to speak). With this, you accept that you produce carbon but rather than do anything about it, you offset it by investing in things that take that carbon you produce back out of the atmosphere. Tree planting is the obvious but you can invest in solar energy farms, tidal energy projects, wind farms or buy carbon credits and let others do all that.
What F1 is looking at is operating in such a way that it produces less or no carbon in the future.
If they took mobile carbon conversation plants with them, would that be offsetting? Or zero carbon on the basis they had left the area lower carbon than before the whole event arrived?
I'm lost on how anything much can be achieved in the world for genuinely zero carbon by 2030. Pretty much any process that involves heat to form something has a carbon cost at some point. Come to think of it, if the people working out how to be carbon free happen to breathe then they've already ruined it
Edited by TheDeuce on Wednesday 13th November 07:00
I was reading a very interesting article on Jalopnik where they had access to the Pirerlli F1 tyre operation.
https://jalopnik.com/inside-pirellis-massive-formu...
Shockingly, Pirelli recycle every single tyre that's taken to an event, even if it wasn't used. That includes wet weather tyres. I can maybe understand not reusing a few slick tyres due to 'batch differences', but an entire run of wet tyres?
https://jalopnik.com/inside-pirellis-massive-formu...
Shockingly, Pirelli recycle every single tyre that's taken to an event, even if it wasn't used. That includes wet weather tyres. I can maybe understand not reusing a few slick tyres due to 'batch differences', but an entire run of wet tyres?
article said:
It sounds like waste on a pretty massive scale, but quality control is the reason behind it. Each tire is equipped with its own individual barcode, which not only enables Pirelli to keep close tabs on individual tire performance, but also ensures that tires will be randomly allocated to all the teams. Every team, then, needs all new sets of tires. Lord knows there’d be a whole bevy of problems any time someone found out they’d gotten assigned a week-old tire.
Big Nanas said:
I was reading a very interesting article on Jalopnik where they had access to the Pirerlli F1 tyre operation.
https://jalopnik.com/inside-pirellis-massive-formu...
Shockingly, Pirelli recycle every single tyre that's taken to an event, even if it wasn't used. That includes wet weather tyres. I can maybe understand not reusing a few slick tyres due to 'batch differences', but an entire run of wet tyres?
Once they've given the tyres to the team, used or not they're 'second hand' I guess. Even if pirelli took them back to give to the same team in future, once the tyres have left their care they can't guarantee they're in perfect condition anymore.https://jalopnik.com/inside-pirellis-massive-formu...
Shockingly, Pirelli recycle every single tyre that's taken to an event, even if it wasn't used. That includes wet weather tyres. I can maybe understand not reusing a few slick tyres due to 'batch differences', but an entire run of wet tyres?
article said:
It sounds like waste on a pretty massive scale, but quality control is the reason behind it. Each tire is equipped with its own individual barcode, which not only enables Pirelli to keep close tabs on individual tire performance, but also ensures that tires will be randomly allocated to all the teams. Every team, then, needs all new sets of tires. Lord knows there’d be a whole bevy of problems any time someone found out they’d gotten assigned a week-old tire.
Just my thoughts/theories. Interesting though.
TheDeuce said:
Big Nanas said:
I was reading a very interesting article on Jalopnik where they had access to the Pirerlli F1 tyre operation.
https://jalopnik.com/inside-pirellis-massive-formu...
Shockingly, Pirelli recycle every single tyre that's taken to an event, even if it wasn't used. That includes wet weather tyres. I can maybe understand not reusing a few slick tyres due to 'batch differences', but an entire run of wet tyres?
Once they've given the tyres to the team, used or not they're 'second hand' I guess. Even if pirelli took them back to give to the same team in future, once the tyres have left their care they can't guarantee they're in perfect condition anymore.https://jalopnik.com/inside-pirellis-massive-formu...
Shockingly, Pirelli recycle every single tyre that's taken to an event, even if it wasn't used. That includes wet weather tyres. I can maybe understand not reusing a few slick tyres due to 'batch differences', but an entire run of wet tyres?
article said:
It sounds like waste on a pretty massive scale, but quality control is the reason behind it. Each tire is equipped with its own individual barcode, which not only enables Pirelli to keep close tabs on individual tire performance, but also ensures that tires will be randomly allocated to all the teams. Every team, then, needs all new sets of tires. Lord knows there’d be a whole bevy of problems any time someone found out they’d gotten assigned a week-old tire.
Just my thoughts/theories. Interesting though.
They compared it to DTM, (where the wet tyres are not new), and a set are up to 4 seconds a lap different from the same batch.
Deesee said:
I did read an article on this and they would not be able to give the consistency across the rubber through the grid for a pro longed period, if they were not used for that weekend.
They compared it to DTM, (where the wet tyres are not new), and a set are up to 4 seconds a lap different from the same batch.
Thanks. Makes sense if the pro-longed storage could impact performance. No space for such variations in F1.They compared it to DTM, (where the wet tyres are not new), and a set are up to 4 seconds a lap different from the same batch.
TheDeuce said:
Deesee said:
I did read an article on this and they would not be able to give the consistency across the rubber through the grid for a pro longed period, if they were not used for that weekend.
They compared it to DTM, (where the wet tyres are not new), and a set are up to 4 seconds a lap different from the same batch.
Thanks. Makes sense if the pro-longed storage could impact performance. No space for such variations in F1.They compared it to DTM, (where the wet tyres are not new), and a set are up to 4 seconds a lap different from the same batch.
TheDeuce said:
How can they achieve that though? Putting aside the electric future of essentially all vehicles, right now F1 means fossil fuel for the entire show = carbon.
If they took mobile carbon conversation plants with them, would that be offsetting? Or zero carbon on the basis they had left the area lower carbon than before the whole event arrived?
I'm lost on how anything much can be achieved in the world for genuinely zero carbon by 2030. Pretty much any process that involves heat to form something has a carbon cost at some point. Come to think of it, if the people working out how to be carbon free happen to breathe then they've already ruined it
Well, that remains to be seen. The purpose of setting a target is that it provides an objective to which all components aim to move towards. It may well be that they don't achieve the target but by setting one, they will be closer to that target than if they had not and any deficiency can then be offset through other means.If they took mobile carbon conversation plants with them, would that be offsetting? Or zero carbon on the basis they had left the area lower carbon than before the whole event arrived?
I'm lost on how anything much can be achieved in the world for genuinely zero carbon by 2030. Pretty much any process that involves heat to form something has a carbon cost at some point. Come to think of it, if the people working out how to be carbon free happen to breathe then they've already ruined it
'Zero Carbon' or 'Carbon Free' are somewhat misnomers. As you say, we produce it naturally when we exhale. What it relates to is reducing the amount produced beyond that which would be produced without additional human intervention.
The problem with focusing upon carbon is that it belies the wider ambitions towards environmental protection which constitute three core pillars:
Sustainability: The preservation of finite resources
Pollution: Impact on human health and wellbeing
Climate: Impact of global warming
So by placing emphasis on carbon reduction helps to address climate and pollution but this is irrelevant if we continue to suck oil out of the ground at a rate faster than it can naturally replenish.
StevieBee said:
Well, that remains to be seen. The purpose of setting a target is that it provides an objective to which all components aim to move towards. It may well be that they don't achieve the target but by setting one, they will be closer to that target than if they had not and any deficiency can then be offset through other means.
'Zero Carbon' or 'Carbon Free' are somewhat misnomers. As you say, we produce it naturally when we exhale. What it relates to is reducing the amount produced beyond that which would be produced without additional human intervention.
The problem with focusing upon carbon is that it belies the wider ambitions towards environmental protection which constitute three core pillars:
Sustainability: The preservation of finite resources
Pollution: Impact on human health and wellbeing
Climate: Impact of global warming
So by placing emphasis on carbon reduction helps to address climate and pollution but this is irrelevant if we continue to suck oil out of the ground at a rate faster than it can naturally replenish.
That all makes sense. But the target isn't just aspirational, it's a complete joke. They can offset sure, but how can they have any expectation of getting remotely close to zero carbon in F1, a sport which involves fabricating thousands of parts per car and transporting them around the world? 'Zero Carbon' or 'Carbon Free' are somewhat misnomers. As you say, we produce it naturally when we exhale. What it relates to is reducing the amount produced beyond that which would be produced without additional human intervention.
The problem with focusing upon carbon is that it belies the wider ambitions towards environmental protection which constitute three core pillars:
Sustainability: The preservation of finite resources
Pollution: Impact on human health and wellbeing
Climate: Impact of global warming
So by placing emphasis on carbon reduction helps to address climate and pollution but this is irrelevant if we continue to suck oil out of the ground at a rate faster than it can naturally replenish.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff