Carbon neutral F1

[Drawweight]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/50382898

Can somebody explain the reality behind this as I’m confused.

Surely if you are building/consuming a product it is impossible to be ‘carbon neutral’ unless you are replacing the same product into the ecosystem?

Ultra efficient travel, recycling, banning single use plastics, using bio fuel have all been mentioned but all these are still based on consuming natural materials.

Unless you actually stop producing/driving racing cars you can never be ‘carbon neutral?

[HustleRussell]

What you can't reduce, you can offset- carbon capture, clean energy generation etc etc

[Jasandjules]

Yes it is complete bull***t to be seen to be doing something so that rich people can get richer.

[Sandpit Steve]

It’s just a bigger version of the ‘carbon offset’ your airline tries to guilt-trip you into adding to your ticket. Usually the result is a hugely bureaucratic scheme to plant some trees somewhere.
It’s virtue signalling top trumps.

[realjv]

Drawweight said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/50382898

.

Surely if you are building/consuming a product it is impossible to be ‘carbon neutral’ unless you are replacing the same product into the ecosystem?

Ultra efficient travel, recycling, banning single use plastics, using bio fuel have all been mentioned but all these are still based on consuming natural materials.

It's only carbon neutral - i.e CO2 emissions caused - not resource neutral.

[kambites]

Carbon offsetting for the use of fossil fuels is complete rubbish. It's a fudge to placate consumers who are "worried about the environment" in the abstract without actually understanding any of the issues at hand.

[Nampahc Niloc]

In theory bio fuels are carbon negative. As plants grow they capture carbon. The majority is consumed As the fuel and released back into the atmosphere. A small amount is trapped underground.

[StevieBee]

kambites said:

Carbon offsetting for the use of fossil fuels is complete rubbish.

No it's not. It's tightly regulated and - if done correctly - an efficient means to reduce net carbon emissions.

There are plenty of rubbish carbon offsetting schemes but is wrong to cast the same to all.

Trees are only part of it.

I have colleagues working on projects that are reducing marine pollution, for example. Seawater absorbs CO2 but not as efficiently if it's polluted. The money that's funding those projects is drawn from various carbon offsetting pots. Plus the local people who are most directly affected are seeing their health and livelihoods improve.

As mentioned, BioFuel is another means and something research into that's being funded in a similar manner.

Don't get sucked into the knee-jerk reaction that anything evenly vaguely 'green' is a sap to the sandal wearing lentilists. There's a whole heap of really interesting and cool stuff out there that's creating sustainability - proper 'tech' and innovative thinking and it's right that F1 should be part of this.

[farm]

CO2 capture has never worked commercially. CO2 is plant food. Your ships need oodles of energy dense products to make steel Your wind turbines with their steel and concrete bases (never to be removed as all contracts to remove at end of life do not include bases)
Could go on forever but have a life to live

[glazbagun]

Sandpit Steve said:

It’s just a bigger version of the ‘carbon offset’ your airline tries to guilt-trip you into adding to your ticket. Usually the result is a hugely bureaucratic scheme to plant some trees somewhere.
It’s virtue signalling top trumps.

Didn't F1 already target carbon neutrality in the 90's? I remember them starting a trust fund for carbon offset or similar, but noone mentions it today.

• edit. Found it- they buy (or bought) tokens in a trust fund called Fonfo BioClimatico used for carbon offsetting:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a...

Here's Jenson Button talking about it already being carbon neutral in 2007. Seems a little historical revisionism going on?

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/56953/f1-already...

Edited by glazbagun on Tuesday 22 September 19:02

[Terminator X]

HustleRussell said:

What you can't reduce, you can offset- carbon capture, clean energy generation etc etc

If racing has generated say 100 "carbons" then surely nothing can ever be as good as not generating the 100 carbons in the first place?

TX.

[Nampahc Niloc]

Capturing 100 carbons.

Plant trees (need a lot of trees though)

[DOCG]

Does carbon offsetting negate the damage done by their pollution?

[anonymous-user]

DOCG said:

Does carbon offsetting negate the damage done by their pollution?

No, of course not.

[DOCG]

REALIST123 said:

No, of course not.

Then I think the whole thing is a bit misleading

[Nampahc Niloc]

DOCG said:

REALIST123 said:

No, of course not.

Then I think the whole thing is a bit misleading

If done correctly then yes it does. There is a whole area of science looking at ways of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. It’s not just giving money to good causes, it’s about actively removing carbon from the atmosphere.

[kambites]

StevieBee said:

kambites said:

Carbon offsetting for the use of fossil fuels is complete rubbish.

No it's not. It's tightly regulated and - if done correctly - an efficient means to reduce net carbon emissions.

I know there's a number of things technology can provide to help mitigate carbon emissions, but when a corporation uses the term "carbon offsetting" they almost universally mean some hand-wavy tree-planting scheme with assumptions that the trees will grow at hugely improbably rates and never be cut down.

Even if you believe the figures, you quite often find that company A plants some trees to "offset" their emissions, then company B cuts them down for "carbon neutral fuel". Both companies will of course claim their activities are carbon neutral but it's clearly not actually true.