F1 and the climate

[S griffin]

Bio fuels are still greener than petrol and have shown they still have a place. And it’s been improved upon in recent years. They are here to stay

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Bio fuels are still greener than petrol and have shown they still have a place. And it’s been improved upon in recent years. They are here to stay

Surely that depends on the source of the bio fuels; if it's from crops grown to create fuel, then it's not good because that land could have been used to grow food for the millions of starving people around the world.

This whole subject is not as clear cut as many would have the world believe.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

I assume Formula One plans to achieve token carbon neutrality by planting offset trees etc?

That is probably the case, when you put together some of what has been said so far.

Toby Miller opines: “I am concerned [the Carbon Zero solution] will be a displacement. The advances made in jet fuel transformation are nowhere near what is required in order to make air travel of the kind that F1 engages in any sense manageable, feasible or credible. Even if they manage to reduce massively the other parts of their carbon footprint, travel is always going to be the problem.
The real nettle to be grasped is international travel and not just of people but of heavy machinery across the globe for a season that lasts almost 10 months a year. That needs to be the headline question.”

Ellen Jones has admitted that at a certain point, offsets may be the only option left: “When it comes to unavoidable emissions after we have finished our investment in reduction, that is really important. My response to offsets is clear. We are focused on carbon reduction, we understand that as we get closer to 2030 that offsets the balance to zero of unavoidable emissions will need to be reviewed.
So we are watching it to ensure there is credibility when we make those purchases, but F1 can also give back and support the development of technical offsets through technology. It’s a really important point that people focus on reduction first. For unavoidable emissions we will have to look at what credible carbon removal looks like.”

[NaBUru38]

Motorsport promoters should make track tickets include train and/or electric bus tickets for free.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

Motorsport promoters should make track tickets include train and/or electric bus tickets for free.

totally and necessary for sure but for me this also highlights that us fans have a part to play in helping F1 achieve greater sustainability...after all, these events are being played out for our entertainment.

well for those of us fans who still enjoy and follow F1 these days anyways.

at the least there is a shared responsibility here in order to help keep this thing which we enjoy going.

not saying i am a saint in all of this, far from it to be honest, and certainly there is more than enough hypocrisy going around these days...but the role us fans can play should factor more into the larger conversation imo.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Surely that depends on the source of the bio fuels; if it's from crops grown to create fuel, then it's not good because that land could have been used to grow food for the millions of starving people around the world.

This whole subject is not as clear cut as many would have the world believe.

A lot of what is used from the leftovers of the crop IIRC, i.e. the stuff left over after they turn crops into food. And with GMOs it might become a little easier.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by S griffin

A lot of what is used from the leftovers of the crop IIRC, i.e. the stuff left over after they turn crops into food. And with GMOs it might become a little easier.

Would you be kind enough to provide a link to the source of that assertion, please.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Would you be kind enough to provide a link to the source of that assertion, please.

Not without a lot of searching, I’m sure I can find it somewhere

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Would you be kind enough to provide a link to the source of that assertion, please.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666052023000043


Although, for DHL's trucks supporting F1, the biofuel is HVO - 'HVO (hydrotreated vegetable oil) is a renewable fuel made of vegetable oils, used cooking oils, residues, and animal fat.'

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Mod: There have been a few posts brought to the mods attention in the course of this thread evolving.

Please keep this thread on topic.... if you want to discuss the climate and environmental changes. Their causes and effects, what happens next or the way forward in a larger context,, then Parc Ferme is the place to start that thread and continue that discussion.

[Mike Harte]

But the question is, how much is currently produced, and how does that compare with the amount of crop that is grown worldwide specifically for conversion to bio fuel?

Unfortunately, I believe that in Brazil that they have destroyed an awful lot of forestry just to grow crops that becomes bio fuel.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666052023000043


Although, for DHL's trucks supporting F1, the biofuel is HVO - 'HVO (hydrotreated vegetable oil) is a renewable fuel made of vegetable oils, used cooking oils, residues, and animal fat.'

That’s the best and most renewable way to do it, without taking up too much of the world’s food. I think that was similar with bio ethanol. I stand to be corrected

[Skam85]

I don't really have much to add but I really really don't like paper straws.
F1 tracks sell drinks with straws so it's on topic

[NaBUru38]

Originally Posted by S griffin

That’s the best and most renewable way to do it, without taking up too much of the world’s food.

I disagree that renewable fuels are the best solution. Wind, solar and to a certain extent hydro are less polluting.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Surely that depends on the source of the bio fuels; if it's from crops grown to create fuel, then it's not good because that land could have been used to grow food for the millions of starving people around the world.

This whole subject is not as clear cut as many would have the world believe.

I'm not saying you're wrong (you're not), but this generally isn't how growing crops works. You grow crops and the higher quality grains can go to food, beers etc. Then as the quality decreases it becomes less suitable for food and it becomes things like chicken feed. Biofuels are in this range somewhere too.

Additionally, it's hard to say things like "we shouldn't use crops for fuel when we can use it for food for starving people" when we currently don't use it for starving people. This especially doesn't work if a fuel provider is funding the crops. They wouldn't have been funding it otherwise, so it wouldn't exist for feeding the starving.

"Don't do X, because then you can't do Y" falls down when nobody is doing Y anyway. Using this argument it's "Don't do anything because there's no perfect solution and other problems exist."

[Mike Harte]

I have no objection to using by-products from crop growing being used, however I personally don't believe that it is acceptable to bulldoze down huge forests purely to grow crops purely for bio fuel, which regretfully does happen. Much in the same way that forests have been destroyed to grow palm trees due to the huge demand for palm oil that is now used in so many products.

[Akrapovic]

I think we all agree that's not acceptable. But, I don't mean this in an offensive way, that isn't what you said. You said we should not be growing that instead of feeding people.

The largest producer of biofuels is the United States - almost double the next largest producer, Brazil. Whilst Brazil is known for its deforestation issues, the United States is not, and has controls in place to limit it. Meanwhile, Germany, Netherlands, France and the UK are also catching China on production. Europe produces more biofuel than Brazil, with no rainforest destruction.

So yes, we all agree you shouldn't cut down rain forests to make biofuel. But a massive amount of biofuel is not produced by culling rainforests, and is not displacing food production because it's funded by people who would not be funding food production.

It sounds like you're against how you feel biofuels are produced, rather than how a vast amount of it is actually produced. Biofuel is significantly greener than regular fuel and absolutely an option F1 should be looking at for sustainability purposes. And since part of sustainability is marketing (like it or not), they could gain additional green credits by making sure all of the biofuel they use is not sourced from an area suffering deforestation to produce it.

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I think we all agree that's not acceptable. But, I don't mean this in an offensive way, that isn't what you said. You said we should not be growing that instead of feeding people.

The largest producer of biofuels is the United States - almost double the next largest producer, Brazil. Whilst Brazil is known for its deforestation issues, the United States is not, and has controls in place to limit it. Meanwhile, Germany, Netherlands, France and the UK are also catching China on production. Europe produces more biofuel than Brazil, with no rainforest destruction.

So yes, we all agree you shouldn't cut down rain forests to make biofuel. But a massive amount of biofuel is not produced by culling rainforests, and is not displacing food production because it's funded by people who would not be funding food production.

It sounds like you're against how you feel biofuels are produced, rather than how a vast amount of it is actually produced. Biofuel is significantly greener than regular fuel and absolutely an option F1 should be looking at for sustainability purposes. And since part of sustainability is marketing (like it or not), they could gain additional green credits by making sure all of the biofuel they use is not sourced from an area suffering deforestation to produce it.

Despite all of the lies about Biofuels , that actually produce more CO2 as a whole than regular fuel. .https://theconversation.com/biofuels...eres-why-64463
But just like a lot of the other Green lies , they are nothing to do with the climate , but about taking more taxes and money from Western economies .
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...tory-lesson-2/

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

Despite all of the lies about Biofuels , that actually produce more CO2 as a whole than regular fuel. .https://theconversation.com/biofuels...eres-why-64463
But just like a lot of the other Green lies , they are nothing to do with the climate , but about taking more taxes and money from Western economies .
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...tory-lesson-2/

Earlier you told us that CO2 did not have an impact on the climate and that global warming was a myth. Now, you believe that biofuels are worse for the climate because they have higher CO2 emissions.

I feel your addiction to conspiracy theories may be causing some contradictory thoughts here.

However, when discussing F1 a big part of the discussion is sustainability. And growing fuel is more sustainable than using a limited supply. For obvious reasons.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

Despite all of the lies about Biofuels , that actually produce more CO2 as a whole than regular fuel. .https://theconversation.com/biofuels...eres-why-64463
But just like a lot of the other Green lies , they are nothing to do with the climate , but about taking more taxes and money from Western economies .
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...tory-lesson-2/

I am trying to stay out of this as it continues to go downhill and is nearly 100% off topic. But I wanted to just call out the quality of the evidence being presented...

1. Your first link is for a study that does not support what you are saying (that biofuels produce more CO2 than fossil fuels). Rather it is staying that biofuels are not "carbon neutral" in that if you include the production process, they produce more CO2 than they remove. And I can agree with that study. But again, does not support your assertion that bio fuels are worse than fossil fuels from a CO2 perspective.

2. That is an opinion piece (and labelled as such). Just someone on a soapbox like any of us here. But not evidence.

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

Mod: There have been a few posts brought to the mods attention in the course of this thread evolving.

Please keep this thread on topic.... if you want to discuss the climate and environmental changes. Their causes and effects, what happens next or the way forward in a larger context,, then Parc Ferme is the place to start that thread and continue that discussion.

I come to this sub-forum to read F1 related content. This is with the expectation that anything here is going to be on topic. So while I could just ignore this thread, if I see a post, I am expecting that it might be something that is of interest given the topic.

I think nine+ posts since this warning/comment (including this one) and of those, I think only one or two includes any real mentions any real F1 relevance directly. The rest is just back and forth assertions. I might even find some of the discussion interesting, but not what I come here to see.

Is there any real potential that this thread will remain on topic to F1? I think not. It is going to continue to be he said/she said. And as I point out above, even the "facts" brought are probably unlikely to be facts, or correctly presented. Can we either moderate this to keep it on topic (F1 related) or move it to Parc Ferme.

Richard

[crmalcolm]

It's hard to follow how these points being put across are either consistent, or related to F1.

At one point, the amount of transportation required to deliver the F1 calendar was under question, and around this time the following was posted:

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

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 .

Which means if we follow this through, then F1 need not worry about the amount of travel involved, or the fuel used to do so (because it makes no difference).

So, with that view put across, if the claim is made that

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

Despite all of the lies about Biofuels , that actually produce more CO2 as a whole than regular fuel.

then F1 switching to Biofuel for both transportation and the cars racing has no impact (so neither positive or negative) - but is using a sustainable (renewable) source of energy rather than the finite fossil fuels currently used.

Which surely means that F1 using Biofuel, whether you think global warming is a conspiracy or not, is still a good thing?

You can't claim Biofuels are a bad thing because they produce more CO2, and simultaneously say the CO2 production from transportation is insignificant.

[VIVA GT]

Trying to keep my point F1 related, I think the point being made within the sport is that F1 is supposed to becoming 'Carbon Neutral' and therefore explaining that the production process produces excessive CO2 shouts that claim down. The fact that the fuel is coming from a renewable source is still relevant, but it is not something that is so widely publicised because the whole 'CO2 thing' is the handle that everyone seems to be putting forward as the most relevant.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

Trying to keep my point F1 related, I think the point being made within the sport is that F1 is supposed to becoming 'Carbon Neutral' and therefore explaining that the production process produces excessive CO2 shouts that claim down. The fact that the fuel is coming from a renewable source is still relevant, but it is not something that is so widely publicised because the whole 'CO2 thing' is the handle that everyone seems to be putting forward as the most relevant.

Understood - although the goal to be Net Zero Carbon is just one of the five Key Goals of F1. It is more appropriate to view it as part of their wider aim, which is focused on sustainability.

For reference, the Five Key Goals are:

• Develop future engine powered by sustainable fuels
• Become Net Zero Carbon by 2030
• Zero waste on and off track
• Reduced footprint back at base
• Leave a lasting positive impact

If sustainable fuels result in more carbon emissions that fossil fuels, then that is just part of the wider sustainability goal.


It is also worth noting that the Strategy for F1 sustainability has two lines of effort - 'Countdown to Zero' and 'Positive Race Print'. Actions and initiatives along one line of effort may make achieving the other harder, but that does not mean they are taken as mutually exclusive, but are complementary.

For Countdown to Zero:
On the Track - 'Deliver the most powerful and efficient race cars on earth propelled by sustainably-fuelled hybrid power units, putting Formula 1 at the forefront of the motorsport industry'
On the Move - 'Maximise logistics and travel efficiency through process and volume optimisation, using the least CO2 intensive transport available'
Where we work - 'Transition to 100% renewable electricity at all F1 and team facilities and adopt net zero carbon technologies for HVAC and mobile power'
Balance to Zero - 'Fully offset unavoidable emissions through robust and verifiable biological and technical sequestration programmes'

For Positive Race Print:
What we use - 'Targeting use of only recyclable or compostable materials (e.g. zero single-use plastic), and aiming for 100% of waste to be re-used, recycled or composted'
To the Race - 'Enable fans to reach the race by lower/zero carbon transport methods or credibly offset emissions created by their travel'
Where you watch - 'Prioritise fan wellbeing and the local environment by enhancing biodiversity, improving air quality and offering healthier food options'
With our hosts - 'Give local people greater access to our events and drive positive benefits for local business and causes through constructive partnerships'

[crmalcolm]

So how does F1's scorecard look in achieving their strategy to 2030? Let's take a look:

Advanced Sustainable Fuels - on track
Hybrid Engine Technology - on track
Volume optimisation - one of two goals already achieved
Transition to low CO2 transport - on track
Renewable Energy - 1 of 4 goals achieved
Transition to low/zero emissions generators - on track
Carbon Offsets - behind schedule

Single Use Plastic - 1 of 3 goals achieved
Recycle, Reuse and Compost - on track
Fan Travel - behind schedule
Wellbeing - behind schedule
Biodiversity - on track
STEM education - on track
Community Engagement - on track


Mods - apologies if this is going off topic by discussing wider sustainability goals not related to the climate.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

I disagree that renewable fuels are the best solution. Wind, solar and to a certain extent hydro are less polluting.

But they aren't always practical to do, due to limited resources and you would be hard pushed to get enough of it for F1 or any other series