F1 and the climate

[Born Racer]

The place to discuss F1, the climate and the implications.

[P38 in workshop]

I suspect it causes less of a problem than football.The reason I reached this conclusion is that a few years ago I was travelling on a winter's Saturday and noticed all the cars on the motorway that had scarves streaming from their windows that indicated support of a team.Add it up for all the league and non-league teams in each country and it would indicate a vast amount of travelling.Even hoe supporters can have a distance to traverse to reach their home ground.Add in all the journalists and pundits and the foreign fixtures and it has to be ahead of F1.Let us not forget that F1 has been offsetting emissions since 1997 and is doing work that is applicable to the next generation of road cars.Yes we could all get on our bikes but the single most significant sports event for bringing about pollution is the Tour de France.

[crmalcolm]

From the BBC:

Madrid will replace Barcelona as host of the Spanish Grand Prix from 2026.

The race will run on a new 5.47km (3.399-mile) circuit around the Ifema exhibition centre between the Spanish capital and Barajas airport.

Formula 1, which is aiming to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2030, says it will be "one of the calendar's most accessible races".

A statement said 90% of fans would be able to travel to the race via public transport on metro and train lines.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

From the BBC:

A statement said 90% of fans would be able to travel to the race via public transport on metro and train lines.

It's like most statements from official or governmental sources; it's all spin or smoke and mirrors. It assumes that only fans or spectators will come from the Madrid area, and totally ignores that it is likely that many will travel from far away, possibly flying in.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

...and totally ignores that it is likely that many will travel from far away, possibly flying in.

presumably why they are building it right next to their airport then!

and i suspect near a bunch of hotel airports...i dont know the city of Madrid at all, but how close or far away is their airport from the major tourist attractions that one would think F1 will be visiting while in town?

not necessarily a climate related question but surely this factors into what the overall environmental footprint of a race.

while i dont really agree with Teretonga's conclusions, i do have to agree with the notion that the worst ecological effect of motor racing isnt necessarily the fuel they are using or the travel that they do but rather the accumulated carbon footprint of us fans ourselves?

while i do enjoy trying to get to a race in person every few years or so, mainly im at home with the main feed on my TV, tablet open to a live timing screen, laptop on for the additional in car feeds, and a phone scrolling through the socials...4 screens for one person!

and while i can say im probably in the small minority like this that doesn't excuse the sheer level of consumption involved. mentioned this in another thread, but im really glad i cant follow as closely as i used to!

[Richard C]

Ok, here is my two cents. I think as a foundation for my thought as to “F1 and the climate” its best to understand my base thoughts around climate change. I apologize for the length of this post in advance. I cross my fingers in the hope that this is a "one and done" post by me on this topic.

In its simplest terms, I believe in science and the scientific process I also believe that science has recently become politicized (and polarized) due to things such as climate change and the COVID pandemic response. We are sadly in a "post truth" society. The polarization has created loud voices shouting from either end of the spectrum. One end is saying “immediate” doom and the other waving their hands and saying, “absolutely nothing to see here”. As with most things the truth is complex and probably lies somewhere in the middle. I tend to believe it is much closer to the “doom” side than the “move along” crowd.

Humanity has a history of looking at the vastness of the globe and feeling that our ability to impact it is limited or non-existent. The over exploited Atlantic Cod (as one example) begs to differ. Once thought to be a boundless resource has been effectively fished out. So yes, I think humanity is negatively impacting the climate in a significant way and I think there is significant evidence to support this. I also think there are cyclical and natural climate changes that are also at play, but don’t explain everything.

As to fossil fuels. Do I think their days are numbered? When stated that simply the answer is clearly “yes” as it is a finite resource. The real question is how many days are left? I don’t know the answer. It’s extremely unlikely it will be in my lifetime, but as a viable commercial fuel product, its end of life is probably sitting right there on the near horizon. And yes, fossil fuels (particularly crude oil and natural gas) are foundational components for many things used by society. I think that most likely economic pressure (higher costs due to eventual lower and lower demand for fuel) may drive innovation to create alternatives. It will take time and it will not be easy. I 100% believe that we need to transition to renewable energy sources. It will be a long, complex, and messy journey, but a necessary one.

And yes, how we are trying to solve this is messed up. For example, the US CAFE standard (used to define fuel economy standards for US vehicles) are written in such a way that they support the creation of the stereotypical “Big American Car”. In short, the system uses a vehicles wheelbase along with a specific curve that defines the desired fuel economy. But the shape of that curve says that small vehicles have to have insanely high efficiency levels. The answer? Build bigger cars that have lower fuel economy expectations. Coincidently (or not!)… these same larger cars tend to have higher profit margins! This has resulted in the death of small vehicles in the US that could be affordable and efficient (if not to the lofty goals of a rigged CAFE system).

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...tation-wagons/

What do I worry about? If you look at the entire spectrum of opinions, you will find that most everyone agrees that the climate is changing. The disagreement is about who or what is at fault. My concern is that there is not as much discourse around what the impacts will be and how will humanity (really the entire planet) adapt in the most pain free and non-destructive way.

Now onto F1…

F1 is both a sport and a business. And the revenue streams for the business side are to sell access to entertainment as well as provide marketing opportunities. Those willing to provide money for the marketing (particularly those who are involved in power unit supply) are focusing on “green solutions”. Or, looking like they have green solutions.

It seems the number one way to knock these efforts is that any type of “green initiative” must be an all or nothing solution. If you are pushing electric rechargeable batteries, then by God the entire supply chain from start to finish must be 100% carbon neutral, environmentally friendly and without any objective flaws or negatives. Which of course they are not. Nothing is that clean. It’s easy to call out the fuel spent flying and shipping the F1 circus around the globe. It is just so hypocritical it is sickening. Who are these guys kidding? Am I right? (tongue in cheek here ) So the argument is if it can’t be 100% correct or “perfect”, then why do it at all?

With that logic you can effectively tear down anything and everything. It's a false silver bullet. The reality is that nothing is that black and white or simple. So, I don’t agree with the “look at the hypocrisy” view as it is overly simplistic. It is what it is. F1 is probably doing the right things (push for renewable/green energy) for the wrong reasons (marketing in support of business goals). Let’s hope it’s two steps forward with an occasional step backwards vs. three steps backwards. We just need to be moving the ball down the field.

If you are a motorsports enthusiast, especially one who appreciates motorsports of old with loud fire breathing engines, the smells of hot brakes and burning rubber, AND someone who supports a “green” future, you clearly have some potential internal conflicts! Count me included. How I manage this cognitive dissonance is that I firmly believe the world is not black and white. That it is an ongoing and evolving shade of grey. That I do like old school internal combustion engines (I currently am about to start working on a performance build of an old school air cooled 911 engine and believe me, my goal is that nostalgic experience!) but I also think all of this can co-exist with a path to a future green state. You just need the right balance and scale of each.

I think F1 will need to drop its marketing moniker of “top of the technology pyramid”. I mean it stopped doing that decades ago. Yes, it is still very high tech in things like materials, composite construction, and aero dynamics, but with respect to power, suspension and a few other smaller things, it is mostly firmly locked into the past. The current high efficient ICE solutions (MGU-K and MGU-H) is likely going to be the pinnacle of F1 ICE engine technology. Future F1 ICE solutions will be simpler.

I “hope” that F1 tries to stop trying to lead the climate change charge. I “hope” that the future of F1 is a reversion to “old school” engines from decades ago. Pure NA engines with high RPMs and maybe even no hybrid component Probably using fully synthetic fuels, but still throwbacks. I think F1 could become the next “horse buggy racing” and I am OK with that. I do think the manufacture need to be kicked out and the sport probably needs to shrink a bit. It's size drives the need for big money and big money brings agendas that don't align with what many fans want from a racing perspective. F1 needs more service toward the "sport" side than the "business" side. But that is a topic for another thread!

I think discussions like this are valid here, but man, if this dissolves into "but the expert I listen to says" as a way to continue a polarized and politized climate (and frankly "science on trial") discussion, I am out. I have zero interest in that game. Especially as I don't think it is a path to "truth" nor a productive discussion.

Richard

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I “hope” that F1 tries to stop trying to lead the climate change charge. I “hope” that the future of F1 is a reversion to “old school” engines from decades ago. Pure NA engines with high RPMs and maybe even no hybrid component Probably using fully synthetic fuels, but still throwbacks. I think F1 could become the next “horse buggy racing” and I am OK with that. I do think the manufacture need to be kicked out and the sport probably needs to shrink a bit. It's size drives the need for big money and big money brings agendas that don't align with what many fans want from a racing perspective. F1 needs more service toward the "sport" side than the "business" side. But that is a topic for another thread!

A bit of the 'hopes' linked to another thread, but my personal preference differs to yours here (which is fine).
I totally appreciate that things are not 100% perfect, and to strive for that is false hope.
But, I would hope that F1 provides a platform where some of the solutions to the climate change problem can be explored and developed. There are many ways in which progress can be achieved as a side effect of another activity, and motorsport is one of those when it comes to delivery of power, motion and aero. By utilising the sport as a testing ground, why not see improvements that can be delivered in other disciplines appear on the F1 track?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

A bit of the 'hopes' linked to another thread, but my personal preference differs to yours here (which is fine).
I totally appreciate that things are not 100% perfect, and to strive for that is false hope.
But, I would hope that F1 provides a platform where some of the solutions to the climate change problem can be explored and developed. There are many ways in which progress can be achieved as a side effect of another activity, and motorsport is one of those when it comes to delivery of power, motion and aero. By utilising the sport as a testing ground, why not see improvements that can be delivered in other disciplines appear on the F1 track?

Motorsport is also able to provide side benefits that have nothing to do with motoring. For example, some years ago, Williams engineering found something that now benefits the chilled shelves aisles in shops and supermarkets that reduced the amount of refrigerated air that escaped into the shops atmosphere. This had the effect of keeping chilled items at the correct temperature whilst lowering the costs of running the units efficiently.

I believe other teams, such as McLaren have also provided services to businesses that are not involved in the automotive field.

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Motorsport is also able to provide side benefits that have nothing to do with motoring. For example, some years ago, Williams engineering found something that now benefits the chilled shelves aisles in shops and supermarkets that reduced the amount of refrigerated air that escaped into the shops atmosphere. This had the effect of keeping chilled items at the correct temperature whilst lowering the costs of running the units efficiently.

I believe other teams, such as McLaren have also provided services to businesses that are not involved in the automotive field.

I think F1 gave the UK Goverment a lesson in fast track design and production making ventilators in days rather than years. Shame nobody in Goverment learnt the lessons…

[Greem]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

I think F1 gave the UK Goverment a lesson in fast track design and production making ventilators in days rather than years. Shame nobody in Goverment learnt the lessons…

Apologies from me for the politics but... The F1 teams weren't taken up on their design or production philosophies because there was nobody in power who would directly benefit from them. That is, make an enormous profit.

You may now return to climate change!

(In both cases and on all conspiratorial sides, just follow the money. If there's no money, the issue isn't relevant)

((Cynical, me?))

[Teretonga]

From Richards long post:

In its simplest terms, I believe in science and the scientific process I also believe that science has recently become politicized (and polarized) due to things such as climate change and the COVID pandemic response. We are sadly in a "post truth" society. The polarization has created loud voices shouting from either end of the spectrum. One end is saying “immediate” doom and the other waving their hands and saying, “absolutely nothing to see here”. As with most things the truth is complex and probably lies somewhere in the middle. I tend to believe it is much closer to the “doom” side than the “move along” crowd.

My response to this is agreement. Especially the 'post truth' comment.
Political polarization has created argumentative approaches that are not conducive to finding solutions and your closing statement is reflective of that.

Many people have picked a stance on the matter and will defend it at all costs, but it is based on little progressive science.
What is science?

The planet is constantly changing, and science is simply the reflective explanation of what we discover by what we know. If we accept that we are constantly learning and growing in our knowledge and understanding of how the planet functions, then we have to understand that our knowledge and understanding of scientific principle and fact is also flexible and changing.
That is why taking a position and holding it at all costs is rarely rational.

Yes, there are scientific principles like force and gravity that are immutable, but bioscience is profoundly different from physics, and the knowledge base is constantly growing and learning doesn't stop.
It continues to grow.
It is progressive and the understanding of climate change, its causes and effects relating to chemical activity and input of mankind is also changing.
Consequently, some of that knowledge can be misused and misapplied for political purposes and this is actually happening in the realm of politics and climate policy on an international level.

All of this can be overwhelming for the man in the street which is why it is common to find people who have taken a position and argue it from a personal point but rarely are able to substantiate their opinion with reference to anything in the current knowledge debate.
As Richard says, it is complex, and it is possible to choose particular arguments to support causes that no longer apply.

Messy.
And it can be very messy in political arguments.

But people should be aware that not everything you are told, particularly through mainstream media outlets is the truth. Much of it is commercially or politically motivated.

Opinion is shaped by media, and as one prime minister once said when asked how to respond to public disagreement, just send the propaganda.


From Richard's post:
Humanity has a history of looking at the vastness of the globe and feeling that our ability to impact it is limited or non-existent. The over exploited Atlantic Cod (as one example) begs to differ. Once thought to be a boundless resource has been effectively fished out. So yes, I think humanity is negatively impacting the climate in a significant way and I think there is significant evidence to support this. I also think there are cyclical and natural climate changes that are also at play, but don’t explain everything.

Teretong:
This is true.

Richard;
As to fossil fuels. Do I think their days are numbered? When stated that simply the answer is clearly “yes” as it is a finite resource. The real question is how many days are left? I don’t know the answer. It’s extremely unlikely it will be in my lifetime, but as a viable commercial fuel product, its end of life is probably sitting right there on the near horizon. And yes, fossil fuels (particularly crude oil and natural gas) are foundational components for many things used by society. I think that most likely economic pressure (higher costs due to eventual lower and lower demand for fuel) may drive innovation to create alternatives. It will take time and it will not be easy. I 100% believe that we need to transition to renewable energy sources. It will be a long, complex, and messy journey, but a necessary one.


Teretonga:
If we look at coal and other 'fossil fuels' we have an abundance on the planet that could sustain us for centuries if we learn to utilize them in a more productive way. That is also an economic question.

The CAFE comment below is a good example of why relying on industry and politicians to regulate and manage the planet for us is about as effective as putting our head in a noose and jumping off a wall....


Richard:
And yes, how we are trying to solve this is messed up. For example, the US CAFE standard (used to define fuel economy standards for US vehicles) are written in such a way that they support the creation of the stereotypical “Big American Car”. In short, the system uses a vehicles wheelbase along with a specific curve that defines the desired fuel economy. But the shape of that curve says that small vehicles have to have insanely high efficiency levels. The answer? Build bigger cars that have lower fuel economy expectations. Coincidently (or not!)… these same larger cars tend to have higher profit margins! This has resulted in the death of small vehicles in the US that could be affordable and efficient (if not to the lofty goals of a rigged CAFE system).

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...tation-wagons/

What do I worry about? If you look at the entire spectrum of opinions, you will find that most everyone agrees that the climate is changing. The disagreement is about who or what is at fault. My concern is that there is not as much discourse around what the impacts will be and how will humanity (really the entire planet) adapt in the most pain free and non-destructive way.


Teretonga:
This goes back to what was said earlier by both Richard and I.
The issues are complex and variable, and people tend to take a position and then argue that position when the sharing of information and learning is far more valuable. Having fixed positions and debate isn't as productive as feeding other what you do know, and learning from others what you don't know.

Teretonga:
I've left the F1 bit out as I think we all want F1 to grow and the current regulation changes for 2026 are in place. How the sport evolves over the next two years is another thread.

But I do tend to agree with Richard that for F1 to become a more 'traditional' form of the sport and less like a technology leader is desirable I don't see that happening.
The expense and costs of f1 are not sustainable from an economic point of view purely for entertainment, and for that reason if it shrank to purely entertainment it would die.
If it becomes a sport but not directly relevant to technology, it will also shrink. Current forms of the sport are struggling to maintain their economic strength as entertainment outside of F1 and even in the American scene major series like Indycar are actually struggling to maintain their profile outside of the traditional enthusiast base.

Richards comment below i heartily agree with.

'I think discussions like this are valid here, but man, if this dissolves into "but the expert I listen to says" as a way to continue a polarized and politized climate (and frankly "science on trial") discussion, I am out. I have zero interest in that game. Especially as I don't think it is a path to "truth" nor a productive discussion.

[S griffin]

Sadly some people still turn their noses up at science, thinking they know better despite all it's evidence to the contrary

As for the subject matter, F1 is getting more involved with environmental issues and has made progress. We'll see how much further it gets. It's got better with cleaner fuels, although I'd say Indycar is probably ahead of it in turns of sustatinable fuels

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Sadly some people still turn their noses up at science, thinking they know better despite all it's evidence to the contrary

As for the subject matter, F1 is getting more involved with environmental issues and has made progress. We'll see how much further it gets. It's got better with cleaner fuels, although I'd say Indycar is probably ahead of it in turns of sustatinable fuels

That depends on who does the science, who is funding it, what agendas are in play, and how the research is conducted.

Simply saying 'the science' isnt enough.
There are dozens of stories from the 2000's to 2015 of researchers and professors losing tenure and having their funding cut, or being released from universities because they did not tow the narrative that was deemed to be conducive to getting funding, and the people simply bent down or left their institutions.

even the famed 97% of all scientists was a fake.
At a climate conference several 1000 attendees' discussion on climate change was voted on and less than half the attedees voted positively or climate change occurring.
So in evaluating the vote the leaders decided that a number of the attendees werent really climate scientists at all so their vote was simply eliminated.


So if there were 4000 attendees and 1940 voted for the proposal, less than half, then they would have eliminated 2000 votes and 1940 of the remaining 2000 meanyt that 97% agreed.

Those are not the actual numbers, i'd have to go back to research it, but it taught me something about the power of money and influence.
My nephew is a research scientist in biochemistry and this sort of thing is not unusual.

His doctorate was on a way to eliminate carbon from the atmosphere. It was workable and he received plaudits for it but it proved to be uneconomic in dealing with significant volumes.

Simply believing mainstream generalities is not sufficient evidence. Truth is not based on a vote of agreement. It is based substantiated fact, and people who believe everything they are told, without researching what is really going on, are different from the animals in Orwell's Animal Farm.

Theu were told by the pigs that mantra 'four legs good, two legs bad' but when they looked in the window at the pigs walking on their hind legs, entertaining the farmers, they couldn't tell who was who.
To them there was no difference.
And people who believe what they are told and cannot argue their case on current evidence and research data, are sadly no different. They are just as deceived.

So if you people who turn their noses up at science, you have to show what science you are talking about. Who, what, when, where, how, what the precepts were and under whose authority the conclusions were drawn.

There are organizations of scientists who will argue that climate change rhetoric is fake. One group has over 30000 members, all with master's and doctorates who agree that it is not what popular media says it is.
So who's science are people following?
That is the beginning of understanding what is real and what is not real.

I'm not here to argue with people.
I'm simply explaining what real and true about climate data.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

I'm simply explaining what real and true about climate data.

This is where this thread goes awry.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

even the famed 97% of all scientists was a fake.

I mentioned in my earlier post that was concerns about discussions devolving into "my expert says" back and forth. My experience is that polarizing topics like this have this type of anecdotal stories. The usually have a fragment of truth or have some genesis in reality, but take on a life of their own including "facts" of their own and often without any attribution as to source. So for example the "97%" topic. I frankly had not heard of this until you posted it. I was curious. Because the story you provided in which it was a vote at a conference and the process was manipulated to generated desired outcome (nearly 100% agreement). I thought if true, that sounded quite overt. So I did a tiny bit of reading.

Here is what might be a good article on the topic of the "97%" value.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenerg...h=11abb5961157

So the "97%" topic is a "thing" in the culture war in which both sides have decided to battle over and is weaponized by both sides. In short the initial 97% value came from doing analysis of published articles and their conclusions and not a conference in which some type of vote was taken and manipulated. And it then became a weapon for those who believe in the human impact on the climate. Is the 97% value accurate? There are multiple studied that generate different values. You have one clock, you know what time it is, you have two clocks you never know what time it is. So the 97% may not "the truth", but the truth might be 98%, 80% or any other number... including 97% (probably less than 97%). Based upon aggregation of multiple similar studies, it sounds like most all are predominately in the above 80% or "strong consensus" (my wording) category. The article goes into more details.

My point is that most arguments like this in which "facts" are tossed out, are probably various anecdotal talking points depending upon who or where you get your information from. For example that Forbes article might be right, or wrong. I don't know. But at least I am listing a source for a specific data point.

Richard

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I mentioned in my earlier post that was concerns about discussions devolving into "my expert says" back and forth. My experience is that polarizing topics like this have this type of anecdotal stories. The usually have a fragment of truth or have some genesis in reality, but take on a life of their own including "facts" of their own and often without any attribution as to source. So for example the "97%" topic. I frankly had not heard of this until you posted it. I was curious. Because the story you provided in which it was a vote at a conference and the process was manipulated to generated desired outcome (nearly 100% agreement). I thought if true, that sounded quite overt. So I did a tiny bit of reading.

Here is what might be a good article on the topic of the "97%" value.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenerg...h=11abb5961157

So the "97%" topic is a "thing" in the culture war in which both sides have decided to battle over and is weaponized by both sides. In short the initial 97% value came from doing analysis of published articles and their conclusions and not a conference in which some type of vote was taken and manipulated. And it then became a weapon for those who believe in the human impact on the climate. Is the 97% value accurate? There are multiple studied that generate different values. You have one clock, you know what time it is, you have two clocks you never know what time it is. So the 97% may not "the truth", but the truth might be 98%, 80% or any other number... including 97% (probably less than 97%). Based upon aggregation of multiple similar studies, it sounds like most all are predominately in the above 80% or "strong consensus" (my wording) category. The article goes into more details.

My point is that most arguments like this in which "facts" are tossed out, are probably various anecdotal talking points depending upon who or where you get your information from. For example that Forbes article might be right, or wrong. I don't know. But at least I am listing a source for a specific data point.

Richard

The 97% story is one of the more blatant lies
It originally came from a college paper , [Doran Zimmerman ], which had just 75 people who said that people had some effect on the climate and that was 97%.
The left wing politicians and media jumped on this story to try to promote the Global Warming fraud .
This led to the Oregon Petition , where over 30,000 signed . [ including some of Americas top scientists and over 10,000 PHDs ] said that it was rubbish .

To try to keep the scam going an Eco Loon ,[ Cook ], claimed to have read 12,000 published scientific papers and that the 97% was right .
But independent analysis of the papers showed that just 40 odd of them said that humans might have some effect on climate .
But the media still kept pushing the 97% rubbish

Here is some reading about how the whole 97% story is a load of lies .
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/08/...hat-consensus/

[Greem]

Hrm. We've already descended to conspiratorial language, ad-hominem descriptions, and single "fact" based posts.

This escalated predictably quickly. I think my participation in such discussions, brief as it's been, may well be over.

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by Greem

Hrm. We've already descended to conspiratorial language, ad-hominem descriptions, and single "fact" based posts.

This escalated predictably quickly. I think my participation in such discussions, brief as it's been, may well be over.

If you talk about "Single Fact " posts .
Just about every climate prediction from the GLOBAL WARMING side have been proved to be WRONG .
https://notrickszone.com/2023/12/31/...s-are-rubbish/

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Greem

Hrm. We've already descended to conspiratorial language, ad-hominem descriptions, and single "fact" based posts.

This escalated predictably quickly. I think my participation in such discussions, brief as it's been, may well be over.

I confess I'm steering clear....

[VIVA GT]

I'm mostly enjoying this, there appears to have been a lot of well thought out and polite discussion. I've resisted adding my tenpennyworth so far, but have found a lot of the comments reassuring.

[Tel 911S]

This site is worth a read , with loads of actual facts which show the whole Global Warming / Climate change fraud is a load of lies .http://icecap.us/index.php


And another fact . The United Nations formed a committee [ IPCC ] to promote the whole thing and admitted the main idea was nothing to do with Climate but about destroying the economy of capitalist countries .
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...tory-lesson-2/
And another one the same .
https://www.investors.com/politics/e...oy-capitalism/
Which is why Germany , UK , Australia , USA and most other Western countries now have a cost of living crisis and their industries are being moved to China etc .

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Greem

Hrm. We've already descended to conspiratorial language, ad-hominem descriptions, and single "fact" based posts.

This escalated predictably quickly. I think my participation in such discussions, brief as it's been, may well be over.

Yes, it's sad to see it descend into this. I want no part of it either if it's going to end up like this

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Greem

Hrm. We've already descended to conspiratorial language, ad-hominem descriptions, and single "fact" based posts.

This escalated predictably quickly. I think my participation in such discussions, brief as it's been, may well be over.

Yes. I think even my last post might not have been clear in my message. My message was not to justify one position or the other, but rather to say that we have entered the realm of presenting "personal opinion" as "fact" along with cherry picked sources (usually dubious) to justify positions. Not to mention quickly leaving any type of link to F1 in the dust.

I am done with this trainwreck. It didn't even make it to a second page (unless my post tips it over).

Richard

[crmalcolm]

I think there are many other places better suited for the debate over climate change.

I understood this thread to be more about the sport of F1, and the implications of changes to the sport (and how it is run) - in the context of a world that is trying to tackle climate change.

Whether climate change is real or not, the motivations of governments and multi-national bodies are not really relevant to the discussion here.


Maybe the best stance to start from, if this conversation is to remain productive, is to assume that:

F1 operates in a world, where many people are concerned about climate change.
As part of that, F1 will be scrutinised for its practices in relation to environmental concerns.

Treat the validity of climate change as an unknown. Start from the assumption it is true. Rather than challenge the assumption, lets accept it and discuss the implications?

[crmalcolm]

One word in a press release - but deliberately included as a nod to the need to address climate / environmental issues. Ferrari announce the move to enter sailing competitions:

"With this new competitive challenge, motivated by our innovative capacity and commitment to sustainability, we will push beyond current boundaries,"

The full story about the move can be found here - https://www.bbc.com/sport/sailing/68083310