F1 is 'carbon neutral'

[ArrowsFA1]

Following on from Honda's innovative livery & sponsorship comes the news from the FIA that Grand Prix racing has been carbon neutral since 1997.

The sport's governing body has been financially supporting the Scolel Te project in southern Mexico to offset the emissions caused by both the Formula One World Championship and the World Rally Championship.
The FIA offsets the greenhouse gas emissions of the two world championships through buying credits in the project's trust fund, the Fonfo BioClimatico.
The fund operates a number of different schemes, including the establishment of tree plantations, growing timber and fruit trees, and protecting threatened forests.
The FIA has purchased credits to offset carbon emissions in F1 since 1997 and the WRC since 2001. This has been undertaken independently without contributions from the teams involved.
It is understood that the offsets include not only the emissions of the competing cars but also, and more importantly, the worldwide travel of personnel involved in both championships.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/56953

The FIA is often criticised for it's governing of the sport, but this is one area it should receive praise :up:

[sonic_roadhog]

Fair play, not somrthing I was aware of.

Sonic :)

[ioan]

I'll praise them the day they get rid of the Q3 burning phase and ask for the engines to be one step ahead of the EURO polution restrictions.

[Donney]

Well more things could be dome but this one is good and deserves praise. Good idea from the FIA.

[ArrowsFA1]

I'll praise them the day they get rid of the Q3 burning phase and ask for the engines to be one step ahead of the EURO polution restrictions.
The offsets include the emissions of the competing cars.

[Robinho]

but if they further reduced the emissions and invested the same in carbon offsetting they could become carbon positive.

still its a good thing, especially that they have quietly been getting on with it for the last 10 years.

Well, I for one would never have guessed, considering his ancestry, that Max Mosley was a eco-warrior hippy.

But perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, since it's the supposedly educated chattering-classes who have leapt on the green bandwagon.

Personally, my view is that as the ultimate in evolution and commander of the planet, it's my species duty to follow our primitive instincts and **** the world completely. I certainly didn't spend millions of years to reach the top of the Darwinian tree only to be told I can't do whatever I bloody well want.

Now, anyone for a bit of Panda hunting?

[airshifter]

A good move by the FIA, but I have to agree with the Q3 statement as well. Why burn fuel just for the sake of burning fuel?

[Bagwan]

Well, I for one would never have guessed, considering his ancestry, that Max Mosley was a eco-warrior hippy.

But perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, since it's the supposedly educated chattering-classes who have leapt on the green bandwagon.

Personally, my view is that as the ultimate in evolution and commander of the planet, it's my species duty to follow our primitive instincts and **** the world completely. I certainly didn't spend millions of years to reach the top of the Darwinian tree only to be told I can't do whatever I bloody well want.

Now, anyone for a bit of Panda hunting?

Y'all got that right .
Them spotted owls is gittin real hard to find . Mind you , it gives you more time fer drinkin' .

[luvracin]

I'll praise them the day they get rid of the Q3 burning phase and ask for the engines to be one step ahead of the EURO polution restrictions.


Wow! That's the first thing EVER you have said that I agree with. :D

[cosmicpanda]

I certainly didn't spend millions of years to reach the top of the Darwinian tree only to be told I can't do whatever I bloody well want.

Now, anyone for a bit of Panda hunting?

:o :p :

And, really, humans aren't the pinacle of evolution. We just work quite well in our habitat. Imagine how much trouble you'd be in if you were trapped, unarmed, in the same room as an angry tiger.

[newf66]

Well, I for one would never have guessed, considering his ancestry, that Max Mosley was a eco-warrior hippy.

But perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, since it's the supposedly educated chattering-classes who have leapt on the green bandwagon.

Personally, my view is that as the ultimate in evolution and commander of the planet, it's my species duty to follow our primitive instincts and **** the world completely. I certainly didn't spend millions of years to reach the top of the Darwinian tree only to be told I can't do whatever I bloody well want.

Now, anyone for a bit of Panda hunting?

Can't right now, I'm off to the far north to do a bit of seal hunting - it's a Canadian thing.

[Wilderness]

The offsets include the emissions of the competing cars.
Does it include the emmissions generated by the refineries making the fluids, used by not only the competitors, but also the support vehicles (like the cargo jets fueld to fly equipmet all over the world), manufacturing of the paints, resins, rubber used, etc.?

Or is it just the "direct" emmisions offset?

And, really, humans aren't the pinacle of evolution. We just work quite well in our habitat. Imagine how much trouble you'd be in if you were trapped, unarmed, in the same room as an angry tiger.

Speak for yourself, but I for one would have made sure that -

A) There were no tigers in the room in the first place.
B) There were no tigers in the vicinity with the ability to unlock then lock a door.
C) If there was a chance of being in the vicinity of such a talented tiger/locksmith, I would be armed to the teeth with a gun filled with plenty of anti-tiger bullets.

That's the whole point of Darwinian Theory.....survival of the smartest is what got us here in the first place. The ability to work well in our environment has metamorphised into an ability to control our environment. That makes us top species, bar none.

For all we know, and I still await concrete evidence to the contrary, it was our evolutionary job all along to end up ****ing up the world. Therefore, it would be un-natural and contrary to our evolutionary destiny to start worrying about Cod numbers and low-land dwellers.

Both Cod and people who live at low altitude have had just as long as us more high-altitude folk to crawl out of the primordial swamp and survive. It's just tough titties that they were to lazy to do it effectively.

But the Greens now want to play at being God.

I say sod them, and sod Honda.





Now, I've got to go, my scouts have said there is a Panda down the zoo that should be an easy shot.

[Easy Drifter]

HEH HEH! I got you in my sights baby! Sharps .75 Buffalo gun with black powder (Totally ungreen) and nice friendly hollow points.

[wmcot]

:o :p :

And, really, humans aren't the pinacle of evolution. We just work quite well in our habitat. Imagine how much trouble you'd be in if you were trapped, unarmed, in the same room as an angry tiger.

I always thought cockroaches were at the top????

[F1MAN2007]

Following on from Honda's innovative livery & sponsorship comes the news from the FIA that Grand Prix racing has been carbon neutral since 1997.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/56953

The FIA is often criticised for it's governing of the sport, but this is one area it should receive praise :up:

For the first time this the positive thing done by the FIA. :bounce:

[Hawkmoon]

Does it include the emmissions generated by the refineries making the fluids, used by not only the competitors, but also the support vehicles (like the cargo jets fueld to fly equipmet all over the world), manufacturing of the paints, resins, rubber used, etc.?

Or is it just the "direct" emmisions offset?

You could also add the emmissions caused by running multiple and bloody huge wind tunnels 24/7. Not to mention the banks of super computers.

And what do they do with all the used tyres? F1 cars go through a lot of tyres during a season. Much more, per car, than any other car on the planet I'm guessing. Do they recycle the things? Stick 'em in a huge hole in the ground or set 'em on fire?

I applaud the FIA for the innitiative but I'm a bit sceptical about F1 being truly carbon neutral.

[cosmicpanda]

That's the whole point of Darwinian Theory.....survival of the smartest is what got us here in the first place. The ability to work well in our environment has metamorphised into an ability to control our environment. That makes us top species, bar none.

If global warming turns out to be as bad as predicted these days, then we've done a pretty poor job of controlling our environment, don't you think?


I always thought cockroaches were at the top????

Sure, if you don't mind being eaten on shows like Fear Factor. :p :

[ioan]

You could also add the emmissions caused by running multiple and bloody huge wind tunnels 24/7. Not to mention the banks of super computers.

And what do they do with all the used tyres? F1 cars go through a lot of tyres during a season. Much more, per car, than any other car on the planet I'm guessing. Do they recycle the things? Stick 'em in a huge hole in the ground or set 'em on fire?

I applaud the FIA for the innitiative but I'm a bit sceptical about F1 being truly carbon neutral.

I think they recycle the tires, I've already seen climbing shoes with soles made of F1 tire!

But still they are not carbon neutral (if we take everything into account) and not even close to be environment friendly (well no motorsport will ever be!).

[Erki]

Sure, if you don't mind being eaten on shows like Fear Factor. :p :

It's not their fault that they are eaten by humans who have nothing better to do than eating them. :)

[Mickey T]

everything i've read suggests carbon offsets are a nice way of kidding ourselves.

Most of the time, planting trees really just replaces trees humankind chopped down some time in the last 200 years.

carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for at least 100 years, so a fair slice of these trees going into carbon offset schemes are actually just offsetting stuff that happened between 100 and 200 years ago, and not really offsetting new emissions.

Also, using trees as carbon offsets only works while the trees are growing. when the trees are mature, they are no longer oxygen-positive and become essentially neutral (pushing out more carbon in autumn as the leaves fall off and decompose, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, eating carbon as the leaves grow again in spring).

when the trees age and die (or are chopped down and burnt) they release all that carbon back into the atmosphere anyway.

the FIA is kidding itself if they think this is offsetting anything in motorsport.

There are benefits that have come from rallying into road cars that can be used to justify that sport's emissions as having a greater human good (the public acceptance of the safety benefits of AWD, for example), but it's hard to think of many such things in F1.

It's entertainment. let it justify itself as entertainment...

[Bagwan]

I just watched "Who killed the electric car ?" last night .

Part of Bernie's plan for F1's future is a regenerative braking system .
This plan , on the surface , seems like a great idea , getting the might of Formula one to address the issue , and getting in into all road cars .

Curiously , though , it's not a new idea at all , and there's no need to wait for this technology to develop to bring it into use .

GM's EV1 had a system that worked well enough to pretty much eliminate the need to change brake pads over the entire 5 year lease of the vehicles .

Everyone that drove them loved the EV1's , and there was a lot of life left in them , yet they were crushed .

I don't know where Bernie fits into all this with his idea : whether it's a way to get top engineers to balk at the thought and make it disappear , or to get them to seriously work on making it even more viable .

Having seen the movie , I tend to lean towards the former .


See the movie .
Be warned , though . It will make you angry .

[Hazell B]

Also, using trees as carbon offsets only works while the trees are growing. when the trees are mature, they are no longer oxygen-positive and become essentially neutral ....

That's totally wrong. They are better when younger and in their fastest growth (say years zero to twenty or thirty) then they slow down a good deal, but are still perfectly good as carbon offsets. Many trees planted for this purpose will happily live 300+ years too. In those 300 or more years time when they do die, I'm pretty sure we forum members won't be there to worry about a few thousand trees rotting down or burning :p :

Something is better than nothing ;)

[Wilderness]

I applaud the FIA for the innitiative but I'm a bit sceptical about F1 being truly carbon neutral.
Exactly my point.

[slinkster]

Does it include the emmissions generated by the refineries making the fluids, used by not only the competitors, but also the support vehicles (like the cargo jets fueld to fly equipmet all over the world), manufacturing of the paints, resins, rubber used, etc.?

Or is it just the "direct" emmisions offset?

And what about all the long haul flights the drivers and teams must travel on to get from one place to another?

Well I guess, even if it's not completely offsetting all their carbon emissions, this is a move in the right direction that should be praised.

[wmcot]

It's not their fault that they are eaten by humans who have nothing better to do than eating them. :)

They WILL get even!! :)

[wmcot]

I applaud the FIA for the innitiative but I'm a bit sceptical about F1 being truly carbon neutral.

My thoughts exactly! I wonder if even a sport like Rugby is carbon neutral (...actually more like methane neutral!) ;)