No time for pit-stops
As the climate crisis deepens, Formula One is under growing pressure to clean up its act. But is the sport’s drive to be more sustainable merely a token gesture?
The popularity of Formula One may have accelerated in recent years, but with heatwaves, storms and floods becoming more common and destructive due to climate change, this fossil fuel-driven sport’s troubling impact on the planet is coming under increasing heat.
According to the scientific consensus, the world is sitting on the precipice of dangerous levels of global warming. So the sight of gas-guzzling cars looping around a racetrack is not a good look in the climate emergency age.
Formula One bosses are acutely aware of their image problem and reputation as an insouciant polluter. And, to their credit, they are trying to do something about it.
Managing director Ross Brawn spoke recently of the sport’s moral and commercial imperative to take action and reduce its historical reliance on greenhouse gases.
‘‘We have a mantra: an F1 fan should be proud of being an F1 fan. That is not only about the excitement on track but showing that F1 can make a difference in society. We all genuinely feel that,’’ Brawn said last year.
So what exactly is F1 doing to reduce its climate impact?
In November 2019, Formula One unveiled its first sustainability strategy, a comprehensive report that detailed its plans to attain net carbon-zero status by 2030 through systematically reducing the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions generated by its operators, events, logistics and racing cars.
‘‘We recognise the critical role that all organisations must play in tackling this global issue,’’ Formula One’s then-chief executive Chase Carey said at the time (he has since been replaced by Italian Stefano Domenicali).
‘‘We believe that F1 can continue to be a pioneer for the auto industry, working with the energy and automotive sectors to deliver the world’s first net zerocarbon power unit, driving down carbon emissions across the globe.’’
Key targets outlined in the report’s ‘‘Countdown to zero’’ action plan include introducing net zero-carbon powered race cars; ensuring all Formula One offices, facilities and factories are 100% renewably powered; offering ultra-efficient and low-carbon logistics and travel; and devising credible carbon offset schemes. They aim to achieve all this by 2030.
It’s a hugely ambitious programme that all sounds promising on paper, even if there’s a big difference between achieving ‘‘zero’’ and ‘‘net zero’’ emissions. The former means producing no pollution whatsoever; the latter allows for some emissions, offsetting them by, for instance, planting trees.
So while Formula One deserves some kudos for its efforts to combat climate change, plenty of critics believe it should be doing a lot more – and with greater urgency.
Chief among them are star drivers Lewis Hamilton and Sebastian Vettel, both of whom are multiple world champions and committed environmentalists.
‘‘I don’t fully understand why that doesn’t change sooner,’’ Hamilton said shortly after the sport’s 10-year net zero plan was announced.
‘‘These large corporations that have a lot of money and power behind them and can definitely make change happen quicker, but it’s not their No 1 priority.’’
Vettel, meanwhile, called on Formula One’s governing body to show more ‘‘responsibility’’ with its climate strategy.
Their concerns over a ‘‘greenwash’’ are shared by Dr Sergio Biggemann, an associate professor of marketing at the University of Otago and an authority on sports brands.
Biggemann feels Formula One’s sustainability strategy is, at best, ‘‘a recount of some of the environmental impact of their operations’’ and the report leaves him with the impression that the net zero goal would be achieved through carbon offsets that cost ‘‘immense amounts of money’’.
He says Formula One’s attempt to clean up its image is most probably driven by the expectations of its fanbase rather than any altruistic motives, and warned that its lofty targets must be taken with a heavy grain of salt.
‘‘Brands undertake sustainable initiatives because customers expect to see some action,’’ Biggemann says.
‘‘However, one cannot be naive and believe that everyone can really become sustainable.
‘‘Some industries are just big generators of carbon, among them F1. [But] every organisation, regardless of its nature, should think about its carbon emissions and try to figure out how to reduce them.’’
Formula One did not respond to multiple requests for comment on its proposals.
What else is being done to make F1 more sustainable?
One of the fundamental goals outlined in the report is to make every race in the calendar a sustainable spectacle by 2025.
To achieve this ‘‘positive raceprint’’, only recyclable or compostable materials (no single-use plastic) will be used at events, with all the subsequent waste reused, recycled or composted.
There are also incentives for spectators to use greener and more sustainable travel when attending races, namely public transport, bike, electric vehicle or on foot. However, the report offers no details on what these ‘‘incentives’’ actually are, merely promising to offset emissions created by their travel.
In addition, vague promises are made to ‘‘prioritise fan wellbeing and the local environment by enhancing biodiversity, improving air quality and offering healthier food options’’, and build partnerships with local community groups.
Those two pledges in particular offer little in the way of substance and are impossible to quantify.
What is F1’s annual carbon footprint?
Buried on page 8 of the 10-page report is Formula One’s estimated carbon footprint for
an entire season, which comprises the races themselves along with the logistics, facilities and factories, operations and business travel.
And it’s an alarming figure. According to its own detailed analysis, motorsport’s premier racing series is responsible for omitting approximately 256,000 tonnes of carbon every year – the equivalent of about 37,000 return flights between Auckland and London.
It might surprise you to learn that the Formula One cars are to blame for a minuscule amount of those emissions (0.7%), with a whopping 45% coming from the air, sea and road transport needed to shift each of the 10 teams’ equipment from circuit to circuit throughout the season.
A further 27.7% is derived from the transport of the 10 teams, employees and commercial partners, with offices, factories and facilities responsible for 19.3% of emissions. The remaining 7.3% is drawn from event operations, including broadcasting, circuit energy use and support races.
Barbara Nebel, chief executive of think-step-anz, a sustainability consultancy, says that, while Formula One should be commended for providing an extensive breakdown of its environmental impact and commitment to cutting carbon, more details are needed on how its annual footprint is calculated.
‘‘It doesn’t say in the report whether it’s a verified inventory, it doesn’t say what standards they have used. It’s good to put the numbers out, but it would be good to know where they come from.
‘‘A verified footprint would really help instal some confidence into those numbers.’’
Nebel also has misgivings about the ‘‘pathway to reduction’’ and how Formula One plans to meet its bold objectives.
‘‘They say net zero, but are they actually going to reduce their footprint, or are they going to do it by offsetting?
‘‘How are they going to reduce their footprint? Do they actually have a pathway for that? I couldn’t see any of that in their strategy.
‘‘I think they have to be very careful in telling their environmental story to make it a real one.’’
In the short term at least, Formula One’s footprint will only get worse following the expansion of the racing calendar since the report’s publication three years ago.
Further, as Biggemann notes, the report says little about how the sport intends to lower business travel, ‘‘an area that offers more opportunities for improvement and is in their hands’’.
‘‘In brief, it appears to be a mere greenwash,’’ Biggemann adds.
Why doesn’t F1 just go electric?
Good question. There is, of course, already a Formula E series featuring electric cars, which was launched in 2014.
Formula One has no plans to follow suit just yet. As Brawn pointed out to the Guardian last year, electric cars still require power often derived from fossilfuelled power stations.
Instead, the focus is on developing cutting-edge engines that deliver more power while using less fuel.
By 2025, the sport is committed to using only 100% fully sustainable fuel, which emits zero carbon. This season, 10% sustainable fuel is already in use.
While fuel for the cars is responsible for only a tiny proportion of the sport’s emissions, Nebel believes Formula One’s focus on sustainable fuel could have positive ramifications.
‘‘What people see and first think about [with Formula One] is the fuel. There is an opportunity that, if they put a lot of research into sustainable fuels, then that might be rolled out to others.
‘For example, if you think about how [Tesla co-founder] Elon Musk made electric cars sexy, and puts a lot of research into it, he’s starting to produce batteries without cobalt. But that is because he can afford to put a lot of research into it.
‘‘If the racing community have a lot of funding to put research into sustainable fuels, that might be something that is a benefit to everyone else.
‘‘I don’t think they can oversell that, though, as they obviously still have a large footprint.’’
Nebel stresses that the definition of ‘‘sustainable fuels’’ must be clearly defined, ‘‘as in properly renewable and coming from regenerative sources’’.
But again, focusing on the fuel burned during the race is a bit of a distraction: these electric cars and their teams will also be travelling from race to race – and this is responsible for the bulk of fossil fuel pollution. Electricpowered trucks and buses might help.
But long-distance electric air and sea freight isn’t a reality at this moment in time and, as Biggemann points out, even if it were, ‘‘the merits would not be theirs’’ – F1 would be claiming the credit due to another organisation.
The creation of the electricity also matters: a race held in New Zealand, for example, could produce less pollution, because a high proportion of our electricity comes from renewable generation, such as hydro dams and wind farms. New green power projects are being added regularly.
But in the United States, where a higher proportion of electricity is created by burning all three fossil fuels – natural gas, coal and oil – electric motors won’t make as much difference.
Are there any other obvious ways to cut emissions?
Yes. Reorganising the race schedule so that teams (and their equipment) are not needlessly flying from one corner of the world to the other would make sense from both a logistical and an environmental perspective.
This season, for instance, began in Bahrain, before moving on to Saudi Arabia, Australia, Italy and the US. The racing then shifts to Spain, Monaco and Azerbaijan, followed by trips to Canada, Britain, Austria, France, Hungary and Belgium. The final eight races are in the Netherlands, Italy, Singapore, Japan, the US, Mexico, Brazil and Abu Dhabi.
Given that the transportation of the teams and all their equipment is the biggest contributor to the sport’s emissions, it seems irresponsible not to arrange the races by region in order to reduce unnecessary jet-setting across the globe.
Nebel says changing the calendar in this manner ‘‘would be a great thing to do’’ and she goes further in calling for ‘‘fewer events and fewer locations’’ in order to reduce Formula One’s ‘‘logistics and travel impact’’, the ‘‘big ticket items’’ in its footprint.
‘‘Streamlining the race calendar would make a significant difference, because logistics make up 45% and business travel makes up nearly 30% of their current published footprint,’’ she says.
‘‘There seems to be a fair bit of criticism over the circuits in, say, Bahrain, or Saudi Arabia, so they potentially have an opportunity to add a social aspect into it as well.’’
As with all major global sporting events, Formula One can only realistically look to reduce rather than eliminate its high CO2 output, and it has at least committed to offset its footprint through tree planting and carbon capture technology in order to achieve its net zero target by 2030.
Yet more can and must be done to address what is the most pressing issue of our time.
Formula One’s willingness to change its polluting ways should be welcomed, but the road ahead is long and gruelling – with no time for pit-stops.