How do racing drivers justify their carbon footprint?

Question

Ive asked this and mistakening put it in F1 catagory, whoa, did I get some stick.

when the public is encouraged to save water, recycle household rubbish, limit flying and take public transport instead of the one- to- a- car regime, how comes racing drivers can burn thousands of gallons of needless fuel?

And no, Im not a tree hugger - just trying to be a responsible human being. I dont do ALL of the above but I do my best

Answer 1

surely you've heard of the INDY car series, ever seen the sponsor labeled "ethanol" on the side of the car......hmmm wonder what fuel they use. ethanol is a renewable resource btw

Answer 2

Aren't the cars,  like the ones in the Flintstones.  You know the drivers are pedalling like crazy.

Answer 3

They justify it like everyone else does.  Their bottom line.

Answer 4

First of all, Global Warming is a lie.... it is the Communism of the 21st century, and it is being used to take the money of the middle and lower class, and make us completely dependent on daddy government.

Race car drivers entertain us. Do you think when there is an explosion on a movie pollution is not generated? Saturday Night Live throws the set and all props away EVERY WEEK! There is pollution in entertainment.

But the fact of the matter is Global Warming is a lie. We need to be responsible with our planet.... but even if you do buy into the Global Warming BS, racing is a mere speck on the map.

Answer 5

Do you go to movies? A UCLA research study concluded that the film industry is the second largest polluter in California behind the oil industry. Go figure.

Answer 6

One word. 'Entertainment'.

Answer 7

I am not tree hugger either. I am a conservative Republican (held office twice) and have not voted much for the lunatic left in decades.  But I am a fisherman and kayaker.   I am not going to answer the question but I am going to take this time to remark how fascinated I am with people who deny global warming.  Why would anyone arrive at the decision to just deny it?  Fascinating to me.  Is it because its seems like the biggest voices on this are left winger types?   And out of a hatred for those types, you deny reality?  Or is it because right winger minister types have decided to deny it based on, I dunno, scripture?  But its really because they think it is a liberal issue.   Libs/Conservatives, what freakish little groups they are, noisy for sure but do not make much real difference at the ballot box.  The rest of us are moderates, we voted for Bush, we voted for Clinton..we try to find the less crazy candiates.  Lib/sConservs bite the big one, did I mention that.

I don't think anyone who goes outside, reads or watches a good  crosspattern of news could reach the conclusion that "nope it ain't happenin".  The Russians are doing oil exploration on the ground that has been exposed by the melting ice cap.  The US Coast Guard has to commit cutters for national security in the areas north of Canada that now have clear water.  Lake Erie did not have ice fishing last year, at all.  The lake did not freeze.  Not long ago you could drive a truck on it, now it does not freeze.  So if some tweak like George Clooney says my leg is on fire I will deny it as long as I can?  But if the fire gets to your balls you will have to admit it....but then it will be too late to save the family jewels.  People who deny the existance of the radical climate change in the past 50 years must be like those who thought that dadblamed gasoline car would never replace the horse.  They honestly fascinate me.  Its a conspiracy?  Its Communism?  Honest to God its like watching the low end of the gene pool.  So there is my answer.

Answer 8

Why don't you reduce your carbon footprint and turn your computer off

Answer 9

To isolate an event and size it's carbon output is a bit pointless. The F1 cars are probably more efficient than the average family car. A far bigger CO2 footprint must come from the spectators of this or any other event where the spectators travel by air, car etc.

Electric cars are even less efficient as the carbon output is transferred from the city and towns to where the power station is sited. The average power station might only convert 50% of the fuel used to useful energy so electric cars are adding more to the CO2 output.

Answer 10

You bring up a very valid point, and the answer is simply that they don't.

Formula 1, NASCAR, etc. simply ignore the problem.  They're burning up a lot of fuel and releasing a lot of greenhouse gases, but their livelihoods depend on it.  I think eventually we may have electric vehicle racing replace internal combution engine racing, but at the moment it's simply a case of pretending there's no problem.

Answer 11

They probably say something stupid like "it's fun" or something. I wish more people would care about this earth :(

Answer 12

The simple answer is - They don't.

In fact many fuel saving ideas etc, are developed in Formula One. Besides that, many safety features, performance ideas and engine effeciency are also developed at Formula One.

Formula One cars do not use the same fuels we do. They use ultra clean, high Octane fuels which are not as heavy on the ecomentalists.

Answer 13

The impact of racing is mostly the same as any spectator sport.  The people travelling to see it.

So, do you want to also ban soccer, football (pro, college, and high school), and baseball?  How about rock concerts?  The ballet?

Singling out racing because it doesn't interest you is dishonest.  You must say we shouldn't have any spectator events.

We don't have to stop doing things to fight global warming.  Here's the practical and affordable plan worked out by hundreds of scientists and economists working together.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/worl...

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf

Banning racing doesn't play a part.

Answer 14

They don't have to.  'Carbon footprint' is the biggest con of the century.

Answer 15

Same way you justify driving your car to work its there job that's what they do for a living .

Answer 16

They just ignore the problem, they don't justify their tobacco sponsorship either.

Racing engines are more efficient than most and are a good "test bed".

Most pollution is probably caused by spectators vehicles and air flights.

Electric racing cars are on the way, http://www.batteryvehiclesociety.org.uk/... if they can get sponsorship;

also see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDHJNG2Pn... for an exciting drag bike.

electric motors are far more efficient than infernal combustion even if electric comes from fossil fuel power station

maximum torque from 0rpm = simpler more efficient transmission, eg Tesla http://www.teslamotors.com only has 7 moving parts in the drive train 0-60 in 4 secs.

regenerative braking, use unrefined fuel, 90% efficient grid transmission system direct to the vehicle; constantly monitored and maintained plant running at optimum load & temperature.