Is Michael Vick a Fan of Formula One?--The Case Against Motorsports

Consider this fact. March 29, 2008 was Earth Hour, a global campaign in which 50 million people across 370 cities and towns and 35 countries, including Singapore, switched off their lights for one hour starting at 8:00 pm to demonstrate a collective concern on the paramount issue of climate change. And guess what organizers of the Singapore F1Grand Prix, which would be the first night race ever, decided to do that very evening during Earth Hour?

Test the floodlights.

With Singapore, my hometown, hosting its first Formula One motor racing event ever this weekend, and China, this blog’s theater of operations, hosting its own F1 race in Shanghai in mid-October, The Green Leap Forward feels compelled to make a few preliminary observations about F1 and motorsports in general.

In this age of US$120 per barrel oil, a climate crisis and not to mention global financial meltdown, motor sports is facing a real challenge to stay relevant, to put it in very mild (read: courteous) terms. In noting the pathetic fuel (in)efficiency of F1 cars, Financial Times columnist Jonathan Guthrie notes (subscription needed):

Motorsport is balanced on a cusp where other previously praiseworthy activities – including smoking, elephant shooting and western military imperialism – teetered before becoming uncool. The problem is that performance car racing is as friendly to the environment as napalming virgin rainforest. The typical Formula One car does a flamboyant 3.8 miles to the gallon, generating enough heat to condemn whole families of polar bears to a long swim.

3.8 miles per gallon. That’s about 1.6 km per liter for those of us living in a metric world. This compares to 28 (urban driving) to 37 (highway) miles per gallon that a Toyota Corolla, one of the most popular cars on America’s roads, gets.

Woof woof!

Renewables Report, in its own (but ultimately fruitless) inquiries with Singapore authorities on the financial and environmental logic of hosting the F1, echoes Mr. Guthrie and concludes in stinging terms:

As the cost of fuel rises, as geopolitical conflicts intensify over oil and other natural resources, the F1 and fossil fuel-based motoring sports will be viewed in the same light as socially unacceptable sports as, say, dog-fighting.

Couldn’t have said it better. When I relayed to an associate my intention of writing a critique of motorsports, he informed me that he was aware that F1 had gone “carbon neutral.” So I decided to do some digging on how green politics today were affecting F1 and its organizers, Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA).

A Campaign of Hypocrisy?

Apparently, F1 has been carbon neutral since 1997, according to this report. It’s a remarkable and almost unbelievable fact considering the fact that carbon offsetting has only in very recent years emerged into society’s consciousness, and even if so, usually just confined to those of the socially responsible. While it would be unjust to assume that just because FIA is in the business or burning petroleum that it is inherently incapable of social responsibility, it is difficult to imagine such an institution, or any organization for that matter, undertaking an action that directly affects its bottom line with no apparent collateral benefits, especially when it has done such a poor job in advertising such progressive actions so as to at least gain some CSR brownie points.

This opinion is reinforced by the somewhat hypocritical “Make Cars Green” campaign that it has recently launched to educate fans on softening their carbon footprint with respect to private car usage. The whole campaign ignores entirely the basic question of whether private vehicle ownership or usage is desirable or even necessary in the first place. It is almost as if it assumes that to buy and own an automobile is an inalienable right. No mention of public transit or better-designed cities to facilitate low-carbon mobility.

Next, it goes on to bellow certain principles such as “Don’t warm up your engines before starting off”, “Accelerate gently and keep your speed constant” and “Don’t idle your engines” that are just hilarious considering the practices of the source of these pieces of advice.

As part of their campaign, they have also promulgated a series of lofty global policy recommendations, but again, talk is cheap.  Its easy to craft idealistic automobile measures on paper, but quite another to lead by example.

No Time for Baby Steps: The Need for an Electron Revolution

In the interest of fair and balanced analysis, however, it behooves this blog to mention some other green steps that FIA/F1 is undertaking. Motorsports has not been able to shield itself from the realpolitik of climate change that is beginning to fundamentally transform many sectors of the economy.  Nick Fry, chief executive of Honda’s F1 team, which has apparently gone green, is quoted as saying:

Formula One historically has been profligate; it’s been a sport which has developed ludicrously powerful engines to really no fixed agenda, maybe running fuels that would never see the light of day. The amounts of money that the car companies are paying to compete in F1 are rewarded hopefully by victories, but that’s not sufficient. It’s got to incorporate technology or intellectual-property development or people development that can be fed back into the parent company.

Other than (reportedly) going carbon neutral and launching a (laughable) green campaign, FIA has officially announced plans to tinker with F1 racing regulations in ways that will allow it to become a test-bed for energy efficiency technologies of the incremental (as opposed to radical and truly transformative) variety.

This racing season, reports The New York Times, F1 cars have been using use fuels containing 5.7% biofuel, consistent with an EU directive for road cars by 2010, will not be subject to an otherwise meaningless 10-minute idling process that does nothing but burn petrol.

Starting in 2009, it will introduce the Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS), a form of regenerative breaking, which basically recovers energy that is typically lost in the process of braking (just think of the numerous tight curves along an F1 track that requires excessive braking and tire burning) and channels it back into the energy flow of propelling the vehicle. But read here for some stumbling blocks that KERS is facing.

And come 2011, there are proposal to downsize the engines of F1 cars and to also eliminate any technology R&D collaboration with major auto manufacturers that are only applicable to F1 racing and not to road cars, reports GreenCarCongress.

I would argue that will these are right steps in the right direction, they do not exactly reflect the urgency of the energy conundrum that currently confronts us.

The blog Green Thoughts and its “The Electron Economy” series of posts best explains why a shift to EVs is a superior technological option over, say, the use of biofuels or hydrogen. In short, electricity is the most efficient carrier of energy and electrical motors are far more efficient converters of energy than internal combustion engines. The sustainability proposition of electricity increases if the source of generating that electricity comes from renewable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal rather than fossil fuels. If FIA was truly sincere about leveraging motorsport as a laboratory for clean automobile technology, it would not be investing heavily in research into electric vehicles (EV) and batteries (which are an essential and currently performance limiting component of EVs). A move away from the internal combustion engine, which is highly inefficient, and towards a renewable electron economy, is what should steer automobile technology research.

Companies like Tesla Motors are ahead of the likes of FIA.

But doing away with private cars altogether, and taking advantage of a public transit network powered by electricity, however, would truly be worthy of the checkered flag.

P.S. For readers not familiar with American football or contemporary US culture, the reference to Michael Vick in the title, a former American football player can be explained here.