rah wrote:Carbon neutral mean that the amount of carbon produced by F1 is offset by the scolel te project. It doesn't matter how much they produce as long as they sequester the same amount.
F1 should do it's bit as no amount of CO2 is insignificant. I am trying to do my bit, and that is very small in the scheme of things. There is no greater threat to the human race than AGW. If F1 is not seen to do its bit then it will become very unpopular very quickly.
Being as I am a hardened and weary misanthrope
I am encouraged by your comment "There is no greater threat to the human race than AGW" because many people equate AGW with the end of the world and paint it as a bad thing for the world as a whole. I regard it as something best avoided but if humanity were to be drastically culled or irradicated altogether this would be a very good thing for our planet. Our planet has been very much hotter than it is now and very much colder and it has fluctuated often. During the age of the dinosaurs it was substantially hotter than it is today so they may have a renaiscance. I think the biggest threat to our known universe is if humanity goes on unchecked and we end up contaminating the rest of the galaxy and other peoples galaxies. Max Mosely and Bernie Ecclestone running the Federation with Captain Briator and Mr Shcumacher running amok amongst the stars! Can you imagine it? Democracy everywhere
I shudder to think! Roll on a hotter planet, roll on F1, get the job done the quicker the better for everyone apart from humanity
Apologies to anyone who takes this the wrong way
I do not regard that as being carbon-neutral unless the cars and fuels are modified to generate less GHGs. The carbon emission from a NA open-wheel car is far less than that of its F1 counterpart. Then again I refuse to think of F1 as a major contributor to the GHG emissions. Next to some major industries and regular road vehicles the amount is insignificant.
