News On F1 Forums - Talk Formula 1

gkaytaz wrote:

rah wrote:Nah dude. Carbon neutral means they offset their emmisions with another projetc.

This is where I heard it. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/56953

NA motor sport still emit CO2, however I beleive it is more efficient and emits less than fossil fuel based fuels.

Scolel Te is a carbon sequestration project. FIA administration supports it. But as you said that does not mean the cars do not generate greenhouse gases. What the FIA does is some sort of a balancing act, or confession if you like 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.

I believe that our planet faces much bigger problems than Motor Racing can ever cause. Over population of the human species being probably the biggest but one that no one ever wants to address. We are eating ourselves out of house and home and destroying it at a rapid rate of knots.

jacfan wrote:I believe that our planet faces much bigger problems than Motor Racing can ever cause. Over population of the human species being probably the biggest but one that no one ever wants to address. We are eating ourselves out of house and home and destroying it at a rapid rate of knots.

However "selected problems" surface at selected times...

gkaytaz wrote:

jacfan wrote:I believe that our planet faces much bigger problems than Motor Racing can ever cause. Over population of the human species being probably the biggest but one that no one ever wants to address. We are eating ourselves out of house and home and destroying it at a rapid rate of knots.

However "selected problems" surface at selected times...

Only by self "selected idiots'.

Julian Mayo wrote:

rah wrote:Nah dude. Carbon neutral means they offset their emmisions with another projetc.

This is where I heard it. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/56953

NA motor sport still emit CO2, however I beleive it is more efficient and emits less than fossil fuel based fuels.

Yup, and a renewable resource

And you can drink some blends

GhoGho wrote:

Julian Mayo wrote:

rah wrote:Nah dude. Carbon neutral means they offset their emmisions with another projetc.

This is where I heard it. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/56953

NA motor sport still emit CO2, however I beleive it is more efficient and emits less than fossil fuel based fuels.

Yup, and a renewable resource

And you can drink some blends

As long as it's carefully balanced with a dash of WT

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.

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

Snowy wrote: 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

Fair enough, everyone has their view. But if I were you I would move from the UK. Bad things predicted for you lot.

I had a dream about a chilli

<T-K> wrote:I had a dream about a chilli

Interesting

rah wrote:
Fair enough, everyone has their view. But if I were you I would move from the UK. Bad things predicted for you lot.

We deserve it, we British are idiots! We build houses in flood plains then complain when they flood and the insurers tell us the reason we're not insured is that they don't insure houses in flood plains! Der

Snowy wrote:

rah wrote:
Fair enough, everyone has their view. But if I were you I would move from the UK. Bad things predicted for you lot.

We deserve it, we British are idiots! We build houses in flood plains then complain when they flood and the insurers tell us the reason we're not insured is that they don't insure houses in flood plains! Der

Unfortunately that is a problem that exists in most countries.

Snowy wrote:

rah wrote:
Fair enough, everyone has their view. But if I were you I would move from the UK. Bad things predicted for you lot.

We deserve it, we British are idiots! We build houses in flood plains then complain when they flood and the insurers tell us the reason we're not insured is that they don't insure houses in flood plains! Der

As jacfan too pointed out that is a problem quite common...

What ? People being idiots ?

Yeah that is very common