I absolutely grant you that Formula E will have advanced battery technology, but unless there's a way of making synthetic fuels without using up valuable agricultural land its a red herring, or greenwash.

My real beef is the flying of the F1 cars around, along with the drivers and hangers on.

The real CO2 culprits are actually the fans according to this article.
https://thevarsity.ca/2023/10/01/for...very%20season.
If people travelling to watch a race would/could use greener transport it would have a much bigger effect than the race cars or the air transport could ever have.
This is my point. Air transport is not the problem, surface transport is a much bigger polluter.

Nobody would deny that. People are wedded to their cars, and the supposedly environmentally concious younger generation are no exception.

For myself although I own a small city car I only drive to the shops for the big weekly shop, otherwise its a combination of foot, plus tram and / or bus. Obviously it helps that I have an OAP bus and tram pass but the principal benefit is my physical fitness while also reducing my carbon footprint.

Conversely the 16 year old up the road is driven to 600m to school every day.

Point is that all sectors, and all people need to buy into consuming less. I really worry, for my grandchildren, that far too many people and businesses have their heads stuck ostrich-like in the sand. Aviation shouldn't be singled out, but equally shouldn't have an opt out.

The thing is, commercial aviation is self policing. Airlines want more fuel efficiency to increase profits and/or keep prices down to remain competitive. The result is manufacturer's strive for better engines and aircraft design innovation. The 787 is a great example, it's claimed to be 20% more efficient than the aircraft it replaced.
The same could be said for surface transport, however, cutting aviation emissions by 20% is only scratching the surface, cutting surface transport emissions by 20% would have a huge effect.

More fuel efficiency is welcome, unfortunately the predicted growth in aviation would probably offset that gain. People are pinning their hopes on SAF but I can't see it scaling up to meet even current demand.

From 'Reducing emissions in aviation'

The current government in its 'Jet Zero' policy states that it does not want to manage demand in order to reduce emissions. It will be interesting to see what the next government's view is on that.

I know that the F-1 people and the fuel companies tout the rapid research, and all the big companies have an excuse.

The root of the problem is that humans are programmed to look at the next year, possibly three. Looking at history, seeing the repeating cycles and then projecting forward? Not so much! The politicians know that they do not get elected by promising no disaster in 25/50 years time.

A simple example of sewarage in the Thames river (data edited from Wikipedia)
That is 20 years for a problem that had been building for decades and was on their doorstep. Where are we now?

I recommend this documentary on You Tube which dissects the science behind climate change. It's worth the 80 minutes:

I recommend that you might want to first understand why this 'documentary' is nothing but a recycling of old climate myths. "It's a who's who of the organised climate change denial movement"
https://skepticalscience.com/climate...old-myths.html

'Fake graphs and daft conspiracy yarns'
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstit...opaganda-film/

Climate The Movie "the cold truth" debunked

Formula 1 were way ahead on battery technology. And yes, it needs to be reduction not displacement. Shutting Port Talbot so you can then buy the same amount of steel from China is greenwash.

Agreed!

Agreeing again (I'll be kicked out of JetBlast :uhoh:) - as I said earlier, the single biggest individual contribuion is to eat less meat. If I've remembered the figures correctly, agriculture is responsible for 40% of greenhous gas ommisions, with arable 10% and livestock related 30%.

All those green drivers charging electric cars today, just 1.44% of your charge is coming from wind power today and very little more from solar, so you are not charging on zero carbon fuel. I will not feel guilty about my next long haul flight. Flying domestically when it can be avoided, probably the greenest alternative, I drive a diesel car that does 50mpg plus on trips between Cornwall and London Airports so on the basis of the above statistic I am probably being as green as I can be!!!
And I eat NO meat.

I believe most people charge their EVs overnight when nuclear power is a significant proportion of energy generation. And we also import energy from various countries and most generation in France is nuclear.
I have a petrol car although I rarely use it (so rarely in fact that I disconnect the battery to stop it discharging). Keeping the car you have and using other forms of transport where possible is a good idea. But when maintenance is not longer possible, and a car must be replaced, then BEVs are greener than ICE.

Where does that statistic come from? Looks to me as though its one for Tim Harford.

If EVs are being charged overnight, as is sensible given there are cheaper kW/h rates available then if there is wind, and there usually is, much will come from that renewable source. Had I got an EV I could have charged it any day this week using my own generation from solar, or from battery storage. I'm not suggesting for a moment that more than 50% of EV charging is using renewables, but 1.44% appears very low, and rather too precise.

Also please remember that however good your diesel fuel consumption is (ours is too) you and I are both chucking NOX into the atmosphere along with CO2.

I am also a very bad lad, enjoying red meat on a regular basis, though probably not in the quantities I used to.

Gridwatch Templar is the source. No idea who Tim Harford is?

It depends where you are and time of year. Over the winter months in the UK windpower is often supplying more than 50% of all UK demand, average is about 30%. Right now it's about 4%.

Presents the excellent "More or Less" on BBC Radio 4 that investigates principally potentially dubious statistical claims. Well worth a listen on BBC Sounds.

Moving back to aviation, BHX is installing more than 12,000 solar panels along the SW facing noise bund that they claim will provide 20% of their electricity. An example of the kinds of action the sector can take.

Coming back to your post, while wind won't be supplying much this week solar will be doing more of the heavy lifting.

This is amusing:
The Independent (UK)


Who is going to tell them?

Translation: “I’m not interested in these things so they’re unnecessary and should be banned.”

No Vokes55. I do NOT suggest they are banned - as that will be impossible. I can see why people enjoy all those things. I understand why people cross continents to watch their sports team play. I do other things and am by no means 'green'. I once travelled long haul for three days just to attend the wedding of someone. Recently, for business, I decided to attend a lecture at first hand and took two internal flights.

The reason I pointed out those items, is that the multifarious activities of humans all have an effect on the climate. There are a million activities that could be selected for that list. Humans have become so clever at exploiting the planet - how do we slow down? The answer is, I suggest, that we won't.

We have relatives (in the UK) who, aside of their annual 3 week trip to Florida, indulge in numerous European breaks (by air of course) plus the odd Mediterranean cruise. Now that, in my opinion is over the top - made all the more irritating by the fact that although they persist, they really do not seem to appreciate their destinations!