• ThomasLadder_69@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    I think there’s a MASSIVE difference between Formula/GT/Rally guys and guys who roll coal. True racing cars count for less than 1% of global emissions. The real problem is all the flights and transport necessary to get to the venues. The vehicles themselves are a blip on the radar.

    Guys who roll coal are deliberately harming the environment for the sake of making a really stupid point.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Guys who roll coal are deliberately harming the environment for the sake of making a really stupid point.

      I don’t disagree but it doesn’t let f1/nascar/etc off the hook. their ‘hobby’ is racing in circles burning gas.

      Let me type that again, because the absurdity is powerful:

      THEIR HOBBY IS RACING IN CIRCLES BURNING GAS.

      work it out mate.

      • zbyte64@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        How much CO2 did I waste responding to this comment?

        I think the larger point is that non-hobby, essential things like “going to work” or “feeding the family” should not be cooking the planet.

      • ThomasLadder_69@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Their hobby is a feat of mechanichal engineering, and like I said, their prescence accounts for less than 1% of total emissions.The research and development that goes into these cars can also translate to consumer cars.

        I wouldn’t be surprised if the improved aerodymics, engine efficiency, and reliability from pushing engineering practices significantly offset the emissions created by the sport

        Here is an interesting read showcasing that f1 puts out one tenth of the emissions that the world cup does and also shows that the races themselves only cover 0.7% of the sport’s emissions. So that is 0.7% of <1% of global emissions, which is negligible.

        I understand that off principle, it may seem like a waste, but thinking pragmatically for a second one can see that the benefits outweigh the environmental costs.

        • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Their hobby is a feat of mechanichal engineering, and like I said, their prescence accounts for less than 1% of total emissions.

          their presence accounts for less than 1% of total emission for what? it’s far below total combustion emissions so I have no idea what you’re on about; if you’re asserting that the race itself only uses 1% of the total expended to move the cars to the next race etc., I’ve got radical advice bud:

          you could end 100% of that emission by just STOPPING. Let them mario kart, let them gran turismo ffs.

          The research and development that goes into these cars can also translate to consumer cars.

          yeah this seems like the nasa argument but the actual returns are tiny, teeeny amounts of cross-pollination from the race world to the real world, because even though the real world might benefit from something like radical aerodynamics (vacuum motors for example) don’t work on city streets, or they’re so feverishly expensive that they can’t be applied to the average car.

          Cute canard tho.

          Here is an interesting read showcasing that f1 puts out one tenth of the emissions that the world cup does and also shows that the races themselves only cover 0.7% of the sport’s emissions. So that is 0.7% of <1% of global emissions, which is negligible.

          well that’s fine because I’d like people to stop travelling massive distances for sportsball too. no need to compare, cut 'em both.

          • ThomasLadder_69@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Less than 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions (And by my rough math, it could be lower than even 0.5%)

            While many of the engineering improvements from racing aren’t nearly as dramatic as they were previously (take the flappy paddle gearbox, for example). Nowadays, the improvements are lower level, think things like material science, manufacturing processes, and efficiency. But given the scale of the consumer vehicle market, these small changes add up very quickly.

            Also, I dont think you understand what neglibility means. We would still be well on track for net zero carbon emissions even without sacrificing these culturally/socially significant activities.

            The prime contributor to emissions by far and away is the industrial/power sector. Slight improvements there equate to decades if not hundreds of years of racing/football. A 5 percent decrease in either would easily account for thousands of years of both.

            This is my problem with the “consumers need to do their part” rhetoric. We already are. The only reason things are as bad as they have been is entirely because of greedy mega corporations and governments who refuse to change due to corruption.

            • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              ok, how 'bout this:

              you enjoy watching idiots produce smog that’s not necessary AS YOUR FORM OF ENTERTAINMENT, and the rest of us will despise your shitty choices.

              obviously you are never going to comprehend IT ALL NEEDS TO GO. Because this is your chosen form of entertainment, you don’t give a shit about your children’s future and will selfishly cling to a ‘sport’ which consists of idiots racing in circles.

              You do you. what a strange fetish.

              • ThomasLadder_69@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                obviously you are never going to comprehend IT ALL NEEDS TO GO

                Except that’s not the case. There are plenty of ways to offset emissions, and that is exactly how formula plans to reach carbon-neutrality by 2030. When that happens, what, then? Do you think they still need to go? Even if they are doing no measurable harm to the atmoshpere? What if they had negative carbon production due to excess offsets?

                It seems you are far too obsessed with the principles rather than approaching the situation rationally/pragmatically.

                Also, I don’t even watch racing lmao.

                • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  There are plenty of ways to offset emissions,

                  show me a single one that can offset any significant amount of carbon emissions in any kind of useful timeline. they range from hideously expensive to outright insane (requiring more energy to sequester than was emitted in the burning). of course you’re dumb enough to believe in these fantasies - big oil are the ones selling those too.

                  you’re a fool, who’s entertained by foolish things, and believes foolish solutions will come save you.