At Large: F1’s net zero play is a carbon case study for sport at a critical moment

Formula One has promised to make itself many things under the ownership of Liberty Media: more competitive, more compelling, more digitally minded. Those ambitions have been pursued to varying degrees of success.

Now it is trying to become something that, as a great journalist once put it, it’s not that easy being: green. 

In recognition of the global climate emergency, the world’s leading motorsport series recently announced its plans to attain ‘net zero carbon’ status by 2030. Starting with the race engines – which must be powered by ten per cent biofuel by 2021, with the goal after that of developing a net-zero carbon unit through synthetic fuel and carbon capture – the organisers have proposed a radical overhaul of every aspect of operations.

This includes a pledge to make Grand Prix weekends sustainable by 2025, with single-use plastics eliminated and all waste onsite to be reused, recycled or composted. Yet the bigger challenges lie elsewhere for a championship that produces 256,000 tons of carbon dioxide every year. Teams have agreed to ensure all offices, factories and facilities are fully supplied by renewable energy but transport will be the most complex area to address.

45 per cent of Formula One’s carbon emissions come from moving the whole circus, including cars and other machinery, from circuit to circuit. Another 27 per cent comes from flying the series’ staff, promoters and partners in tow. The suggestion is that the carbon footprint of all that travel will be limited through more careful logistics but, perhaps tellingly, Formula One has also noted that any emissions that cannot be eliminated will be offset by planting trees and researching carbon recapture. 

Anyone waiting for sport to save the world will be waiting a long time. For one thing, change is one of those issues where sport’s reach and visibility has to be set against its actual size as an industry. According to a report by the Climate Accountability Institute in February, 20 fossil fuel companies are responsible for 35 per cent of global carbon and methane emissions. In a similar vein, a 2017 study by the Carbon Disclosure Project found that 100 companies had been responsible for 71 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions since 1988. 

More effective action is clearly going to come elsewhere, through the adoption of renewable energy, cleaner transport methods, reforms to farming practices and, probably, a dramatic reduction in meat consumption. A fraction of that will be possible through changes in individual behaviour, and some more through innovation, but most will result from tougher policies at a government and corporate level.

Short of a fatalistic response, then, sports bodies need to think carefully about the value of any measures they take to address climate change. If nothing else, authentic action can have symbolic power.

As Amelia Womack, the deputy leader of the UK’s Green Party, told the Guardian this week: “It is very welcome that Formula One is making this commitment to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2030, and significantly clean up their environmental impact. It should set a benchmark for all other sports organisations and businesses to follow suit – if F1 can do it then surely anyone can.”

It is probably useful to invert this: if, say, Extinction Rebellion is looking for targets for future protests then wasteful sporting events might be high on the list.  

But even if these carbon-cutting projects are only a small part of the wider fight against climate change, they still need to be meaningful. It is always worth separating small contributions from token gestures. The environmental impact of an event operator or venue cutting energy use, eliminating non-recyclables and processing waste more thoughtfully may be limited, but it is real. Sportswear companies who promote vanishingly small new lines made from recyclable materials but do little to address their broader manufacturing processes are not being quite so helpful.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) moved into a new Lausanne headquarters over the summer that has been dubbed one of the most sustainable buildings in the world, but reducing the impact of the Olympic Games would make a stronger statement. Last month, Manchester City and Nestle trumpeted a partnership that will see the company’s Garden Gourmet burger served at the Etihad Stadium but in the longer term, teams will have to think more deeply about their matchday menus than that.

Sports need to think, too, about why it is that their contribution makes sense. Speaking to SportsPro last year, World Surf League chief executive Sophie Goldschmidt explained that the reason it had targeted ocean plastic pollution was because it is a crisis that is directly affecting surfing’s field of play.

For Formula One, a drive to improve carbon efficiency can be tied to the competitive importance of development in the sport. F1 engines, for example, are unusually thermally efficient, in no small part because of the edge that gives teams on the track. There is an economic angle here, too. The all-electric Formula E is proving highly popular with manufacturers looking to demonstrate road-relevant innovation. For Formula One’s bosses, persuading those companies that they can still pursue similar objectives in Formula One will yield further political leverage in their dealings with the teams. 

Relevance to a particular environmental cause can be reapplied throughout the sports landscape. It is surprising, for example, that Uefa has not yet made a greater play of the possibilities and pleasures of rail travel for its pan-continental Euro 2020 next summer. 

At the same time, the way sport’s economy is developing is at odds with any greener intentions. The globalisation of sports leagues means more travel, and less control over the environmental implications of events. A week before launching its carbon-zero initiative, Formula One revealed that its calendar might expand to a maximum of 25 Grands Prix – the hosts of which may get more tougher to find if climate change really starts to bite. 

The financial realities of all this expansion have also brought rights holders into the orbit of nation states – look it up, the answers may not surprise you – that directly control some of the largest, most pollutant oil companies on the planet. That could give rise to future conflicts of interest.

There are ways in which the development of the global economy could converge with sport’s ecological aims, through trends like local production and cleaner energy, but the reality is that event organisers and rights holders are about to face the same choices as the rest of us. It may be time to consider whether private air travel is an appropriate way for teams to get an edge, whether a National Football League (NFL) franchise in London would be worth the environmental consequences, or if leagues should be doing more to encourage local live experiences over long trips for fans. It might equally be decided that those indulgences are worth it – but in the full knowledge that they come at a cost.

None of these conversations will be any easier for those in the sports industry than anywhere else. None of them will be any easier to avoid, either. 

Formula One has promised to make itself many things under the ownership of Liberty Media: more competitive, more compelling, more digitally minded. Those ambitions have been pursued to varying degrees of success.

Now it is trying to become something that, as a great journalist once put it, it’s not that easy being: green. 

In recognition of the global climate emergency, the world’s leading motorsport series recently announced its plans to attain ‘net zero carbon’ status by 2030. Starting with the race engines – which must be powered by tenper cent biofuel by 2021, with the goal after that of developing a net-zero carbon unit through synthetic fuel and carbon capture – the organisers have proposed a radical overhaul of every aspect of operations.

This includes a pledge to make Grand Prix weekends sustainable by 2025, with single-use plastics eliminated and all waste onsite to be reused, recycled or composted. Yet the bigger challenges lie elsewhere for a championship that produces 256,000 tons of carbon dioxide every year. Teams have agreed to ensure all offices, factories and facilities are fully supplied by renewable energy but transport will be the most complex area to address.

45 per cent of Formula One’s carbon emissions come from moving the whole circus, including cars and other machinery, from circuit to circuit. Another 27 per cent comes from flying the series’ staff, promoters and partners in tow. The suggestion is that the carbon footprint of all that travel will be limited through more careful logistics but, perhaps tellingly, Formula One has also noted that any emissions that cannot be eliminated will be offset by planting trees and researching carbon recapture. 

Anyone waiting for sport to save the world will be waiting a long time. For one thing, change is one of those issues where sport’s reach and visibility has to be set against its actual size as an industry. According to a report by the Climate Accountability Institute in February, 20 fossil fuel companies are responsible for 35 per cent of global carbon and methane emissions. In a similar vein, a 2017 study by the Carbon Disclosure Project found that 100 companies had been responsible for 71 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions since 1988. 

More effective action is clearly going to come elsewhere, through the adoption of renewable energy, cleaner transport methods, reforms to farming practices and, probably, a dramatic reduction in meat consumption. A fraction of that will be possible through changes in individual behaviour, and some more through innovation, but most will result from tougher policies at a government and corporate level.

Short of a fatalistic response, then, sports bodies need to think carefully about the value of any measures they take to address climate change. If nothing else, authentic action can have symbolic power.

As Amelia Womack, the deputy leader of the UK’s Green Party, told the Guardian this week: “It is very welcome that Formula One is making this commitment to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2030, and significantly clean up their environmental impact. It should set a benchmark for all other sports organisations and businesses to follow suit – if F1 can do it then surely anyone can.”

It is probably useful to invert this: if, say, Extinction Rebellion is looking for targets for future protests then wasteful sporting events might be high on the list.  

But even if these carbon-cutting projects are only a small part of the wider fight against climate change, they still need to be meaningful. It is always worth separating small contributions from token gestures. The environmental impact of an event operator or venue cutting energy use, eliminating non-recyclables and processing waste more thoughtfully may be limited, but it is real. Sportswear companies who promote vanishingly small new lines made from recyclable materials but do little to address their broader manufacturing processes are not being quite so helpful.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) moved into a new Lausanne headquarters over the summer that has been dubbed one of the most sustainable buildings in the world, but reducing the impact of the Olympic Games would make a stronger statement. Last month, Manchester City and Nestle trumpeted a partnership that will see the company’s Garden Gourmet burger served at the Etihad Stadium but in the longer term, teams will have to think more deeply about their matchday menus than that.

Sports need to think, too, about why it is that their contribution makes sense. Speaking to SportsPro last year, World Surf League chief executive Sophie Goldschmidt explained that the reason it had targeted ocean plastic pollution was because it was a crisis that directly affected surfing’s field of play.

For Formula One, a drive to improve carbon efficiency can be tied to the competitive importance of development in the sport. F1 engines, for example, are unusually thermally efficient, in no small part because of the edge that gives teams on the track. There is an economic angle here, too. The all-electric Formula E is proving highly popular with manufacturers looking to demonstrate road-relevant innovation. For Formula One’s bosses, persuading those companies that they can still pursue similar objectives in Formula One will yield further political leverage in their dealings with the teams. 

Relevance to a particular environmental cause can be reapplied throughout the sports landscape. It is surprising, for example, that Uefa has not yet made a greater play of the possibilities and pleasures of rail travel for its pan-continental Euro 2020 next summer. 

At the same time, the way sport’s economy is developing is at odds with any greener intentions. The globalisation of sports leagues means more travel, and less control over the environmental implications of events. A week before launching its carbon-zero initiative, Formula One revealed that its calendar might expand to a maximum of 25 Grands Prix – the hosts of which may get more tougher to find if climate change really starts to bite. 

The financial realities of all this expansion have also brought rights holders into the orbit of nation states – look it up, the answers may not surprise you – that directly control some of the largest, most pollutant oil companies on the planet. That could give rise to future conflicts of interest.

There are ways in which the development of the global economy could converge with sport’s ecological aims, through trends like local production and cleaner energy, but the reality is that event organisers and rights holders are about to face the same choices as the rest of us. It may be time to consider whether private air travel is an appropriate way for teams to get an edge, whether an National Football League (NFL) franchise in London would be worth the environmental consequences, or if leagues should be doing more to encourage local live experiences over long trips for fans. It might equally be decided that those indulgences are worth it – but in the full knowledge that they come at a cost.

None of these conversations will be any easier for those in the sports industry than anywhere else. None of them will be any easier to avoid, either.