Formula One’s Carbon Footprint on the Wane

Formula One’s Carbon Footprint on the Wane

Author: Lavana James

The world is a place where greed and speed have predominated, but recently even the gods of pace have acknowledged that they either have to embrace environmentally friendly options or become extinct like the dinosaurs of old.

‘Earth Car' gets the Formula 1 ball rolling

Team Honda was the first of the Formula 1 teams who turned talk into tactics and two years ago they opted to make an environmentally conscious statement by branding their cars not with corporate labels but an untarnished and uncorrupted map of planet earth.

Granted, this small contribution to the burgeoning problem of carbon gas emissions didn't do anything practical, other than to constantly remind us of the failings of Formula 1 and FIA bosses to take this challenge to heart.

The motorsport moguls have every intention of becoming the high-tech pioneers and unequivocal leaders in the ongoing battle against climate change, one of the unpleasant facts of life that has the potential to destroy us all.

FIA President, Max Mosley, and company have effectively outlawed any further development on petrol engines and have instead put their formidable financial backing and expertise behind innovative and a more hybrid approach to the development of increased power.

Biofuels a solution

Formula 1 can learn something from the United States where the Indy cars have been running on ethanol for quite some time now and there is plenty of discussion around the possibility of utilising biofuels instead of the dangerously low reserves of fossil fuels left in the world today. Formula 1 racing cars currently burn nearly a litre of fossils fuels per kilometre, an equation that cannot possibly be sustained, even for another season.

KERS could change the face of F1 forever

One of the ideas that has manifested itself in KERS, or kinetic energy recovery systems, is that of harnessing the energy lost during braking by re-using it to boost acceleration. When you consider that racing cars have to brake from speeds of over 200mph to 50mph in 2.5 seconds, then it is a given that an enormous amount of energy is lost through braking and the consequent heat loss associated with braking.

Energy allotments may be introduced

Another idea that looks fit to materialise is that by 2011 each Formula 1 team would be given a parcel of energy for each race on the Formula 1 calendar. This parcel would shrink year by year and the team that wins the race would be the team that has utilised the energy the most efficiently and effectively.

This would mean a major shift from a sport where fuel consumption has always been the major contributing factor, to a sport where the effective energy use of the racing car is paramount.

Team Honda's battle to reduce their carbon footprint

Team Honda have made a concerted effort to reduce their carbon footprint by

• introducing a recycling scheme at the Honda plant
• providing incentives to their work force to cycle or walk to work
• using low energy light bulbs throughout and installing solar panels on the roofs of all the trackside motor homes
• holding video conferences instead of flying to meetings
• turning off all lights and computers at night

It is worth remembering that it's not only the grandstanding gestures that make the difference but a whole range of little ones too.

Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/extreme-sports-articles/formula-ones-carbon-footprint-on-the-wane-610985.html

About the Author:

www.fantasticracing.com

Ecological Footprint: Impact of War

When we think of war we usually think in terms of human casualties and displacement.  But human tragedy is only one aspect of war.  Another is the long lasting ecological footprint resulting from war that often takes decades to resolve.

Ecological footprint normally refers to an entity such as an individual, company or government. In this article it is used in the context of a military presence or product of war.  An ecological footprint refers not only carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases contributing to the carbon footprint but also to ecological issues including pollution and use of non-renewable resources such as clean water. 

Ecology is of great concern because war generally involves the indiscriminate destruction of land and damage to the surrounding environment. One such example was the dropping of the atom bomb on two Japanese cities at the end of the 2nd world war.  In this case the ecological footprint consisted of massive destruction of land and long lasting effects of radiation.  Another example of war-induced ecological footprint was the spraying of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War.  Not only was Agent Orange an effective defoliate but also released dioxins as it degraded, causing serious health problems for anyone exposed to it. 

Some of the more obvious environmental issues resulting from war are air and ground pollution, destruction of forests and land mines.  An indirect impact to war's ecological footprint is the diversion of government money and resources from less urgent programs, some of which relate to the environment.

There are other more obscure ecological issues to consider such as the weakening of basic services and infrastructure within a country.  This often results in water shortage, cooking fuel shortage and waste mismanagement during and after the war.  The ecological footprint is impacted because inadequate water management can result in bacterial contamination, water loss via leaks (pipe damage) results in insufficient irrigation of cropland, food shortage and soil erosion. The Iraq war resulted in cooking fuel shortages and led to residents cutting down trees in order to cook.

Another war-related issue is the threat to biodiversity due to large numbers of displaced refugees.  For example, the mountain gorilla population and habitat were threatened after the Rwanda genocide as displaced refugees returned to an overpopulated country and were forced to inhabit the forest reserves.

A very serious impact to war's ecological footprint in wartime is the mishandling of hazardous substances such as radioactive material. For example, during the Iraq war (in 2003) two hundred barrels of uranium oxide were stolen from a nuclear plant south of Baghdad. The contents of the barrels were dumped into rivers then local residents used the containers for storing basic amenities. Iraq's nuclear inspector now believes that one thousand people could die of leukemia. Manufacture and test of dangerous weapons (in wartime or peace) also increases the ecological impact of the military presence. The contaminants from military sites are slowly leaching into the environment.  Disposal of nuclear waste is a significant global problem.

In recent years, most scientists and responsible individuals have been much more concerned with the ecological footprint we are leaving for future generations to deal with.  Concerns such as climate change, biodiversity and pollution.  War is a significant contributor to all of these environmental problems. Hopefully our political and military leaders will be joining the green movement and consider the environment in future war activities, more so than in the past.

This article was originally published by Steve Auger in EzineArticles entitled Ecological Footprint of War.

No More "Zoom, Zoom"

I have a confession to make: when I drive my car, I have what my Daddy called "a heavy foot." That means I drive fast and furious. As I zoom down the road, I consider speed limits for sissies -- none of you are officers of the law, are you?

I know that driving fast burns more fuel, releasing more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. I am trying to mend my ways so that I can go green, but it doesn't come easily. I have a lifetime of bad driving habits to overcome.

Part of making my living involves traveling across the state, and that isn't anything I can change. I don't drive a Hummer, but I don't drive a hybrid vehicle, either. My Honda Element gets about 25 miles to the gallon on the highway.

When I am at home, I have tried to reduce the amount of driving that I do. I have wished for a long time that I lived in a "walkable neighborhood," but I don't have many stores or shops nearby. These days, however, I plan my trips to town and map my errands before I go. That way, I don't find myself criss-crossing the town several times. I've also discovered that I really don't have to go to my post office box every day, because all I'm going to find is bills.

After watching a television news program about ways to drive to save fuel, I searched for tips to help me. At We Test the Tips I discovered pretty much what I already knew (but don't always practice):

• Don't drive like a maniac. By not stomping hard on the brake pedal and by slowly accelerating, you can have major savings. In their tests, the group at Edmonds.com discovered that you can realize up to 37% savings on fuel.
• Drive at slower speeds. On long trips, you can have a savings of 14%.
• Using cruise control on those long trips can cause a 14% savings.
• Reducing idling time can save up to 19%, so if you will be sitting for more than a minute they suggest turning off the car

I'm looking at that and wondering about it. If I do all of those things, will I realize an 84% savings on fuel? No, I won't, but I can make a difference!

The hardest part for me is slowing down on the highway. In the past eight days, I've driven across Texas and back twice and that's a long time in the car. When I sit for that long, my feet begin to swell, so my foot is "heavy" in a different way than Daddy meant. But, I guess that having toes that look like Vienna sausages is a small price to pay for doing my part to save the environment. As long as my toes don't "go green," I can handle the slow drive.

© Shelly Tucker, 2009