I also think that perhaps we are well past the point where we should have stopped burning fossil fuels for entertainment.
The race track? In the big picture, a rounding error.
Actually, I'm now also visualizing all the surrounding roads clogged with traffic related to the race. It's not increasing my enthusiasm.
If they were so toxic, race tracks would surely not exist or would be so unsustainable they’d go out of business immediately from having to deal with the cleanup.
If it were so extremely toxic, we’d have heard about it from any of the jurisdictions where there is a racetrack, which there are thousands of around the world. Or one of the cities which already has a F1 circuit, of which there’s dozens.
It simply isn’t anywhere near the problem that GP makes it out to potentially be.
But this protest was against a demo performance this evening in the city. On a weekday night when people have to work. In a city that prides itself on sustainability and has pedestrianised many streets in recent years.
A lot of people like myself consider F1 to be nothing but a toy for big oil and billionaires with too much money to spend. It's hyper commercialised. I don't want them here either though I didn't protest. I just avoided the area. It's much harder to do if you actually live there though.
Formula 1 is aiming to be carbon neutral by 2030 and engines from 2026 will be run on sustainable (ethanol based) fuels. The fleet of trucks to cart them around Europe also now run on biodiesel.
One man's entertainment is another's livelihood. It's not like they're burning a barrel of oil for fun...
Am I no longer permitted to drive to the beach, fly somewhere for a holiday, take a boat to scuba dive, take a bus to the snow?
Come to think of it, exercise burns calories and food requires fossil fuel based chemicals and fertilizers and machinery to grow and process. Better not walk, hike, or cycle anywhere unless necessary for me to produce something toward GDP.
Agriculture on the other hand can't be simply abandoned. Powering equipment from non-emitting energy sources is needed.
It does involve burning fossil fuels, and so does exercise because it increases your calorie requirement and food involves burning fossil fuels, so that too? Owning and using computers, phones, and internet does too, so none of that for recreational purposes either?
> Agriculture on the other hand can't be simply abandoned.
Why not?
> Powering equipment from non-emitting energy sources is needed.
It's not just powering equipment, it's petroleum used to create chemicals to grow and plastics and other products to process and create machines (tires, oils, plastic and rubber parts, petroleum based chemicals). And even if you were to "solve" carbon emissions completely, there are still many non-renewable resources being depleted and many pollutants being released, from microplastics to fertilizers and herbicides to toxic chemicals from chip manufacturing.
Define "make sense". I'm genuinely curious how you've arrived here so confidently. If it was climate change being the singular issue and nothing else matters short of actively murdering people, then any and all carbon producing economic activity should be shut down. But you're not going that far, so it seems "productive" economic activity is okay, but recreation is not. So we have to be cogs in the machine, but we can't have fun.
Not sure many would agree with you, or that even you would be able to stick to your own plan.