this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
1167 points (99.2% liked)

Fuck Cars

9591 readers
423 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks 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.