4 ms·
At least they are using that money for citizens and green energy instead of Ferrari's of the royal family
by dtech 5y ago
At least they are using that money for citizens and green energy instead of Ferrari's of the royal family
- AustinDev 5y agoFerarris don't contribute at all to global warming relatively. The many Gulfstream's and 747's the wealthy own are actually statistically significant in terms of impact.
- toomuchtodo 5y agoThe House of Saud, for some time, has attempted and failed to diversify away from oil wealth for when the time comes they can no longer rely on it. Norway, arguably, will reach that point soon (as they’ve bootstrapped electric mobility and can now deprecate existing petroleum supply chains, both for domestic use and for export). Be like Norway and use the time you have left selling a natural resource wisely, because bans and cross border tariffs are coming, and you’ll be left with what you could build during your transition when the revenue dries up. Hopefully as a country, you don’t end up empty handed. (Norway also supplies the UK with a large amount of clean hydro power, roughly 690MW continuous, through a newly commissioned underwater HVDC transmission line, so it’s not all dirty fossil exports)
- Le_Dook 5y agoHeck, I know they're hybrids but just look formula one. The total emissions of every car, from all sessions at every single race in a year combined produce less emissions than a one way flight from London to New York. Which is then completed negated by the fact that the drivers all take private jets around the world
- dd444fgdfg 5y agoi don't think that's a good comparison. think how many flights a single F1 race "causes". Not just the team members, theirs cars and equipment, but the millions of fans traveling to races around the world.
- clouddrover 5y agoF1 is moving to carbon neutral synthetic fuel: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a37872650/formula-1-auto-racing-sustainable-fuel/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a37872650/formula-1-auto-r...
- adrianN 5y agoThere is no carbon neutral fuel before we have a surplus of carbon neutral energy. Currently, any kWh you use to synthesize fuel could instead be used for something else. It's probably less carbon intensive to keep on burning regular fuel, because it takes a lot of energy to make synfuel. Of course it's nice that they subsidize R&D for synfuels (we might need them for niche applications after all), but selling them as "carbon neutral" is just greenwashing.
- clouddrover 5y agoThey have been thinking about it. You haven't: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/09/porsches-new-synthetic-gasoline-may-fuel-formula-1-races/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/09/porsches-new-synthetic-... https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/news/magazine/2021/haru-oni.html https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/news/magazine/2021/...
- adrianN 5y agoHow do your links counter my argument that any kWh spent on creating synfuel could be used for something else instead and as long as we don't have a surplus of carbon free energy all the carbon free electricity used in this way needs to be compensated by fossil fuels somewhere else in the grid?
- authorityofnil 5y agoI don't think this argument makes any sense. Just because there can be better uses for additional clean energy, does not make the additional energy any less clean. By this definition, no source is clean, because there are always "better uses" for energy.
- serpix 5y agoThe cars and equipment themselves are also airlifted around the world. The whole entourage is a massive waste of resources.
- ResearchCode 5y agoNeither do all but a few countries.
- bogomipz 5y agoThat seems like an odd concession given that the need to curtail the burning of fossil fuels is literally a global concern.