F1 reveals new branding to promote 2030 “net zero” carbon target

2022 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Formula 1 has revealed new branding it will introduce at this weekend’s British Grand Prix promoting its goal of becoming a “net zero” emitter of carbon by 2030.

The new branding will replace the “world’s most efficient engine” signage which has been in use since last year’s Brazilian Grand Prix. It will be prominently visible around the F1 pit and paddock over the remaining races this year.

F1 set its carbon neutrality target it 2019. The series says it has made “huge strides towards our goal” since then.

The freight transported to each race weekend, which accounts for the largest part of F1’s emissions, has already been reduced. F1 has started using a remote broadcasting set-up, the introduction of which was brought forward as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, meaning less hardware has to be brought to races. F1 says last year’s British Grand Prix was its first “carbon neutral broadcast”.

F1 has also changed the design of its freight containers, allowing it to use more efficient aircraft, and is looking into further carbon reductions it can achieve through its use of air, sea and land freight.

The championship intends to improve the organisation of events on the 2023 F1 calendar to reduce travel, largely by grouping more events by region. “This will be an ongoing process in the years to come to ensure that we are travelling efficiently as a world championship”, it said.

The most significant efficiency improvement to F1’s cars will come in 2026 when F1 intends to introduce a new, 100% sustainable fuel when the series’ next power unit specification is introduced. It will trial this fuel in Formula 2 and Formula 3 beforehand.

F1 has already begun using 100% renewable energy to power its offices and achieved the FIA’s three star Sustainability Management accreditation.

F1’s new “net zero” carbon target branding

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2022 F1 season

Browse all 2022 F1 season articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

28 comments on “F1 reveals new branding to promote 2030 “net zero” carbon target”

  1. “Net zero” is such a late-naughties nonsense – fits perfectly with Formula 1’s message of ruining efficiency by removing the MGU-H to appease two of the leading brands of Diesel-gate.

    1. :-)

      I must say though, that i am curious about their 100% sustainable fuel (will they use that to fly the planes around the globe too? THAT would make some impact). If it works, and really IS sustainable (and really environmentally friendly, not just off-set by claimed projects that are often rather questionably in their merits) and they can make enough to power the grid, power their transport etc, prefferably for a reasonable price, that might go some way towards allowing most of the world to be able to run without “dinosaur juices” in a decade or 2 from now without having to scrap the complete vehicle park currently operating in the world and depleting all rare earths in the process!

      1. @bascb I don’t think synthetic fuels are a good match for powering the grid, unless indeed the manufacturing process can be scaled to such a level that it could power both the fleet and the grid.

        Powering the grid I think would be a bonus, maybe a backup solution for the gaps in renewable availability/intermittency; but I do feel the focus should be on replacing fossil ICE fuels.

        Fundamentally I agree with you: if indeed it works and is somewhat affordable, it is vastly more environmentally-friendly than attempting the replace the billions of perfectly functional vehicles already running.

        Fingers crossed.

        1. Yeah, if they can just power the grid, it is only about PR with no substance @justrhysism. I hope they can really deliver on their promise of working on a real sustainable ICE fuel where they will be able to ramp up production to a scale where it starts to become a real thing and not just window dressing (or using waste that won’t ever be enough to fuel more than a grid of race cars.)

    2. Coventry Climax
      27th June 2022, 14:11

      Late-naughties nonsense?
      Much more than that actually.
      Back at school, nearly 50 years ago now, I/we learnt that fossil fuels would come to an end and would start being scarce long before that. Then around 1974 there was a world wide energy (oil) crisis. Environment wasn’t even an issue yet, back then.
      What have we done in the meantime? To describe that, sitting on our lazy unwilling as.es comes closest.
      Now this is the F1 that freezes all technological development yet claims progress? What a laugh.
      Just put a big sticker on it and everything is right again? Sure.
      F1 – the pinnacle, remember? – should have been striving to be the very first carbon neutral organisation in the world, instead of bragging about being a latecomer.
      That’s not road relevant, but world relevant.

      1. Yeah, this really isn’t anything new Coventry Climax, we have just mostly ignored it for convenience sake (and profit) over much of my lifetime.

      2. I was specifically referring to the “net” part of the equation as being a late-naughties phenomenon, i.e. the idea that’s it’s OK to just keep doing what you’re doing as long as you hand money to some third party and in the process absolve yourself from the impact of your actions.

        Having now written that out, that sure reads like roman-catholic indulgences, so I will gladly agree that the principle is considerably older than 15-ish years.

    3. I agree that ‘net zero’ might be a step forward for many; for F1 it’s a step back if it means dropping the super efficient heat recovery (other than a simple turbo).
      Even sustainable combustion fuels benefit from higher efficiency PU. And F1 is the perfect development ground to push these technologies.

  2. As usual this claimed target ignores the downstream suppliers of ‘raw materials’ and clings to ‘sustainable fuel’ (which is actually plant based which to be global must reduce food production) or hydrogen the production of which currently mostly uses brown coal which is as dirty as can be.

    We should be protecting the environment properly, reducing poisons in the atmosphere, reducing spoil and litter, stopping the oceans dying with plastic etc and not chasing nonsensical manias about carbon which are being increasingly debunked.

    The latest calculation is that human behaviour is responsible for about 0.05ºC of global warming.

    http://hharde.de/index_htm_files/Opinion-Draft-Law%20-%20Reduction%20GHG%20Emissions.pdf

    And if you do believe that humans are creating a global warming disaster then you must recognise that the increasing global population will negate any measures we might take. Unless, of course, you want to tell young people in the developing world they can’t have the cars, electronics, travel, that we have so we can feel virtuous.

    1. You claim

      (which is actually plant based which to be global must reduce food production) or hydrogen the production of which currently mostly uses brown coal which is as dirty as can be.

      here Witan, which is not true in this case.
      Yes, currently bio fuels that are used in many places and were meant to be a positive step away from using fossil fuels have shown to be a bit of a red herring in most cases, as you allude to.

      But F1 has confirmed to the BBC (yes they asked, exactly because of the common reality of most bio fuels and “nett neutral” stuff) that this is indeed supposed to be a syntethic fuel – which can be made from waste (that would mean the supply will be limited, an issue many of these projects, including the e-fuels used in aviation, have ran into already) or from hydrogen created by using renewable fuels.

      You would be right to call for more clarity on what/how exactly this fuel is made, since it greatly influences the extent to which they might ever become a solution (for current vehicle fleets). But your claim that these are bio fuels (with the problems you highlight) is simply not correct.

      1. Hydrogen is not viable, water vapor that it produces is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

        1. That is new to me you have to explain that because Hydrogen who are used leaves pure H2O as waste product. Everyone who claim different has to come with solid proof before i even will try to accept a different view.

          1. Chris Horton
            28th June 2022, 10:19

            Not entirely sure what you’re asking but you seem to think H20 and water vapour aren’t the same thing? Apologies, I’m sure you do.

            Water vapour does account for most of the ‘greenhouse’ effect in the Earth’s atmosphere…without that it’d be a very cold place.

        2. Leroy,
          that’s Red Herring.
          Yes H2O is the biggest greenhouse gas.
          But human activity doesn’t impact the overall amount of airborne molecules (gasses and clouds). All excess water vapour in the sky will come down again (rain, snow, dew, etc).

          There is however an indirect impact as a heating earth will contain more airborne H2O.

    2. Unless, of course, you want to tell young people in the developing world they can’t have the cars, electronics, travel, that we have so we can feel virtuous.

      Perhaps we shouldn’t just be telling our children to be virtuous, but instead changing ourselves, too…. Set an example for them.
      The desire for an increasing stockpile of material possessions and wealth is a huge factor behind increasing emissions.

      “We do not inherent the Earth form our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.”

  3. Gimmie a break. So woke. Pathetic. I preferred it when F1 was elitist and did deals with cigarette companies and dodgy banks from the middle east.

    1. They still do

    2. Yeh, caring about the planet is ridiculous…

  4. This is what Williams livery should like, but without the cheesy Corporate Social Responsibility buzzwords plastered across it.

  5. Invite Greta like Glastonbury did. She’ll love it, and there is no wimbledon next sunday, she might very well be free.

  6. Did anyone else see Net Zero and immediately think of the old internet company Netzero from the late 90s?

  7. Sergey Martyn
    27th June 2022, 15:42

    Can’t wait to see a grid full of cars running on a most sophisticately recycled manure or a food waste, driven by the likes of Greta Tundberg loonies and transported to the remote places on Earth by the clipper ships like Cutty Sark.
    Dig the grave of this sport faster, green pussycats!
    BTW what about carbon black, used in mountains of tyres F1 dumps every weekend – 13 sets per each of 20 teams, i.e. 1040 big fat tyres? Plus imagine how much carbon is used to manufacture these tyres and cars themselves?

    1. Sergey Martyn
      27th June 2022, 15:45

      Oops, sorry, actual tyre count is 2080!

      1. Yeah, that is exactly why they have actually been working on 1. reducing the amount of tyres they supply to teams and are trying to find a way to make it possible for Pirelli to take the tyres off the rims again Sergey.

        They are aware of this, just they haven’t found a solution that works (making tyres that don’t degrade is an option not getting too much support). There is also the issue of all tyres and brakes producing a boatload of particles (@hazelsouthwell wrote an article on that a month or so ago, good read), another issue that we need to solve, especially with vehicles getting heavier and heavier.

    2. Eh. Everything you said became irrelevant when it became clear that you can’t (or won’t) distinguish between “carbon dioxide the gas in the atmosphere” and “carbon the compound in tires and cars”.

    3. “Tyre Pollution Nearly 2,000 Times Worse than Car Exhaust Emissions” was the recent report. Perhaps some people haven’t received instruction from Greta on what to be angry about!

      They also noted that the ever increasing weight of the average vehicle was a major issue. Not good news for F1.

  8. Sergey Martyn
    27th June 2022, 15:46

    Can’t wait to see a grid full of cars running on a most sophisticately recycled manure or a food waste, driven by the likes of Greta Tundberg and transported to the remote places on Earth by the clipper ships like Cutty Sark.
    Dig the grave of this sport faster, green people!
    BTW what about carbon black, used in mountains of tyres F1 dumps every weekend – 13 sets per each of 20 teams, i.e. 2080 big fat tyres? Plus imagine how much carbon is used to manufacture these tyres and cars themselves?

    1. Sergey Martyn
      27th June 2022, 15:48

      Oops, sorry, 20 cars = 1040 tyres which anyway is quite a lot.

Comments are closed.