Written by Mina Jigau, Edited by Sharifah Zaqreeztrina
Banning of fossil fuel advertising has become quite the hot topic, with movements such as the European ban of fossil fuels gathering a bit more popularity. At the front of their petition, is the climate crisis that we have been fighting to circumvent the last couple of years.
In March 2023, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) released a report stating that there have been companies trying to impede climate regulations in the benefit of not disrupting their profits.
There have been fingers pointed and questions raised at media strategies and adverts utilised by companies in the report. One of the companies that has taken the heat is none other than the Saudi Arabian-owned corporation, as well as Aston Martin’s official partner, Aramco.
But to understand the controversy, we need to unravel the story at the seams.
Formula One is a sport for the rich, fueled by big brands and remarkable names. Without sponsors, the sport simply could not exist, and the vital part politics played behind the scenes is often buried beneath the glamour of the race.
Some of the big sponsors include ExxonMobil for Red Bull Racing as well as Alpha Tauri, Aramco for Aston Martin, Petronas for Mercedes, Shell for Ferrari while Alpine is sponsored by BP Fuel and Castrol. When Audi will enter as an F1 team in 2026, Castrol and BP will also become their official fuel sponsors.
Partnerships with these brands within F1 have been agreed upon for years, their names plastered upon ads at every race, on every driver’s uniform and every catering event during race weeks.
It’s impossible to not notice, even subconsciously, who is behind F1’s proliferation. Companies need the exposure and F1 is a rapidly flourishing sport, captivating millions of fans across the globe, so it’s a mutually beneficial agreement to sign with these particular sponsors.
However, the sustainability of F1 is a question that its partners have been addressing lately. By 2026, fuel tanks of the cars are going to be filled with 100% sustainable fuel, F1 has stated. Currently, F1’s feeder series F2 and F3 use 55% sustainable fuel, being sponsored by Aramco. However, F1 has bigger plans for the future.
Pat Symonds, F1’s chief technology officer, has explained that the current model of fuels used in F1 cars is hydrocarbon-based. That’s what the future fuel will be based on, too, according to the 2026 regulations. The only difference comes from sourcing these hydrocarbons.
The two elements that make up hydrocarbons are hydrogen and carbon; hydrogen is relatively easy to obtain sustainably: water electrolysis, where electricity is used to split hydrogen and oxygen in water.
As the hydrogen comes from a renewable source, we can agree that it is sourced sustainably. Getting the carbon is where it gets more complex. Carbon is in our environment, existing as carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.
The process of extracting carbon has to be emulated in a way that is environmentally friendly. On a large scale, that’s difficult. There are production plants that have to carry that process out, but the atmospheric CO2 is 0.04%, which isn’t a lot to extract carbon from.
When both hydrogen and carbon can be sourced sustainably, fuel is considered carbon neutral. The carbon footprint of a product includes manufacturing and transport, which is not accounted for when generating the fuel.
If it were, transporting the fuel across the globe to every race would almost always render the ‘carbon-neutral’ label as ‘nonsense’.
The actual cars only emit around 0.7% when racing, so all the other carbon emissions are due to manufacturing and transport. There is a silver lining, and that is the new technology is being developed, with the potential to be revolutionary.
Regulations have been implemented around the testing and growth of the methods to produce sustainable fuel, but the idea has only just started to be practised. Guidelines that are being implemented are mainly to control fuel consumption at the moment.
Symonds has said that as of right now, 100 kg per hour of fuel can be inserted into the engine. By 2026, only three quarters of that amount will be allowed because the manufacturers are to switch to more electrical power on cars.
He has admitted that this is a very complicated and resource-exhaustive process that was born under the pressures of moving away from fossil fuels like oil in order to mitigate F1’s climate change contribution.
The technology to reduce these carbon emissions is still in its testing stages, with the feeder series being the ‘lab rats’.
Aramco’s technical officer has voiced that the company believes that they could create less polluting fuels by trapping the amount of carbon released back into the environment. By 2027, a project that is supposed to capture nine million tonnes of CO2, will commence.
This, of course, like all the other methods, has its limitations. The project is still in very early stages, with the technology not being developed enough. The cost of developing these technologies is also too high for the project to take off completely.
The company is expecting these prices to fall, with solar and wind power being used for direct carbon capture. The theory behind this sounds promising, but with the expenses being the main obstacle, the viability of these projects is being questioned.
Recently, Aramco has come under fire for allegations that their sustainability goals are not scientifically viable, and despite knowing this, they still claimed that they would be carbon-neutral by 2027.
The solutions they have considered are simply not scalable. Decarbonising road transport may require extremely high levels of energy to actually achieve it. The energy needed for that would outweigh the outcome.
Although Aramco has defended against these accusations, there are reports of the company producing nine million barrels of crude oil in a day.
The scandal they found themselves woven into has people questioning the legitimacy of the regulations implemented for other sponsors, too. The allegations could overshadow real efforts made at times, and it could also hinder the process of becoming greener.
The sponsors want their exposure, and that is achieved through every banner, every red ‘Shell’ t-shirt and every logo in the venues of the races. If the fossil fuel ads get banned, much like tobacco ads were previously, this could affect the money invested in the sport.
Companies will have to look elsewhere to advertise their brands, in a place where they can freely reach audiences without causing a commotion, leaving F1 with an off-balance ecosystem to navigate.
Maybe the rush to find alternative fuels is encouraged by the ticking sponsorship clocks as well as the climate crisis. But one thing is for sure; Formula One needs the funds and the support of well-known brands to continue to thrive in the future.
Many other sport organisations seem to have embraced this ban, such as the English Rugby Football Union dropping out of a £2.5 million partnership with Exxon Mobil. Will Red Bull follow suit?
Better yet, will more teams part ways with their sponsors in the search for a sustainable future?
コメント