wild places | wild happenings | wild news
make a difference for our wild places

home | links | search the site
  all articles latest | past | articles by topics | search wildnews
wild news on wildsingapore
  PlanetArk 23 Jul 07
Climate Change Fears Reach Even Formula One Racing
Story by Erik Kirschbaum

Channel NewsAsia 26 May 07
F1 race in Singapore will not harm the environment: S Iswaran

Business Times 23 May 07
S'pore sending the wrong message by hosting F1
Letter from Ng Weng Hoong Editor www.EnergyAsia.com and Renewables Report

Straits Times Forum 22 May 07
A chance to showcase Singapore's green drive
Letter from Mark J. Topolski North Carolina, USA

Straits Times 21 May 07
A green Formula One for a real impact?
By Senior Correspondent, Christopher Tan

Straits Times Forum 17 May 07
Bright lights at F1 race no way to go green
Letter from Huang Yiwen (Miss)

Straits Times Forum 15 May 07
Why the F1 is bad for Singapore
Letter from Ng Weng Hoong
Editor www.EnergyAsia.com and Renewables Report

SINGAPORE'S decision to host the F1 races is to be deeply regretted.

We have sent a clear signal that we do not believe in energy conservation at a time when the world's energy supply is coming under increasing threat and the need for conservation is becoming more pressing than ever.

The F1 will be the perfect showcase for how to mindlessly burn up scarce oil resources. We are also showing that we have little concern for the environment by hosting a sport that will emit tonnes of greenhouse gases into our increasingly polluted air.

Meanwhile, we hold campaigns exhorting our citizens to show concern for the environment and to do their part to combat global warming.

I hope the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources will include the F1's negative impact on the environment in its two-year study on global warming in Singapore.

It is not too late for Singapore to cancel the event, and to apologise for having misled the world to believe we actually care about energy security and climate change.

It draws attention to Singapore's high per-capita output of greenhouse gases. The ministry's study might well find that hosting the F1 and its spinoff activities could wipe out an entire year's energy savings that it has asked Singaporeans to achieve by diligently using energy-saving devices. Already, we are a 'world class' greenhouse gas contributor on a per capita basis.

It sends out a contradictory message to Singaporeans and to the world at a time when climate change and energy security are becoming key issues. So, do we work at saving energy or don't we? Do we encourage a sport that furiously burns up fuel and sends out tonnes of greenhouse gases? On the one hand, we want people to be environmentally conscious, while on the other, we thoughtlessly encourage aggressive motoring and car racing.

The F1 will no doubt bring in loads of tourists and sponsorship funds. But this is not sustainable. Singapore should have a conscious energy and environmental policy to focus on activities that result in both economic and environmental gains. The F1 is good for short-term gains but has no long-term or sustainable beneficial effects, and is bad for the environment.

The F1 promotes fossil fuel addiction and a doomed love affair with cars. Do we need this? Oil prices may have fallen in the past few months, but make no mistake that oil and gas companies around the world are struggling to find new reserves as well as having to deal with governments that are now exercising greater controls over their scarce resources. Already, we have seen an outbreak of resource nationalism in Indonesia in the past few months, with threats to cut off sand, granite and even natural gas supplies. Why promote a sport that makes Singaporeans more addicted to fossil fuels at a time of growing energy insecurity?

While we insist that Indonesia stops its forest burning because it pollutes the air, we will be doing the same with the F1. The Indonesian farmer justifies his forest burning on economic grounds, just as we will be doing by encouraging competitive motoring. Are we practising double standards?

If Singapore wants to be recognised as a world leader for an event that will catch global media attention, we need to be intelligent and original.

The F1 is a copycat event. All the organisers need from us is to open up the chequebook. The F1 may look glamorous in Monaco, but in Singapore, it will merely add to our increasingly polluted air.

Straits Times Forum 17 May 07
Bright lights at F1 race no way to go green
Letter from Huang Yiwen (Miss)

I AM writing with reference to the article, 'Night race in day-like brightness' (ST, May 15).

When the world's concern is our depleting energy-generating resources, other than having a brightly lit environment as a safety precaution for visibility, is it a must for Singapore's Formula One race next year to have a luminosity of 1,600 lux?

On top of that, overillumination may have negative health effects on staff and spectators. I ask the organisers and the authorities to look into this.

Straits Times 21 May 07
A green Formula One for a real impact?
By Senior Correspondent, Christopher Tan

IF THERE is one thing that contrasts with the expectant roar of Formula One cars in our city, it would be the green lobby's muted response to the imminent arrival of one of the world's most polluting sports.

Save for a few letters to the press, there has not been any loud protest.

The National Environment Agency (NEA) had not spoken either, until we asked for its comments, which we will come to later.

Yes, F1 will not get an A1 for environmental friendliness. Each of the single-seat cars consumes up to a litre of fuel per km (or 10 times what a regular five-seater of the same engine size burns).

And for every kilometre, an F1 car spews 1,500g of carbon dioxide (again, nearly 10 times what a regular car produces). Each race produces close to 10 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

More of this top global warming gas is produced during the two days of practice sessions. And that is just carbon dioxide.

As F1 cars do not incorporate any exhaust treatment, and use a rich high-octane fuel, they emit many times more of other noxious fumes than your average Toyota Corolla.

Besides the cars' emissions, each F1 team carries more than 30 tonnes of equipment.

The entire circus will arrive in several jumbo jets, and needs a fleet of 17-litre transporter trucks to haul everything to the circuit upon landing - all adding up to more CO2 in the air.

Singapore's ambition to be the first to hold a night F1 race is not exactly green either.

An estimated 500 high-intensity light poles powered by dedicated generators are needed. Again, more CO2 production.

Then, there is the noise pollution. At full throttle, each car's noise level goes up to 130 decibels - louder than a pile driver or a jumbo jet. In the quiet of the night, the 22 cars doing their thing in Marina may be audible as far away as Ang Mo Kio.

Sources close to the organisers said the original circuit was altered because some stretches came too close to buildings, and the noise level might crack the glass on these structures.

The fact that Singapore is hosting this event seems to be at odds with its newfound environmental consciousness.

The Republic has signed the Kyoto Protocol, a multi-nation agreement that tackles climate change issues. It recently adopted the stringent Euro IV emission standard for diesel vehicles - ahead of many countries. And it has committed itself to reducing carbon dioxide emission.

So, why are we supporting a sport that is as un-green as it comes?

When asked, the NEA had this to say: 'Emissions from the F1 race in Singapore are not expected to affect the ambient air quality as the race is restricted to a small number of cars over a short period of time.'

It added that the F1 had sponsored a tree-planting programme in Mexico to soak up carbon dioxide produced by the racing cars. That is true. There is indeed a tree-planting programme in southern Mexico.

But huge tracks of vegetation elsewhere have also made way for F1 tracks - the nearest example being in Sepang, Malaysia.

It is also true that in the larger scheme of things, the F1 does not make a huge impact on the overall air quality.

But if this argument is extended, every SUV lover, every chemical dumper, and every truck driver stopped for black smoke violation will have a ready excuse too.

From whichever angle you look at it, Formula One, like driving, is not green.

Be that as it may, rejecting either outright is unrealistic.

The F1 event will raise tourism revenue, add buzz to the city, and broadcast the Singapore brand name to 500 million people across the globe who will follow the sport on TV. Having an audience this huge is a big opportunity for Singapore.

For citizens, it also makes life here a bit more interesting.

What the Government can do is to use the F1 to step up its green efforts. Perhaps it can convert part of the proposed cess tax during the F1 week here into a 'green tax'. The money collected can go towards renewable energy research, for instance.

This way, Singapore will immediately secure pole position among countries which host the F1 races - the way it has set the pace in other areas, from public housing to road pricing.

Meanwhile, some of us might want to invest in a pair of earplugs.

Straits Times Forum 22 May 07
A chance to showcase Singapore's green drive
Letter from Mark J. Topolski North Carolina, USA

I REFER to the letter, 'Why the F1 is bad for Singapore' (ST Interactive, May 15).

Why be so negative about Formula One racing in Singapore? Be more constructive.

Hosting F1 is a great opportunity for Singapore to showcase its energy conservation effort. Perhaps there are sponsorship resources to power the lights of the first F1 night race with hydrogen fuel-cell technology, securing another first? Also, perhaps solar electric photovoltaic panels can be used in less power-intensive equipment such as widescreen television monitors around the track?

In addition, Singapore could use hybrid vehicles to shuttle people around.

Don't overlook Singapore's Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) system. Many countries have to depend on spectators getting to the track by car - thousands of cars. In Singapore, all you have to do is arrive at Changi Airport and take a taxi or MRT to your hotel. From your hotel, the MRT, bus and taxi systems will take you wherever you want to go.

Furthermore, regarding the environment, F1 recognises that the largest single issue facing the car industry is reduction of carbon dioxide output - the greenhouse gas.

At www.formula1.com, read the Nov 16, 2006 question-and-answer session between the media and International Automobile Federation president Max Mosley and senior adviser to the BMW board Burkhard Goschel.

In the short term, F1 will look into energy recovery and, I believe, regenerative braking systems for the 2009 season. And then by 2010, recover and re-use excess or waste heat from engines.

F1's longer-term effort is reported to be in possibly a downsized turbocharged engine. Last Friday (reported on f1.gpupdate.net/en), Mr Mosley and Mr Goschel proposed for 2011 a new engine rule where F1 will use a 2.2- litre V6 engine running on biofuel.

If you follow F1 regularly, you will see that, especially over the past few years, the 'formula' for F1 has changed.

F1 recognises it must be cost-effective, environmentally conscious and more relevant to the car industry and driving public.

Business Times 23 My 07
S'pore sending the wrong message by hosting F1
Letter from Ng Weng Hoong Editor www.EnergyAsia.com and Renewables Report

SINGAPORE'S media has failed to fully report the entire range of costs and key issues associated with the decision to host Formula One (F1) racing.

Instead, all the newspapers have shamefully played cheerleader, taking on a one-sided and highly partisan role in cheering on the waste of public funds on a dubious project.

Your commentary, 'The economic gains from F1' (BT, May 18), is yet another attempt to sell us the notion that the F1 is good for the country.

There are three sets of costs associated with the F1: energy, environmental and financial.

There is now a belated attempt to discuss the financial costs after the signing of the contracts. I wish there had been more critical reporting and less cheerleading when Bernie Ecclestone and Ong Beng Seng were discussing the deal with the Singapore government.

Here are the three sets of costs, all of them to Singapore's disadvantage:

1. Energy: We have sent a clear signal that we do not believe in energy conservation at a time when the world's energy supply is coming under increasing threat and the need for conservation is becoming more pressing than ever. The F1 will be the perfect showcase for how to mindlessly burn up scarce oil resources.

2. Environmental: We are also showing that we have little concern for the environment by hosting a sport that will emit tonnes of greenhouse gases into our increasingly polluted air. Why do we need to spend $150 million fouling up our own air when others are doing it for us for free every year?

Meanwhile, we hold campaigns exhorting our citizens to show concern for the environment and to do their part to combat global warming. I hope the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) will include the F1's negative impact on the environment in its two-year study on the effects of global warming in Singapore.

3. Financial: It has been reported that the cost of hosting the F1 races could come to $150 million while revenues are estimated at $120 million. So, why are we doing this?

The F1 will also be a burden for ordinary people having to travel and work in the offices along the racing route. Are we spending money just to show the world that we're cool and globalised?

We have much better ways to use that $150 million to reap energy, environmental and financial gains for the country. Here are a few: Help fix the annual forest burning and haze problems in Indonesia. How much business are we losing when Singapore is enveloped in smog for 3-4 months of the year, and what is the cost of the damage to our health?

Boost solar energy installations in HDB flats throughout Singapore. This would be a worthy world-class project that we all can participate in, and be proud of.

The prime minister should launch a nationwide solar energy competition. For instance, it can be a competition to determine which HDB block can save the most energy and which company can come up with the best solar installations for public housing. Such a competition is bound to get world attention.

Invest in an oil-and-gas company with real assets in the ground that pays regular dividends and use the gains to promote renewable energy use in Singapore.

There are many other ways to use $150 million to make or save money, save energy and improve our environment.

The F1 is a lazy way to get cheap publicity. Singapore should not be hypocritical, pretending to care for energy savings and the environment - and then coming up with a wasteful, has-been event like the F1.

By next year, when oil prices hit another record high, we'll all be wondering why we thought motor racing was so hip.

Channel NewsAsia 26 May 07
F1 race in Singapore will not harm the environment: S Iswaran

SINGAPORE: There will be measures in place to make sure the F1 race in Singapore will not harm the environment. Minister of State for Trade and Industry, S Iswaran, said this to reporters at the Great Singapore Sale Challenge.

He said that noise and smoke are inevitable during the race, but organisers are studying ways to minimise their effect.

Mr Iswaran said F1 organisers have been undertaking various research efforts to keep the race green like adopting bio-fuel, for example.

He said: "The environmental concerns are legitimate. But you must keep them in perspective. You can't have an F1 race without noise. The cars make a lot of noise. In fact, it is part of the thrill for many fans and spectators.

"But having said that, the F1 organisation is based in Europe where environmental consciousness is very high and they, as an organisation, have undertaken many measures to make sure they are minimising their carbon footprint, if not making it zero their carbon footprint. That's one part we should be paying attention to."

"The other element is that they are also undertaking various research efforts, for example in bio fuel and so on, to see how that can be adapted. So although the F1 is seen, at least in first blush, it might be anti-environment, there are many things they are doing that is actually pro environment," added Mr Iswaran.

The race is set to generate $100 million for Singapore each year. But many question whether the returns are big enough for the government to fund 60% in organising the $150 million race.

Mr Iswaran said: "Without STB (Singapore Tourism Board)'s support, an F1 race in Singapore will probably not happen. And, the reason is very simple. The economics of the race is such that the cost of hosting a F1 race in any country far exceeds the revenue a private race promoter can expect to get from ticket sales, merchandising and sponsorship.

"So the spillover benefits to the economy are very large, whether it is tourism spending or consumer spending or business activity. But the private promoters cannot take advantage of that. So that's where STB involvement comes in."

"If STB is able to support this at a level comparable to the benefits for tourism and the economy, then it is justifiable. There are also mechanisms in place to ensure that if in fact the race is very successful, very profitable, then, profits beyond a certain pre-agreed level between STB and Singapore Grand Prix Pte Ltd will be ploughed back to defray the cost, in other words, to reduce the government grant," he added.

Mr Iswaran also defended the government's decision to impose extra tax for hotels during the F1.

He said that based on market studies, unlike restaurants and pubs, hotels rates are expected to go up 3 times during the race. Additional revenue to the government from the restaurants will come in the form of GST and other taxes already in place. - CNA/ir

PlanetArk 23 Jul 07
Climate Change Fears Reach Even Formula One Racing
Story by Erik Kirschbaum

GERMANY: July 23, 2007 NUERBURGRING, Germany - Talking about climate change at a Formula One race might at first glance seem like praising celibacy in a brothel.

The world's top motor sport competition is for many the epitome of gas-guzzling wastefulness with powerful engines burning nearly a litre of fossil fuel per kilometre while a vast entourage of people and machines jets to races round the world.

But green winds of change are blowing through one of the world's most popular sports, and a growing number of team bosses say they want to make Formula One a high-tech pioneer and leader in fighting climate change rather than a whipping post.

Proposed changes include smaller engines, using bio-fuel and restricting the use of wind tunnels -- which may be anathema to hardcore fans for whom speed and victory are what count.

Formula One says it will introduce major rule changes by 2011 to promote fuel conservation. Many of the 11 teams have already implemented measures to reduce their "carbon footprint" -- but faster speeds and winning races remain the main target.

"Unless Formula One can become a contributor to the technology that might help the environment, it's likely it will become a dinosaur," Nick Fry, team principal of Honda racing, told Reuters in an interview at Sunday's European Grand Prix.

"It's almost come true with the floods in England last week. If there are environmental disasters happening around the world in the future before races, people will say it's inappropriate to then put on a glitz show, burning lots of fossil fuel."

Fry, a catalyst in the push to cut carbon emissions and waste in a sport known for its conspicuous consumption, put a huge picture of the earth on his team's two race cars this year, uncorrupted by the usual commercial logos.

"Formula One is one of the best marketing tools in the world," said Fry, pointing to the 600 million television viewers.

F1 technology breakthroughs trickle down to road cars, he said.

"If we get behind it, the potential is unsurpassed."

"The people who like the sport would be the hardest nuts to crack. They tend to be performance fans and drive cars for performance rather than economy. We're trying to say you can be a fan of fast cars and do good things for the environment."

Honda race cars emit 17 tonnes of CO2 a year and 1,500 grams of CO2 per kilometre -- 10 times more than a small road car. "We're just starting," said Fry. "We have a long way to go."

LINGERING RESISTANCE

Formula One's governing body, the International Automobile Federation (FIA), wants the sport to cast off its gas-guzzling image and provide answers to public fears about climate change.

Backed by most of the carmakers which dominate the sport -- Ferrari, Mercedes, Toyota, Renault and Honda -- FIA has proposed rule changes for 2011 that include a switch to smaller turbo-compounded 2.2 litre engines running on bio-fuel.

But some carmakers fear a loss of engineering autonomy and argue the changes are too radical. With less power for the same speed, the engines would have their revs cut nearly in half.

Another rule would require cars to have a 25-kg device to store brake energy to use when accelerating. Also planned are limits on the number of staff teams can take to races and on wind tunnels, which use vast amounts of electricity.

"We are discussing rule changes to make Formula One a real pioneer," BMW team boss Mario Theissen told Reuters. "Formula One does not have to be on the defensive. It's on our agenda to take developments in Formula One and use them for road cars."

Other Formula One leaders appear less enthusiastic. Norbert Haug, head of motorsport at Mercedes, which provides the engines for McLaren, defended the sport and said that the millions of people watching Formula One races on television are thus not using their cars while the race is under way.

Kees van de Grint, head of track engineering at tyre maker Bridgestone, said his firm now sends 2,200 tyres to races by ship and truck rather than air freight. Bridgestone has also cut the oil content of tyres by 35 percent in the last 10 years.

"There is definitely more awareness," he said. "I'm not sure if Formula One can set the best example but it can set an example. With greener rules, it's going in that direction."

But he conceded that no one has yet asked him to come up with a low-resistance tyre to reduce fuel consumption. "I don't think that's the name of the game in Formula One."
links
Related articles on Green energy
about the site | email ria
  News articles are reproduced for non-profit educational purposes.
 

website©ria tan 2003 www.wildsingapore.com