As the bushfire catastrophe reached new levels of severity at the end of 2019, there was much discussion of the possible cancellation of New Year’s Eve fireworks displays.
Some displays were called off, but in most cases it was argued that the fireworks had already been paid for, and that there was no real risk in going ahead.
A more serious version of the issue will arise in March, when the Australian Grand Prix is due to be held in Melbourne.
With luck the worst of the bushfires will be over by then, but this cannot be guaranteed. Previously confined to summer, the bushfire season this year started as early as August in some parts of Australia, and it may well extend beyond February.
The Grand Prix operates on the basis of a subsidy of $60 million a year from the Victorian government. Much of this is justified by arguments about direct benefits to tourism, but even the most extravagant claims of economic benefit amount to no more than $40 million.
The rest of the subsidy is claimed to be offset by benefits from the international exposure associated with broadcasting of the event. The publicity consists of “an estimated global audience of 80 million” (a similarly extravagant number) watching a racetrack event lasting a couple of hours, with incidental coverage of the setting in Melbourne.
This raises a couple of questions. First: if this exposure is worth $20 million in international tourism, what is the cost of months of front-page reporting of a massive fire and smoke catastrophe, seen by just about everyone in the world with access to any kind of media? Looking at the figures, even a 10% reduction in international tourism could potentially reduce Australian exports by a couple of billion dollars a year.
The second, more immediate question, is that of the international effect of staging a celebration of the internal combustion engine against a backdrop of the smoking wreck of a fire-ravaged country. Such an event would justly reinforce the worldwide perception that we Australians are reaping what we have collectively sown.
Of course, the direct impact of the event on carbon emissions will be trivial. But the symbolism will be appalling.
What, if anything can be done about this? As in the case of the fireworks, the contracts have already been signed. In fact, the Grand Prix owners, US firm Liberty Media last year exercised an option to extend the contract to 2025.
Cancelling the event could expose the government to liability amounting to the whole of the $60 million subsidy over the remaining six years — a total of $360 million.
But even this would be a bargain. The minimal economic benefits of the Grand Prix are fully offset by the negative externalities of the event. The $60 million subsidy has been a complete waste, and cancelling the event will not change this.
But perhaps something better can be negotiated.
Liberty Media might be willing to accept part payment of the subsidy in return for cancelling the event. They would get money for nothing and a slot in their schedule to pitch to some other city. The Victorian public would still come out ahead.
The race itself could be replaced by an event in the Formula E electric car series, hopefully without such a large subsidy.
Such a change would signal to the world that Australia is really serious about getting off carbon.
Some pretty flimsy logic, you can use the same logic to get rid of all kinds of international events. Formula 1 over the years has brought innovation to the car manufacturing industry and a lot of the technology you’re seeing in Hybrid vehicles now has been a result of constructors pumping millions into R&D a year.
As a supporter of climate change, I don’t think Formula one symbolizes a by-gone era as your opinion piece implies, it’s about innovation and pushing engineering beyond it’s limits, something we desperately need to develop climate mitigation technology.
Honestly, if you start from the position that you don’t care for this type of sport or don’t like it at all I can see someone like yourself coming to this conclusion, but I’d suggest going yourself one year and checking out the innovation centre and talking with some of the universities that participate in the event over the weekend, you’ll begin to appreciate what it’s doing for the engineers of the future and maybe some of the “intangible” value not picked up in an annual report.
“As a supporter of climate change, I don’t think Formula one symbolizes a by-gone era as your opinion piece implies, it’s about innovation and pushing engineering beyond it’s limits, something we desperately need to develop climate mitigation technology.”
Indeed, F1 currently use the most advanced and efficient hybrid power units in a car.
The internal combustion engines use new combustion technologies to operate at 50%+ thermal efficiency, with energy recovery from the exhaust and braking systems.
If every car on the road had teh same thermal efficiency the CO2 emissions would be significantly reduced.
Also F1 is going carbon neutral.
Carbon neutral and offsets and all the rest of those spinner terms are a fraud. There’s no substitute whatsoever for not transferring more carbon from underground into the terrestrial cycle.
I used to like F1 but the bully boy antics of Kennet forcing it on to Albert Park killed it for me. Decades on and it’s an embarrassing relic of a dying age. Electric cars are our future. If the racing business is serious about helping develop the cars of tomorrow then go electric.
At least until then put mufflers on the damn things.
What other international events are you thinking of, Ben?
I can’t think of another annual Australian sporting event that garners such high-profile international attention for an activity that is basically a ceremony centred on the burning of fossil fuels, except for the Phillip Island motorcycle Grand Prix and maybe, at a stretch, Bathurst.
Or perhaps there’s an argument that these should go too. Burning fossil fuels to entertain the masses does seem to be a bit of anachronism in today’s climate and, as the author suggests, it’s as much about symbolism as it is logic.
It would be cynical to mention the bogan vote, I guess.