In perception terms, at least, Formula 1 doesn’t really stand a chance.

So, those in charge might as well jump into it, headfirst.

“We have taken big actions without being shy. We love what we are doing and that element of passion is crucial,” says Formula 1 CEO Stefano Domenicali.

The former Ferrari team principal is a bright presence in his paddock-based office at the Spa-Francorchamps circuit during the Belgian Grand Prix, kitted out in a crisp white shirt.

He is bullish that his sport exists for the right reasons, and, across the next 10 years, can promote the best solutions for global sustainability, rather than weigh heavily in that aspect.

“We are listening,” says Domenicali, “and we want to involve people and embrace technical opportunities we believe is right for the sport and mobility.”

First of all, how does F1 perform now, against some sports which may have the advantage of at least seeming to portray a more environmentally friendly image?

It’s not an easy comparison. F1 was certainly one of the quickest to release baseline data which was relatively easy to digest: in 2018, the sport said its carbon footprint was around 256,000 tonnes of CO2.

That was a lot across a nine-month season of about 21 races, which has since been augmented to 24. But for its 2021 edition, organisers of the three-week Tour de France said it released 216,000 tonnes of emissions (down by 37% from 2013).

And kicking a ball around a grass pitch? The footprint has been estimated at 3.63m tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions for the month-long 2022 football World Cup – much of which was attributed to fan travel., external

“Since [2019] we’ve been pleased to report we are on track to halve emissions by 50% by 2030, and we’ve done that so far with a 13% reduction of overall carbon emissions to date, in time with massive growth,” says Ellen Jones, F1’s convivial head of ESG – environmental, social and governance.

“It’s something we can be really proud of to show we can grow well when you materially change operations and deliver the sport in a way that’s less carbon intensive.”

Away from the thrilling racing and politics, often drama driven by the world’s biggest companies, what is the purpose of F1? Progression, insiders say.

“F1 is a lot more advanced than people think,” says McLaren’s Lando Norris, whose team finished as constructors’ champions this year.

“In terms of tech and efficiencies and environmental impact, a part of it is innovation in every sense – that’s what F1 is. It’s not just a bonus for us drivers and for people around the world.

“But it would be good if we could explain that more.”

Norris is right in that sense. The turbocharged 1.6 litre V6 hybrid engines used in F1 since 2014 have achieved a thermal efficiency level of about 52%, higher than any other in the world.

“These cars are the most efficient cars in the world by a big, big margin and because it’s a car on race track, everyone thinks: ‘Wow, that’s terrible for the world’,” says Norris.

“But without it, in a small sense, all the cars people drive around the world will also be a lot less efficient – and be a lot worse for the world.

“But it’s everything revolving around F1 that is not that sustainable and needs to change, and it’s travelling around the world and all those types of things [that is] essentially way worse than me driving this car every weekend.”

A key difference between F1 and other sports is the complexity of its travel and logistics, and this is where F1 needs to take a lead.

In 2026, new regulations will be introduced, which include a 100% sustainable fuel that can be used in existing engines in road cars.

But how is a fuel 100% sustainable? There must be carbon still being emitted from the tailpipe, right?

“Traditional fuels come from fossil fuel sources, and when fossil fuels are extracted from the ground, carbon is released and when it burns in the internal combustion engine, carbon is released again. Advanced sustainable fuels change that equation,” says Jones.

“Sustainable fuels are made from second generation biofuels or e-fuel – carbon is captured through collecting non-food products or waste materials to create the fuel. That carbon is then released again through the internal combustion engine.”

Paolo Aversa is a professor of strategy at King’s College London, with close ties to motorsport and a knowledge of the workings of Formula 1.

“The initiative is positive, but there are, however, some criticisms,” he said. “Fuel is just one of the different aspects. Some criticise the fact that this kind of initiative could be a way to prolong the life of traditional combustion engines, rather than maybe promoting a full switch to electric or hydrogen, for example.

“And especially one of the big criticisms is that how scalable this initiative is – what is the cost of producing this at scale? We know that Formula 1 companies are exceptionally good at developing prototypical technologies.

“And so whether this will be achievable as a standard drop-in fuel without any modifications to existing cars and will be able to reach a global distribution, is all to be proven.

“There’s also some concerns about the true carbon neutrality and possible indirect land use impact.”

It’s a complex process, and given that under 1% of F1 carbon emissions come from the track, what difference will it make? The important part is the transformation to the wider world.

“For me it’s about scale,” says Jones. “People talk about initiatives and projects, but we’ll only be successful when you have delivery at scale, changing wholesale ways of working.

“For example remote broadcasting in 10 years as business as usual, and it is normal to have sustainability or ESG, no matter what you call it, as everyday practices delivered everywhere we work.

“Not as a special project, but [that] it is the way it is.”

Being aware of achieving change at scale is one thing, but is it achievable?

“I think in terms of pledges Formula 1 has provided quite strong statements. [But] it is still to be fully proven what Formula 1 can do,” says Aversa.

“[For example] they have very efficient engines. However, F1 has not been that good at transferring this kind of knowledge to road cars, because of the complexity of the engine. The cost of producing these engines are not comparable to what we can have in normal road cars.

“I think probably in 2026 when the new engine with this new sustainable fuel will be deployed, we will be able to measure their results and be able to tell whether this is a valuable initiative, or it’s just, let’s say, an exercise of a maquillage [a veneer of make-up] for a sport that, unfortunately, for a long time has suffered from a stigma of environmental unsustainability.

“They produce a handful of vehicles, and usually they’re not really good at looking at the cost of what they produce. They’ve been more careful in recent years, thanks to the cost cap. But overall, their goal here is not to save money. The goal is to achieve the performance.

“A different story is moving these technologies up to the scalable letter of production and transfer it to cars that will cost a tenth or a fiftieth of what a Formula 1 car costs.”

For F1, Jones says: “People want the perfect solution 100% of the time. We have to change the definition of that: it’s about relentless progress in each action we take, to say: ‘What is the impact around us, how do we find a different way, how do we ensure sustainability is in the definition of what good looks like?’

“In 10 years’ time what we want people to say is: ‘Not only is sustainability in action possible, but part of the definition of what good looks like, and if F1 can do it and show how it’s done, everyone can do it.'”

As a driver, Norris agrees.

He says: “We need to continue doing what we’re doing, pushing the boundary and helping the rest of the world at the same time.

“We want it to show that it’s not just a race but something that can travel around the world and have a positive impact wherever it goes.”