Does F1 Have a Greenwashing Problem?

Formula 1 has long positioned itself as the pinnacle of motorsport, combining speed, innovation, and global spectacle. In recent years, however, the sport has increasingly sought to rebrand itself as environmentally conscious. With initiatives such as net-zero carbon goals, hybrid engine technology, and the introduction of sustainable fuels, F1 presents itself as a leader in sustainable motorsport. But how much of this is genuine progress, and how much is just greenwashing?

The Push for Sustainability

F1 has made several high-profile commitments to reducing its environmental impact. The sport aims to become carbon-neutral by 2030, a target that includes switching to 100% sustainable fuel, reducing the carbon footprint of logistics and events, and promoting greener travel for teams and fans. In 2026, F1 plans to introduce next-generation power units that prioritise efficiency and sustainability. Additionally, the FIA has implemented measures such as banning single-use plastics in the paddock and encouraging circuit promoters to improve their environmental practices.

On the surface, these steps suggest a genuine attempt to align F1 with contemporary environmental concerns. However, when placed in the broader context of motorsport’s inherent environmental impact, questions arise about whether these initiatives are meaningful or simply an attempt to maintain F1’s public image in an era of heightened climate awareness.

Contradictions and Challenges

While F1’s sustainability initiatives sound promising, they exist alongside fundamental contradictions. The sport’s global calendar requires teams and equipment to be transported across continents, generating substantial carbon emissions. The 2024 season, for instance, consists of 24 races spread across five continents, with frequent long-haul travel between events. According to a 2019 F1 sustainability report, logistics account for nearly 45% of the sport’s total emissions, dwarfing the estimated 0.7% contribution from car exhausts during races (BBC, 2024).

Moreover, the sustainability efforts largely focus on car emissions, which account for only a small fraction of F1’s total environmental impact. The majority of emissions stem from travel, logistics, and infrastructure. Even as F1 touts greener fuels and reduced emissions from cars, the spectacle of international races remains dependent on highly carbon-intensive practices, from air freight to energy-heavy hospitality setups.

Additionally, the sponsorship landscape raises questions about the sincerity of F1’s green commitments. Many of the sport’s biggest sponsors include oil and gas giants, airlines, and automotive manufacturers with vested interests in fossil fuels. Aramco, one of the world’s largest oil producers, is a major sponsor of Formula 1 and actively promotes itself as a leader in sustainability despite its continued investment in fossil fuel extraction (Sustainability Beat, 2024). This has led to accusations that F1’s sustainability branding serves more as an attempt to launder the reputations of environmentally damaging corporations rather than enact meaningful change.

The Role of Greenwashing

Greenwashing refers to the practice of making misleading claims about environmental responsibility to improve public perception without making substantial changes. F1 has taken steps towards sustainability, but its core operations remain environmentally damaging. The continued reliance on long-haul travel, high-emission logistics, and partnerships with environmentally questionable sponsors suggests that the sport is more focused on optics than systemic change.

One argument against the greenwashing label is that technological advancements in F1 often trickle down to the wider automotive industry. Hybrid technology, energy recovery systems, and alternative fuels developed in F1 have found applications in road cars, contributing to broader sustainability efforts. However, the extent to which these innovations outweigh the sport’s environmental costs remains debatable. Furthermore, the push for sustainable fuel ignores the fact that the vast majority of carbon emissions in F1 come from sources unrelated to fuel use in race cars (Irish EVs, 2024).

The sport has also been criticised for promoting net-zero goals without outlining clear methods for achieving them. F1 claims that by 2030, it will operate in a carbon-neutral manner, yet the specifics of how it plans to offset emissions from air travel and global logistics remain vague (Context News, 2024). Without transparent data and accountability, such claims risk being seen as empty promises rather than actionable commitments.

What Would Genuine Sustainability Look Like?

For F1 to move beyond greenwashing, it would need to implement more radical changes. One of the most significant steps would be restructuring the race calendar to minimise long-haul travel. Currently, races are scattered across continents in a way that forces teams to frequently travel back and forth, significantly increasing emissions. A more regionally structured calendar, grouping races in close proximity, could help reduce the environmental burden.

Sustainability standards at race events also require stronger enforcement. Some circuits, such as Circuit Zandvoort, have already introduced eco-friendly initiatives, but the efforts remain inconsistent across the calendar. Standardising renewable energy use, implementing strict waste management practices, and mandating sustainable construction for race infrastructure would ensure more meaningful progress.

Transparency remains another key issue. F1 has made broad sustainability claims, but without clear and verifiable data on carbon emissions and progress, these statements remain largely symbolic. Independent oversight could ensure that environmental goals are met and that carbon reduction efforts are genuine rather than PR exercises.

Sponsorship remains one of the largest obstacles to sustainability. Many of F1’s primary sponsors, such as Aramco, have deep ties to the fossil fuel industry. If the sport is serious about reducing its environmental impact, it must reconsider its financial relationships and prioritise partnerships with companies genuinely committed to sustainability rather than those using F1 to distract from their environmental harm.

Investment in long-term sustainability solutions is another area where F1 could improve. The sport has the resources to fund environmental restoration projects, develop sustainable aviation fuel, and invest in carbon capture technologies. Taking responsibility for its emissions and actively working to offset them would lend more credibility to its sustainability commitments.

Conclusion

F1’s sustainability efforts are a step in the right direction, but they remain at odds with the sport’s fundamentally high-carbon nature. While hybrid engines and sustainable fuels are positive developments, they do little to address the largest sources of F1’s environmental footprint. Sponsorship deals with fossil fuel giants, the lack of a clear strategy for achieving net-zero emissions, and the continued prioritisation of global expansion over sustainability all contribute to accusations of greenwashing.

For Formula 1 to truly align with sustainability goals, it must go beyond PR-friendly initiatives and commit to deeper structural changes. Until then, its claims of environmental responsibility will remain under scrutiny, leaving fans and critics to question whether the sport’s green branding is little more than a high-speed illusion.