Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[viper37]

https://www.autoweek.com/racing/formula-1/a40351951/vettel-riles-politician-at-f1-canadian-grand-prix-for-hypocritical-stance-on-fossil-fuels/

Story from the past weekend I meant to post about, then forgot, now remembered.

F1 came to Canada last week.  One of the drivers is Sebastian Vittel, driving for Aston Martin.  Apparently he's very concerned about climate change, which is admirable.  Some have commented on the hypocrisy of campaigning against climate change when you're an F1 driver (they fly their massive teams all around the world week to week), but I think that might be uncharitable.

So when he comes to Canada he's conspicuously wearing a t-shirt in pre-race activities decrying Canada's "tar-sands".  Again, entitled to his opinion.

But when it comes to the race itself, he has a custom paint job on the back of his helmet, again calling Canada's tar-sands "Canada's climate crisis".

But right beside that, on the dude's very same helmet?  Why the logo for Aston-Martin's number one sponsor - Aramco.  That's right, Saudi Arabia's state-owned oil company and reportedly the biggest CO2 emitter IN THE WORLD.

Vittel tries to deflect criticism by admitting he's a hypocrite, but that shouldn't take away from his larger message... dude, I don't think that's how this works.

I don't see the hypocrisy.

He is a F1 driver. He doesn't get to pick who sponsors his team, nor does he get to pick what those sponsors get to slap all over his uniform or car.

He is a professional athlete, and he is choosing to give his voice to something he thinks is important. That voice, apparently, includes a small spot on his helmet.

Which is better - slapping another logo on there, or using that voice to speak out about climate change?

There is no hypocrisy here, unless you think he must and should give up his position on the team because they have the sponsors they have.

Professional athletes of that level have a say in their sponsor.  If a pilot like Vettel says "no way I'm wearing this", then it'll likely won't happen, they'll find some other sponsor for him.

[The Larch]

https://www.autoweek.com/racing/formula-1/a40351951/vettel-riles-politician-at-f1-canadian-grand-prix-for-hypocritical-stance-on-fossil-fuels/

Story from the past weekend I meant to post about, then forgot, now remembered.

F1 came to Canada last week.  One of the drivers is Sebastian Vittel, driving for Aston Martin.  Apparently he's very concerned about climate change, which is admirable.  Some have commented on the hypocrisy of campaigning against climate change when you're an F1 driver (they fly their massive teams all around the world week to week), but I think that might be uncharitable.

So when he comes to Canada he's conspicuously wearing a t-shirt in pre-race activities decrying Canada's "tar-sands".  Again, entitled to his opinion.

But when it comes to the race itself, he has a custom paint job on the back of his helmet, again calling Canada's tar-sands "Canada's climate crisis".

But right beside that, on the dude's very same helmet?  Why the logo for Aston-Martin's number one sponsor - Aramco.  That's right, Saudi Arabia's state-owned oil company and reportedly the biggest CO2 emitter IN THE WORLD.

Vittel tries to deflect criticism by admitting he's a hypocrite, but that shouldn't take away from his larger message... dude, I don't think that's how this works.

I don't see the hypocrisy.

He is a F1 driver. He doesn't get to pick who sponsors his team, nor does he get to pick what those sponsors get to slap all over his uniform or car.

He is a professional athlete, and he is choosing to give his voice to something he thinks is important. That voice, apparently, includes a small spot on his helmet.

Which is better - slapping another logo on there, or using that voice to speak out about climate change?

There is no hypocrisy here, unless you think he must and should give up his position on the team because they have the sponsors they have.

Professional athletes of that level have a say in their sponsor.  If a pilot like Vettel says "no way I'm wearing this", then it'll likely won't happen, they'll find some other sponsor for him.

Maybe for a small sponsor, but not for the team's main sponsor.

[Josquius]

Depends how valuable he is I guess.
If we are talking the absolute superstar of a sport who instantly turns any team into undefeatable crush all opposition winners then you could easily see how they could have a veto on absolutely anything- do this or I walk.

Vittel...He's not that but he is OK. He will have some power I'd say.

[Berkut]

https://www.autoweek.com/racing/formula-1/a40351951/vettel-riles-politician-at-f1-canadian-grand-prix-for-hypocritical-stance-on-fossil-fuels/

Story from the past weekend I meant to post about, then forgot, now remembered.

F1 came to Canada last week.  One of the drivers is Sebastian Vittel, driving for Aston Martin.  Apparently he's very concerned about climate change, which is admirable.  Some have commented on the hypocrisy of campaigning against climate change when you're an F1 driver (they fly their massive teams all around the world week to week), but I think that might be uncharitable.

So when he comes to Canada he's conspicuously wearing a t-shirt in pre-race activities decrying Canada's "tar-sands".  Again, entitled to his opinion.

But when it comes to the race itself, he has a custom paint job on the back of his helmet, again calling Canada's tar-sands "Canada's climate crisis".

But right beside that, on the dude's very same helmet?  Why the logo for Aston-Martin's number one sponsor - Aramco.  That's right, Saudi Arabia's state-owned oil company and reportedly the biggest CO2 emitter IN THE WORLD.

Vittel tries to deflect criticism by admitting he's a hypocrite, but that shouldn't take away from his larger message... dude, I don't think that's how this works.

I don't see the hypocrisy.

He is a F1 driver. He doesn't get to pick who sponsors his team, nor does he get to pick what those sponsors get to slap all over his uniform or car.

He is a professional athlete, and he is choosing to give his voice to something he thinks is important. That voice, apparently, includes a small spot on his helmet.

Which is better - slapping another logo on there, or using that voice to speak out about climate change?

There is no hypocrisy here, unless you think he must and should give up his position on the team because they have the sponsors they have.

Professional athletes of that level have a say in their sponsor.  If a pilot like Vettel says "no way I'm wearing this", then it'll likely won't happen, they'll find some other sponsor for him.

I don't think it is anywhere near that simple. 

If he was Hamilton, maybe. But he isn't. 

He has a contract, and I am sure it has very specific stipulations about what control he has over sponsorship and advertising. 

You are making a HUGE assumption that he can just demand who is and is not going to sponsor the team.

Now, if he has a *personal* sponsorship with Aremco, then ok - the charge of hypocrisy sticks. Is that the case?

[The Larch]

Now, if he has a *personal* sponsorship with Aremco, then ok - the charge of hypocrisy sticks. Is that the case?

No, it's the team's main sponsor, AFAIK.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - I don't really have an issue with it or think it can really be condemned as hypocritical (maybe being a race driver is) because it's a team sponsorship, not his personal sponsorship.

In the same way as I don't think there is hypocrisy by the players in drawing attention to human rights abuses but playing in the World Cup in Qatar, or Muslim players wearing shirts sponsored by alcohol or gambling companies, or taking a stand on climate change while wearing a shirt sponsored by "Visit Rwanda" or Qantas.

I think sportspeople are entitled to have views and to express them. I don't think they are or can be held responsible for decisions made by the teams or associations/federations that they are part of. And that, very often, criticising the sportspeople for contradictions between those things (such as team sponsors or the World Cup) is giving them grief for decisions they're not responsible for and letting the people who are responsible off the hook.

[Admiral Yi]

It's hypocritical.  Saudi oil is not climate friendly.  Aramco is paying his salary.  He's profiting from carbon emission just as much as Alberta oil producers.

[DGuller]

The idea that a driver has a say over main team sponsors is laughable, I don't think even Hamilton has that sway (and he hasn't been shy about using his clout to impose demands on his team).  This idea also assumes that there is a long line of sponsors lined up, and teams walk down that line and pick a lucky winner.

[The Brain]

The idea that a driver has a say over main team sponsors is laughable, I don't think even Hamilton has that sway (and he hasn't been shy about using his clout to impose demands on his team).  This idea also assumes that there is a long line of sponsors lined up, and teams walk down that line and pick a lucky winner.

You can pick your employer. Especially if you're an ex-F1 driver.

[Berkut]

It's hypocritical.  Saudi oil is not climate friendly.  Aramco is paying his salary.  He's profiting from carbon emission just as much as Alberta oil producers.

Aramco is a sponsor. There are a variety of income streams that fund a F1 team, not in small part being revenue from consumers, TV rights, and ticket sales.

"Aramco pays his salary" is like saying the bank that names a stadium pays the QBs salary. It is sort of true, but not in any way that actually means anything.

Everyone profits from carbon emissions. If that is the metric, we are all hypocrites, and maybe we are. So why single him out?

[DGuller]

I know Vettel's form has been questionable in recent years, but calling him an ex-F1 driver is still a little harsh.

[The Brain]

I know Vettel's form has been questionable in recent years, but calling him an ex-F1 driver is still a little harsh.

I know you're joking, but for the benefit of other readers: I didn't want to assume that he could find another F1 team to drive for if he ragequit his current one.

[Berkut]

I know Vettel's form has been questionable in recent years, but calling him an ex-F1 driver is still a little harsh.

I know you're joking, but for the benefit of other readers: I didn't want to assume that he could find another F1 team to drive for if he ragequit his current one.

Yeah, drivers are well paid, and allowed a certain amount of social freedom, but they by no means have real leverage over how the team itself is managed, much less sponsorship.

There are 20 of them, and 200 drivers looking at those spots and wanting their shot.

[crazy canuck]

Vettel is doing what he can in his circumstances.  The alternative is do nothing so as not to be called a hypocrite.  But that is the worst option.  He is using his platform for good. Those who are critiquing him are forgetting that the perfect is often the enemy of the good.

[Barrister]

It's hypocritical.  Saudi oil is not climate friendly.  Aramco is paying his salary.  He's profiting from carbon emission just as much as Alberta oil producers.

Aramco is a sponsor. There are a variety of income streams that fund a F1 team, not in small part being revenue from consumers, TV rights, and ticket sales.

"Aramco pays his salary" is like saying the bank that names a stadium pays the QBs salary. It is sort of true, but not in any way that actually means anything.

Everyone profits from carbon emissions. If that is the metric, we are all hypocrites, and maybe we are. So why single him out?

As I tried to say I don't think he's a hypocrite just because he's an F1 driver.  Yes lots of us profit from hydrocarbons.  I mean I'm a Gov't of Alberta employee, so a chunk of my salary is indeed funded by oil and gas royalties.

For me it was the helmet ad.  Which was directly beside a very large ARAMCO logo.  The optics of it are terrible.  It's like how The Brain put it:

What's hypocritical about trying to hurt the competition, ensuring more profit for your client?