Professor John Raine: Climate And Energy Policy Realism Not Virtue Signalling, Please

Saving the Planet with Formula 1 Design Regulations

The 2026 Formula 1 (F1) motor racing season gets under way in Melbourne 6 - 8 March. During pre-season testing in Barcelona and Bahrain, leading drivers such as Max Verstappen, Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso weren’t holding back with their criticism of the new FIA design regulations.

The sustainable non-fossil fuel is not really an issue, although “sustainable” needs close scrutiny as too often some environmental and emissions costs are externalised. The key change is that the FIA has specified an increase from 120kW to 350kW (close to 50%) electric power, and a reduction from ~550kW to ~400kW from the 1.6 litre turbocharged internal combustion engine. Notably, the battery energy storage capacity of 4 megajoules for 2026 remains unchanged, with this energy to be recovered twice over in braking each lap. Drivers now have become electrical energy managers rather than being 100% focused on driving flat out.

The FIA is tipping its cap to climate change and in the process annoying drivers and likely thousands of spectators. Why have they done this other than to be very visibly virtue signalling?

The F1 circus involves not only the vehicles, support engineering, crews and drivers travelling by air between venues, but also hundreds of thousands of spectators travelling sometimes long distances to F1 race weekends. A colossal amount of fossil fuel is burned to support this sport and bring spectators to race venues. A quick calculation indicates that just one Lear Jet carrying a billionaire and a few friends for several hours to the next F1 race will use far more fuel than the entire F1 field does during this race weekend.

We should applaud the FIA for driving advances in hybrid engine technology. But, F1 racing cars use a vanishingly small proportion of the total fossil fuel consumption that can be attributed more widely to this sport. The new regulations seem to be yet another piece of ESG theatre which will potentially detract from an out-and-out tussle for driver supremacy.

Did the FIA sign up for the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement? I don’t think so, but New Zealand and around 200 other countries did. The new F1 racing regulations have much bigger parallels in government carbon emissions and energy policies worldwide.

Climate Science – Not Settled

We live on a planet whose climate has been changing through geological time, and which has been gradually warming for 20,000 years, but with recent accelerated warming [1]. The temperature effect of natural ocean-atmosphere cycles, volcanic eruptions, variation in sun’s radiation, planetary orbits, and Earth’s axis precession make modelling of climate change extremely complex.

CO2 is now at its highest level in 4 million years. IPCC climate change models [2] attribute to human activity all of the CO2 rise from around 280 ppm in pre-industrial times to around 430 ppm today, and all global warming of a little more than 1⁰C. However, some scientists see long-term natural warming and the unbalancing 1% anthropogenic energy input causing temperature changes driving CO2 increase, then amplification by CO2 and water vapour. In any event, our warmer atmosphere can hold about 7% more water vapour, and we will see more heavy rainfall events.

As regards extreme weather events increasing, despite much alarmism care is needed to distinguish between periodic changes in weather patterns and real longer term climate change.

Today’s CO2 level is near a historical low. Plant growth would be more optimal at 800 - 1000ppm, and we should note that submarine crews routinely live with CO2 levels of 2,000 – 5,000 ppm.

There is general agreement that anthropogenic CO2 input to the atmosphere is about 5% of the total input. Some researchers (e.g. references 3, 4) state that anthropogenic CO2, partly because of reabsorption, is also only ~5% of resident atmospheric CO2, although the IPCC say this figure is 32%.

In counterpoint to the IPCC view of CO2 as the main driver of warming, prominent atmospheric scientists such as Lindzen and Happer [5] state:

“Water vapor and clouds account for more than 90% of the atmosphere’s ability to intercept heat. Thus, CO2 and all the other GHGs account for less than 10% of the atmosphere’s ability to intercept heat….. the common assumption that carbon dioxide is in the IPCC’s words "the main driver of climate change" is scientifically false.”

Moreover, Schildknecht [6] and Coe et al. [7] found future temperature sensitivity to rising CO2 levels falls exponentially with further CO2 increases, a view supported by Lindzen and Happer [5]. Coe et al. note:

“The two main atmospheric greenhouse gases are water (H2O) and CO2. Climate sensitivity to future increases (a doubling) in CO2 concentration is calculated to be 0.50°C, including the positive feedback effects of H2O, while climate sensitivities to CH4 and N2O are almost undetectable at 0.06°C and 0.08°C respectively. This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO2 will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) will have very little discernible impact.”

The predominant climate change narrative is alarmist, with the IPCC forecasting a temperature rise of 2 – 5 ⁰C from around 1900 to 2100. The upper end of this range is extremely unlikely, and to date the average of model predictions behind IPCC reports have exaggerated warming.

However, even if we accept the IPCC position on anthropogenic CO2 and global warming, the following still hold:

• New Zealand produces less than 0.1% of world CO2 emissions. If we achieve Net Zero 2050, which will be at much more than $500 Bn cost [8], it will have no measurable effect on global CO2 levels or temperatures – i.e. ~zero climate impact.

• If every one of the 200 signatory countries fully kept their 2015 Paris Agreement promises until 2100, analysis by Lomborg tells us that Earth would be a trivial 0.05 to 0.17°C cooler [9]. To date, at least 27 countries1 have failed or reneged on their Paris Climate Agreement commitments.

Whatever one’s position on climate change, the science must never be seen as settled, and it is unfortunate that climate science has been politicised to foster an alarmist view.

We should, of course, move forward with care as some climate change adaptation is needed, but New Zealand cannot justify the economic damage to our farming or manufacturing industry sectors of pursuing Net Zero 2050 or taxpayer commitments under the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, or the Emissions Trading Scheme.

The New Zealand Government has stated its continuing commitment to the Paris Agreement and to Net Zero 2050. This, at a grander scale, parallels the new Formula 1 regulations, by pursuing a policy that can only be seen as climate change good citizen theatrics in the face of zero impact from the intended actions.

Is our energy policy similarly captured by a fixation on decarbonisation rather being realistic and pragmatic?

New Zealand’s Energy System [10]

Societies throughout history have needed reasonably priced high-density energy to make major economic progress: e.g. coal in the industrial revolution, and later oil, gas and nuclear energy.

New Zealand faces energy shortages and January 2025 saw spot electricity prices of $2,000 - $3,000 per MWh during a low wind period, and daily averages above $500/MWh have occurred during tight hydro periods.

Government and our power industry appear to be planning on the assumption that:

(i) Electrification of transport, industry & commerce will proceed apace with a doubling of electricity demand by 2050.

(ii) Net Zero 2050 will be achieved by big increases in wind and solar power, and some battery back-up.

(iii) Market forces will deliver a reliable and economic supply. The focus on wind/solar and batteries seems once again to be climate change virtue signalling, or is it just blind faith trumping real world experience?

There is a belief that the public will tolerate periodic rotating blackouts and that the necessary back-up can be largely provided by demand response from grid-connected electric car batteries and domestic rooftop solar power batteries. The public will not like this. It is also costly and not the solution claimed by some. The cost to the economy of shortages and industry interruptions is already billions of dollars and we cannot afford to see more industry closures such as paper production at Tokoroa’s Kinleith Mill and Winstone Pulp International’s Karioi and Tangiwai sites.

Wind and solar power are cheap and getting cheaper at the power station gate due to massive production in China, but they are ultimately the most expensive option to the consumer, as shown by power prices in countries such as Germany, The Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and the UK. This is because of

• The need for ~50% capacity high inertia turbine back-up (gas or coal assuming hydro and geothermal fully utilised) to cope with windless cloudy weather (and nighttime).

• The operating life of only 15 - 25 years compared with 60 - 100 years for hydro, geothermal, gas, coal and nuclear power.

• The eye-watering cost of current-technology large battery storage. e.g. The Genesis Huntly battery system will deliver 200MWh, enough for 66,000 homes for just 2 hours, at a projected cost of $150 million. Moreover, the operating lifetime for both lithium-ion and sodium-sulfur batteries is only about 15 years. New battery technology is needed long-term for EVs but will be critical for stationary mass energy storage if this is to become economically viable.

There is also the major risk of grid instability with high percentage solar/wind systems (e.g. the grid failure in Spain 28th April 2025). A stable electricity grid requires a predominantly high-inertia system, that can maintain stable frequency: i.e. turbine systems fuelled by coal gas, nuclear power, geothermal and hydro (when we are not in dry years). Wind and solar struggle to do this with electrical voltage and frequency stabilisation.

By 2050, it is forecast that we will have over 11 GW of combined solar and wind power capacity backed up with 2.3 GW in large scale batteries. In reality around 5 GW back up battery capacity would be needed, unless we add more than another 1GW each of hydro and geothermal capacity.

Expensive electricity has closed down many heavy industries in Europe, especially in Germany and the UK, and Australia is experiencing this problem. The UK has shut down most coal-fired stations and imports ~10% of its electricity via submarine cables, but Germany is now re-commissioning coal-fired power stations.

We need more fast-start open-cycle gas turbine (and coal-fired) generation in the short term. Relying mostly on more solar and wind power will consign us to a very expensive energy future. Nuclear energy should form part of the long-term plan.

The planned LNG terminal is also very much an interim measure. To give us system resilience, New Zealand needs a realistic energy plan that includes new gas fields, more hydro and more geothermal. This needs a cross-party accord on gas field exploration that gives international investors and drilling companies the confidence to engage. If we expect a prosperous future for New Zealand, Labour and the Greens must better understand the technical and economic realities of our energy system.

Rather than virtue signal on energy policy, let us do practical and effective things like maximising hydro and geothermal, building better insulated homes, moderating emissions, better managing our environment, and using fossil fuels prudently, since these do not regenerate on human time scales. We should drive small, lightweight vehicles where practical - 90% of fuel energy around town is used in accelerating vehicle mass up to speed. The Australasian average vehicle weight and engine size are larger than in Europe, although the USA takes the world gas guzzling prize.

There are large, vested interests in maintaining climate change anxiety: political to increase the span of influence on national policy by the UN; commercial as mega-corporations have massive interests in wind/solar renewable energy and the EV industry. Environmentalist author Michael Shellenberger [11] has discussed how such vested interests have demonised fossil fuel-fired and nuclear power plant in favour of solar and wind.

Clear thinking about our energy and emissions future is needed, grounded in a realistic view of climate change. No doubt virtue signalling will continue in high profile operations such as F1 motor racing, in government announcements, and through greenwashing initiatives like the high-net-carbon-emissions and environmentally damaging Auckland food scraps recycling scheme [12]. In the end, governments must take pragmatic decisions on climate and energy policy in order to protect their national economies.

*******************************************************

This article first appeared in shorter form in John Raine’s Substack (https://substack.com/@jkr31350). John Raine is an Emeritus Professor of Mechanical Engineering and a former researcher in alternative and renewable energy systems. He formerly worked in the UK engine and vehicle test plant industry. He has held Pro Vice Chancellor or Deputy Vice Chancellor positions at three NZ universities.

References
1. William Happer, Steven E. Koonin, Richard S. Lindzen, Tutorial Submission on Global Warming and Climate Change to United States District Court Northern District of California San Francisco Division, Case No. C 17-06011 WHA, Case No. C 17-06012 WHA. Hearing Date: March 21, 2018.

2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Climate Change 2023 Synthesis report. IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf (link to 2021 AR6 Science report Technical Summary:IPCC AR6 Working Group 1: Technical Summary | Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis

3. Richard Lindzen and William Happer, “Physics Demonstrates that Increasing Greenhouse Gases Cannot Cause Dangerous Warming, Extreme Weather or any Harm”, CO2 Coalition, 7th June 2025. https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Lindzen-Happer-GHGs-and-Fossil-Fuels-Climate-Physics-2025-06-07.pdf

4. Camille Veyres, Jean-Claude Maurin and Patrice Poyet: “Revisiting the Carbon Cycle”, Science of Climate Change Open Access Publishing V5.3 2025, pp 135-185, November 2025.

5. Edwin X Berry, “Human CO2 Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO2”, International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. Vol. 3, No. 1, 2019, pp. 13-26. doi: 10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13, June 4, 2019

6. David Coe, Walter Fabinski, Gerhard Wiegleb, “The Impact of CO2, H2O and Other “Greenhouse Gases” on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures.” International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. Vol. 5, No. 2, 2021, pp. 29-40. doi: 10.11648/j.ijaos.20210502.12, August 23, 2021

7. Dieter Schildknecht, “Saturation of the Infrared Absorption by Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere”. International Journal of Modern Physics B, 6th August 2020

8. Michael Kelly, “An Assessment of the NZ Resources Needed for Carbon Zero”, a presentation to Engineering New Zealand, 1 December 2020, Auckland.

9. Bjorn Lomborg, “Impact of Current Climate Proposals.” Global Policy, Wiley, Volume7, Issue1, February 2016, Pages 109-118. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1758-5899.12295

10. John Raine and Bryan Leyland, “A Realistic Energy Future”, Bassett Brash and Hide, 24th August 2025 https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/john-raine-and-bryan-leyland-a-realistic-energy-future

11. Michael Shellenberger [11], “Apocalypse Never”. Harper Collins, ISBN 9780063074767 international edition; ISBN 9780063001701 e-book.

12. The Centrist, “The $1,440-per-tonne climate illusion: Auckland’s food scrap bins don’t add up”, May 11, 2025. https://centrist.nz/the-1440-per-tonne-climate-illusion-aucklands-food-scrap-bins-dont-add-up/

1 Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Egypt, Germany, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Kazakhstan, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Philippines, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, UK, USA, UAE, Vietnam