Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy


Formula 1’s Bizarre Push for E-Fuels Suddenly Makes Sense

A new report finds the explanation in a Saudi Aramco sponsorship deal.

A racecar.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

When four-time Formula 1 world champion Sebastian Vettel retired last year, he said the sport’s contribution to climate change played a part in his decision. At the time, his concern was mostly around F1’s contribution to carbon emissions — all that globetrotting required a lot of fuel, not to mention the emissions from the cars themselves.

What Vettel couldn’t have known, however, is the extent to which the sport was actively pushing against efforts to enact climate laws more broadly.

A new report from SourceMaterial, an investigative journalism outlet, details how, in the wake of a lucrative sponsorship deal with the Saudi oil company Aramco, F1 embarked on a campaign to convince EU lawmakers not to ban combustion engines by 2035. Instead, F1 representatives wrote to lawmakers, they should consider allowing the use of synthetic “sustainable fuels,” also known as e-fuels, rather than switching to electric vehicles wholesale.

Just to get this out of the way: E-fuels aren’t the sustainable salve automakers and Aramco make them out to be. They’re supposed to be made using captured carbon, which could in theory make them carbon neutral, however producing them takes an incredible amount of energy. Studies have also shown that these fuels may not, after all, be any less polluting than regular petroleum. And, as SourceMaterial points out, using e-fuels justifies the prolonged use of combustion engines rather than electrifying.

On top of this central fallacy, as one person told SourceMaterial, F1 itself had no reason to be lobbying the EU about fuels — its cars were exempt from the EU policy that would have mandated a transition to EVs. But F1’s deal with Aramco came with a stipulation that the two organizations “combine their considerable shared expertise” to advocate for the “advancement of sustainable fuels,” something F1 officers set about doing with aplomb. Ross Brawn, F1’s managing director until last year and the subject of a recent Keanu Reeves documentary about his great success as an F1 manager, called e-fuels a “wonderful opportunity” even though, it bears repeating, the fuels used by road cars would have absolutely no effect on his sport.

This appears to have been a handy solution for Aramco — the company isn’t registered as a lobbyist in the EU, and any attempts to directly lobby legislators likely would have been met poorly. But F1 is beloved in Europe, and lawmakers were happy to sit down with representatives of the sport.

This is just one example of Saudi interference in climate policy. In November, the Climate Social Science Network released a report detailing how Saudi Arabia deliberately stymied UN climate negotiations so that its oil and gas operations could continue unimpeded. Saudi envoys, for example, would push back against climate science, exaggerate the costs of mitigation, and downplay the impacts of rising temperatures. ”What sets Saudi Arabia apart from most other countries,” the authors wrote, “is that it sees its national interest as best served by obstructing intergovernmental efforts to tackle climate change.”

The tactics are working. In March the EU voted to allow the use of e-fuels in car engines beyond 2035, as reported by Autotrader. That vote, SourceMaterial notes, was spearheaded by a German lawmaker who co-hosted an event with F1 at the European Parliament that promoted the benefits of e-fuels.

F1 representatives denied that the sport was lobbying on behalf of Aramco. The whole investigation, for which Aramco refused to provide comment, is worth a serious read.

Neel Dhanesha profile image

Neel Dhanesha

Neel is a former founding staff writer at Heatmap. Prior to Heatmap, he was a science and climate reporter at Vox, an editorial fellow at Audubon magazine, and an assistant producer at Radiolab, where he helped produce The Other Latif, a series about one detainee's journey to Guantanamo Bay. He is a graduate of the Literary Reportage program at NYU, which helped him turn incoherent scribbles into readable stories, and he grew up (mostly) in Bangalore. He tweets sporadically at @neel_dhan.


What the Conventional Wisdom Gets Wrong About Trump and the IRA

Anything decarbonization-related is on the chopping block.

Donald Trump holding the IRA.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The Biden administration has shoveled money from the Inflation Reduction Act out the door as fast as possible this year, touting the many benefits all that cash has brought to Republican congressional districts. Many — in Washington, at think tanks and non-profits, among developers — have found in this a reason to be calm about the law’s fate. But this is incorrect. The IRA’s future as a climate law is in a far more precarious place than the Beltway conventional wisdom has so far suggested.

Shortly after the changing of the guard in Congress and the White House, policymakers will begin discussing whether to extend the Trump-era tax cuts, which expire at the end of 2025. If they opt to do so, they’ll try to find a way to pay for it — and if Republicans win big in the November elections, as recent polling and Democratic fretting suggests could happen, the IRA will be an easy target.

Keep reading...Show less

AM Briefing: A Wind and Solar Milestone

On the rise of renewables, peak oil, and carbon capture

U.S. Wind and Solar Just Hit a Power Milestone
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: More than 10 inches of rain fell over nine hours in southwestern China • Wildfires are spreading in Canada, with at least 140 burning as of yesterday afternoon • The streets of Cape Town in South Africa are under water after severe storms caused widespread flooding.


1. Wind and solar surpass nuclear in U.S. electricity generation

More electricity was generated by wind and solar than by nuclear plants in the first half of 2024 for the first time ever in U.S. history, Reutersreported, citing data from energy think tank Ember. Solar and wind farms generated 401.4 terawatt hours (TWh) compared to 390.5 TWh generated from nuclear reactors, setting 2024 on pace to be the “first full year when more U.S. electricity will come from renewables than from any other form of clean power.” It’s helpful to compare these numbers to the same period last year, when nuclear generated 9% more power than solar and wind. Solar saw the greatest gains, with output 30% higher in the first half of 2024 compared to 2023; wind generation was up 10% and nuclear was up just 3.4%. Between 2018 and 2023, installed capacity grew by 168% for utility solar and 56% for wind. Meanwhile, nuclear generation capacity dropped by 4%.

Keep reading...Show less

Trump’s Likely VPs All Have Different Bad Ideas About Climate

Though not, perhaps, the bad ideas you might expect.

Donald Trump and VP contenders.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Donald Trump will announce his running mate any day now, and according to multiple reports his choice has come down to Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Ohio Senator J. D. Vance, and North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum. All erstwhile critics of Trump, they now share a fervent admiration for the former president they once scorned. But where do they stand on climate change?

Opinions on climate within the Republican Party are complex, and these three men reflect the divisions. According to Pew Research Center polls, 47% of Republicans over the age of 65 believe that human activity contributes a great deal or some to climate change, but a full 79% of Republicans under 30 think so. Yet only a tiny number of them feel any urgency around climate: In a Pew poll earlier this year, only 12% of Republicans said climate should be a top priority for the president and Congress, the lowest score of the 20 issues they asked about. (59% of Democrats said it should be a top priority.)

Keep reading...Show less