Verification done: Do 200 trees cover the CO2 of the Trois-Rivières GP?
“How can the leaders of the Trois-Rivières Grand Prix [GP3R] claim to transform four days of noise and carbon dioxide in an urban environment into a” green event “, simply by planting 200 trees? Are these 200 trees really enough to offset the emissions of the Grand Prix, or is it, as we say in French, greenwashing? “Asks a certain” Louis “of Trois-Rivières.
The Trois-Rivières Grand Prix, which takes place this weekend, has actually decided to reduce its ecological footprint by planting trees every year to offset its greenhouse gas emissions. This spring, 200 were planted to offset (over 50 years) the CO 2 released last year.
It should be noted (and the GP3R does not hide it) that the exercise only aims for the moment to cover the emissions of cars and motorcycles on the track, during practice tours, qualifications and races themselves. same. This does not include the CO 2 rejected for event organization, site preparation, transportation of pilots and vehicles, etc. Grand Prix Director Dominic Fugère says a new, more comprehensive report is in the works. It will eventually be followed by a third assessment that will also take into account the “CO 2 emitted by our visitors to come and go from home and what they emit as GHG [while they are on site],” said M Fugère during an e-mail exchange.
So the question that must be answered here is: do these 200 trees compensate for at least the CO 2 rejected by the racing cars during competitions, as the GP3R claims? It was the consulting firm Tree-Evolution that made the calculations of emissions and trees to plant, and Mr. Fugère sent me his Excel file. The figures are consistent with what I could find in other external sources.
Comparing with the official results of the GP3R, it appears that Arbre-Evolution did not underestimate the mileage traveled, but even counted a few more laps than what was officially counted. Thus, the cars of the category Ultra Porsche completed a little more than 1200 turns (practices, qualifying and races) according to the official results, but Tree-Evolution based its calculations on more than 1400 turns. The same goes for the other categories I checked: the F1600 (about 1300 laps in the official results versus nearly 1600 in the consultant’s calculations) and the Canadian Touring Vehicle Championship (1650 vs 2250).
Nor is there any suggestion that vehicle consumption has been underestimated, in what I have been able to compare. For example, F1600 Canada circuit president Marcel Lafontaine told me in an interview that “the race is about 50 km long, and the car consumes about 20 liters of gasoline”, which is around 40 l / 100 km; it’s quite close to the 35 l / 100 km counted for F1600 by Tree-Evolution. Similarly, the NASCAR site talks about 57 l / 100 km of fuel consumption (4.1 miles per gallon, nas.cr/2ymw5d5) for its racing cars participating in its most prestigious races; those of the GP3R (Nascar Series Pinty) are not as powerful, but the event has counted 70 l / 100 km for them. Last example: Tree-Evolution has assumed an average consumption of 18 l / 100 km for the Nissan Micra category;manufacturer , which seems reasonable considering the demanding conduct of a race.
The GP3R spreadsheet has 2.3 kg CO 2 emitted per liter of gasoline burned, which is true .
Finally, Evolution Tree has counted 215 kg of CO 2 captured over a 50-year period for each planted tree, which is very low (and not at all to the advantage of the GP3R) compared to other sources credible [ bit.ly/2SSe9jM and bit.ly/2K5igX5], who speak earlier of 1 ton per tree after about forty years. However, notes Mr. Fugère, the 200 “trees” planted by the Grand Prix also include fruit shrubs (about twenty) that do not store as much carbon as large trees. Maybe ALSO the tree species planted (which I did not know) are smaller or slow-growing, and thus capture less carbon. But the GP3R’s estimates really do not seem to have been too optimistic from this point of view.
True. The Grand Prix does not claim to cover anything other than the CO 2 of cars on track (at least not yet). All indications are that the 200 trees planted this year are enough to offset the GHGs from last year’s races, qualifications and trials.
INFO TO CHECK?
The statement of a minister seems doubtful to you? Circulating information seems exaggerated, unfounded? Write to our reporter ( firstname.lastname@example.org ). The section “Verification made” will take the time to delve into the facts, in depth, to give you the right time. Because we either do not like false news.