Even at the pinnacle of motorsport, 'everything woke can turn to sh*t'
Just like in politics, Formula 1's "Net zero" push has harmed the product on track for no material gain.
In 2019, at one of the early peaks of ill-conceived, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility,’ ESG mania, Formula 1, the pinnacle of global motorsport, announced its “bold push toward sustainability, aiming for net zero emissions by 2030.”
The sport was already running on a V6 hybrid engine model at the time, in what was known as a “turbo hybrid” and “ground effect” era, which started back in 2014. Already gone were the big, noisy, magnificently powerful, naturally aspirated V8-V12 engines of the past. Efficiency was the new name of the game, despite the fans never having asked for it.
And yet, it worked. For the most part. Despite early domination from Mercedes to start the beginning of those rule changes, the pack eventually coalesced into legendary title fights between Red Bull’s Max Verstappen and Mercedes’ Lewis Hamilton, and in two constructor titles for McLaren.
Formula 1’s 2026 regulations claim to represent a bold push toward sustainability, aiming for net zero emissions by 2030 through a rebalanced power unit that splits output roughly 50/50 between the internal combustion engine (ICE) and electric components. However, this shift has drawn sharp criticism for prioritizing corporate environmental targets — such as attracting eco-conscious manufacturers and aligning with global green initiatives (many now defunct) — over the sport’s core identity as the north star of motorsport engineering. After pre-season testing, and just one round on the calendar, it’s clear the rules have diluted engine performance, introduced operational headaches, and ignored prescient warnings from top drivers, all while betting on an electrification strategy that looks increasingly misguided with global EV sales stagnating.
F1 has always been a testing ground for global innovation. It’s as much the world’s great engineering contest as it is a battle between drivers on track. The different manufacturers who line up on the grid are not in uniform cars, and nor should they be. And yet, the concern with the sport’s 2026 rule changes, first dreamt up behind closed doors by its own 50/50 split of corporate interests, “sports washing” Aramco types, and net zero charlatans, is that there’s nothing innovative about a car forced to deploy so much battery now that it’s derating on the straights — like the governor that kicks in on a golf cart.
Proponents have framed the rule changes as being a kind of “road-relevant” innovation, to lure additional manufacturers to the sport. Yet, further highlighting that bad bet made in 2019, global EV sales continue to slide — down to 12% in 2026, and down from 23% in 2025.
Canadian politicians such as Doug Ford and Justin Trudeau, who once celebrated their ability to bribe global battery makers with taxpayer money to come produce unwanted products in Canada, have watched those plans collapse into irrelevance. Even Mark Carney was forced to scuttle GFANZ, in essence a net zero financial extortion alliance, following a number of high profile departures in 2025.
Amid a clear market correction back towards sanity and non-punishment of consumers just for the feels, gone as well is the Liberal carbon tax (hidden carbon taxes are alive and well, and will continue to cost Canadians dearly).
In fact, multiple automakers are scaling back EV plans, pivoting back to hybrids to avoid a costly EV market that offers little incentive without eye-watering government subsidization.