Trying to find your way around this place? Like most expositions, we offer a map: 
Just thinking out loud here, but you've got at least three problems with car racing as related to environmental health: gas usage in the races themselves, the use of leaded gasoline, and the hundreds of thousands of cars that drive to the races.
Doing a full calculation of the environmental cost of NASCAR (number of cars per race, number of miles per race, number of miles per practice run, number of races per week, number per season, number of fans driving to the races, number of beer cans thrown out the window) is beyond me.
So, just as a question, how much would the elimination of auto racing as a sport help with carbon emissions and associated problems? Any of our 17 weekly readers care to help out with some stats?
Some folks have thought about it, though I can't vouch for the strength of their cases.
Here's one article, by Charles W. Schmidt, who writes in Environmental Health Perspectives about the relationship of sport and environment. Called, "Putting the Earth in Play: Environmental Awareness and Sport" (full citation: Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 114, Number 5, May 2006), Schmidt notes the following:
Although the EPA phased leaded gas out of the consumer market more than 30 years ago, its use in stock cars has gone on with the agency's blessing--an exemption was written into the Clean Air Act. Lead lubricates engines, helping them run smoothly, but it's also a neurotoxicant that can lower IQ, particularly among young children. In December 2005, a draft EPA document titled Air Quality Criteria for Lead stated that leaded fuel may pose a serious risk to residents living in the vicinity of racetracks, fuel attendants, racing crew and staff, and spectators.In a pilot study published in the February 2006 issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, Joseph O'Neil of the Indiana University School of Medicine and colleagues found elevated blood lead levels among some mechanics and crew members of a NASCAR race team. Specifically, the median blood lead level in 47 tested individuals was 9.4 micrograms per deciliter, which approaches the EPA's own risk threshold of 10 micrograms per deciliter, over which toxic effects can be expected. Nineteen of those individuals had blood levels at the EPA threshold.
For years, the EPA has urged NASCAR to quit leaded gas voluntarily. The industry claimed it was trying to find replacements, but also insisted the ones that were available lowered performance and harmed engines. But in January 2006, under pressure from Clean Air Watch, a Washington, DC-based environmental group, NASCAR finally relented. The industry will begin using a lead-free fuel made by Sunoco called 260 GTX by 2008.
And I am shocked, shocked!, to find this article at Fox News, written by the Junkscience.com guy, that says "eco-harassment " shouldn't stop NASCAR from using unleaded gas.
An article at emagazine says that "At race speeds, NEXTEL Cup cars get 2 to 5 miles per gallon." The same article does a rough calculation (which the vaunted wikipedia says is disputed) to puts "NASCAR's total fuel consumption across all series at 2 million US gallons (7.57 million liters) of gas for one season."
Another fun fact (from the emagazine article): ""New Hampshire toll roads chalked up some 2,570,347 vehicles for one August week of the Winston Cup races in 2003."
Fear not, though -- ethanol will save us (here), Sonoco's got that covered, GM is working on the problem of fuel efficiency (here), and Indy and NASCAR are both touting their eco-friendliness (here). What? What? You're skeptical too?
Comments
So what's the point....NASCAR is going unleaded next year:
http://www.nascar.com/2006/news/headlines/cup/01/20/nascar.fuel/
And it uses 2 million gallons of gas a year:
...which most people think is an overestimate, ans sure sounds like a lot, but is .001% (check my math!) of domestic consumption:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question417.htm
".. in the United States, something like 400 million gallons
(1.51 billion liters) of gasoline gets consumed every day."
So why NASCAR? I'm guessing because you don't like it to begin with. You could pick on Congress passing coal YES COAL!! subsudies, or the horrific lack of public transportation throughout most of the US, or lack of leadership on alternative fuels, or any other sport people sit in enormous traffic jams to get to-but the sport most of your readership probably doesn't relate to at all is a pretty easy target, no?
Posted by: RobertC | May 31, 2007 2:58 PM
A while back, I did a back of the envelope calculation which suggests that the average NASCAR driver emits about the same amount of CO2 as the average American who drives an automobile. (I don't think I actually say that in the post, but it comes out that way.) The calculation does not factor in practice, qualifying, or the fuel spectators use to get to the events.
To add to the comment by RobertC, some of the races this season are using unleaded fuel. About half, if I remember correctly.
If you want to ban NASCAR because of the fans that drive to the races, you should also want to ban all other sporting events as well. I haven't looked at CO2 emissions from automobies traveling to races, but I would bet it's fairly small; I don't think many people drive 1000 miles to see a race.
Posted by: N. Johnson | May 31, 2007 3:12 PM
Looks like they've been assured several more generations of fans with that nifty trick.
Posted by: Jeb, FCD | May 31, 2007 3:20 PM
Actually, those cars do run unleaded and they actually burn fuel more efficiently than any production auto. In fact, at speed they burn 100% of the fuel in the combustion chamber. Not bad for a naturally aspirated engine (that means no fuel injection, they use a carburetor). As far as all of the cars that drive to the races, hells bells lets ban football too, and baseball, and basketball.
Posted by: Mark | May 31, 2007 3:31 PM
I have an acquaintance whose paycheck derives largely from NASCAR. We had a very similar conversation about this topic last year. It seems to me that my friend expends quite a bit of personal energy to maintain the cognitive dissonance, er, strategic ignorance necessary to continue that work. I know I couldn't do it.
Yes, my friend noted the small number of cars on a track at one time make the absolute amount of fuel consumed seem small by comparison to overall American consumption. But I noted that the meme-spreading influence wielded by this segment of the entertainment industry multiplies its harmful impact by several orders of magnitude.
Auto racing glorifies a practice that we know is harmful, a practice that robs our children and grandchildren of their future quality of life.
That's harmful. That's unethical. We should be ashamed to condone a practice that we can easily assess as harmful. If we wish to proclaim that we are grown-up members of an advanced society, we should be ashamed that we so visibly and so blatantly flaunt our strategic ignorance.
Suppose, instead of distracting each other with most favorite and least favorite sports, suppose we ask ourselves what really matters to us most?
Suppose we ask ourselves how we would behave now if we seriously believed our children and grandchildren would hold us accountable for the consequences of our behaviors?
Posted by: editor, Sustainability Southeast | May 31, 2007 3:48 PM
Brrmm brrmm!
Posted by: HgMan | June 1, 2007 9:22 AM
I wonder if this constitutes some major shift: we can get our knickers in a knot about threats to our entertainment, but little comment on the rather monumental challenge to faith in the previous posting on the Intelligent Design Biotech Corp.
Methinks it was around this point that Rome found itself in a spot of bother...
Posted by: HgMan | June 1, 2007 9:53 AM
You've forgotten the environment impact of building the racetracks themselves (which probably come with big parking lots too).
Personally, I always thought that golf was an environmentally dubious sport. We cut down trees (and other native plants) and replace them with large fields of grass which takes huge volumes of water to keep green and then traps that water near the ground surface, rather than allowing it deeper. Might as well cover the ground with pavement. People drive around in silly little carts too.
Posted by: minouette | June 1, 2007 11:50 AM
First of all you have one of your BASIC facts wrong (not surprising).
NASCAR switched to unleaded fuel, what you didn't notice, or care to because f underlying bias?
Secondly, so they pollute, purchase a few carbons credits from Al Gore's company and all is OK with NASCAR's world. Right?
Posted by: marc | June 11, 2007 6:11 PM
The one thing that environmental folks never address is the fact that the vast majority of the CO2 in the atmosphere most likely was put there during the industrial revolution in the early 1900's. No environmental scientist can say how much the CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing right now and/or if it may even be decreasing.
0.001 of domesic consumption is an awful small amount of gasoline to write a specific law banning a sport that so many people enjoy.
Posted by: Organic Chemistry Help | June 12, 2007 6:45 AM
Watching cars go around in a circle burning gas for entertainment is irresponsible.
Posted by: pw | August 28, 2007 3:31 PM
id kill someone if nascar is canceled
Posted by: yo mama | October 22, 2007 8:47 PM
I honestly cant believe this has even been raised. This really has turned into a Nanny world. If you stop Nascar then you have to stop F1, F2, F3 & Touring cars as if you look at their stats they are far worse than Nascar. Get a grip and realise that what were doing wont change the world for millions of years to come. Ooooh it makes me mad!
Posted by: Michael Goddard | December 21, 2007 4:10 AM
Hey, I'm cool with that -- ban F1, F2, F3 & Touring cars too.
Posted by: carl | December 21, 2007 10:11 AM
we will never banned nascar nascar will stay here forever and ever hell if your going to banned nascar we might as will drive bikes everywhere and walk to town to town fat chance that is going to happen
Posted by: creeper the reaper | February 7, 2008 9:26 PM
well said, well spoken, creeper. you have a real knack for the language. wouldn't want any stereotypes perpetuated here.
Posted by: carl | February 8, 2008 8:05 AM
listen
nasCAR is the best go dis some other sport weirdo
Posted by: jason gray | April 4, 2008 1:45 PM
Can't we just have one sport without all the negative. Sure gas prices are high, and we have wrecks once in a while but all in all less emissions come out of a race then on a daily trek to the office by everyone. Lets just enjoy it or turn the channel.
Posted by: Fanman | April 5, 2008 4:40 PM
Nascar is the greatest sport ever
Posted by: Patrick and Gavin | April 23, 2008 1:03 PM