Do we still need to recall the facts? The Canadian Grand Prix is, by its very nature, an activity with a strong environmental impact. Some still doubt it? “Do your research” and you will see that it does not fit into the courses of action proposed by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) to negotiate the climate shift.
Despite everything, our decision-makers, who nevertheless say they listen to science, do not seem convinced that it is time to put an end to this circus of bitumen gladiators. To fuel their reflection, I offer them another reading grid, unanimously recognized, and which should guide them in assessing the merits of projects on society.
Almost all of our governments recognize the relevance of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) proposed by the United Nations (UN). Montréal and many organizations that contribute to its influence promote it. These SDGs present 17 objectives to be achieved “to save the world”, as can be read on the UN website. A quick reading of these reveals that the GP does not respond to any of them… Worse, it even goes against some, such as SDG 11 which calls for building sustainable cities and communities, and to which Montreal subscribes.
Some would say that everything has an impact. Culture (music, theatre, literature, major festivals), hospitals and education also have their share of environmental impacts… Yes, it’s true. Despite these impacts, a music festival, for example, contributes positively to the quality of life of a very large number of people, without degrading air quality too much, without promoting the waste of resources or the consumption of fossil fuel emitting greenhouse gases… which is not the case with the Grand Prix!
To assess the relevance of a project with regard to the requirements of sustainable development, it is necessary to put the environmental impacts into perspective of the positive social repercussions for society (Foot Print VS Hand Print) and, above all, it is necessary to be honest and objective in the evaluation of these repercussions, so as not to sweep under the rug the negative externalities when they are numerous.
But, ultimately, beyond the rational arguments (sustainable development goals, pollution, social cost, exploitation of women, waste of resources), the Grand Prix remains the emblematic vehicle of a deadly symbolism. We must not overlook the importance of symbols and their consistency with the actions that we must collectively undertake now to build a possible future.
Under the pretext of the so-called economic benefits of the Grand Prix (which remain to be demonstrated given the investments of governments), the defenders of the event cling to the status quo in my world returned elsewhere. Let’s hope that the change will take place as quickly as the cars will roll on weekends and that, collectively, unlike the racing cars, we will stop going around in circles.