FOR the first time in my life, I watched an entire Formula One (F1) race from start till finish. It was a remarkable feat, considering I'm not a massive fan and have always regarded the F1 sport somewhat as glorified traffic.

But as much as I am reluctant to say it, I did feel a surge of pride watching the cars race through the world's first night-time street circuit, our city skyline brilliantly lit as a stunning backdrop to a really dramatic race.

Who would have thought Ferrari's Massa who started first would end up in the lowest rankings, while Renault's Alonso who started in 15th position would emerge champion of the historic night race.

But gripping as the race was - with three car crashes, two safety car episodes and a barrage of pit-stop blunders to hold my gaze for close to two hours - I started to contemplate the irony of the event, (here to stay for the next four years at least) and how it holds against Singapore's ambition to become a leader in environmental sustainability.

With the F1, there's no doubt that the environment takes a backseat. Online forums reveal disgruntled citizens not too happy with this hypocrisy, since there is no reconciling gas-guzzling cars with reduction of greenhouse gases. One blogger even wrote, "When it comes to F1... there is no swell of pride... all I feel is a swell of nausea".

Which made me think: what exactly is the carbon footprint of the Grand Prix? Is it even possible to calculate it?

Each of the F1 car consumes up to a litre of fuel per kilometre - and for every km, it spews 1.5 kg of carbon dioxide emissions - largely regarded as the culprit for global warming. So twenty cars at about 305 km each for the entire race, translates to about 9,150 kg of emissions.

On top of car emissions, each F1 team operates more than 30 tonnes of equipment which again consumes copious amounts of energy to transport to the site.

And let's not forget the lights that garnered so much praise for the Singapore Grand Prix organisers - with 108,423m of power cables, 240 steel pylons, approximately 1,600 light projectors, a staggering 3,180,000 watts is used.

If you consider the hundreds of thousands of tourists who flew in for the event, the total carbon footprint of the event is even more mind-boggling.

Yet in the midst of all this seemingly indulgent energy-busting event, there were some comforting signs that signalled that the F1 sport in the coming years might get greener.

Firstly, there was the Singapore Freeport skylounge at the Fullerton Hotel, which built a solar canopy to offset half the energy it used to entertain some 250 guests in its suites. It might pale in comparison to the total footprint of the event, but at least it was a step taken in the right direction. The firm has also promised to donate the installation, worth more than $100,000, to a local school in Singapore.

Car-maker Honda, also stood out for its cars being the only ones not drowned by sponsor logos. Forgoing millions of dollars in sponsorship deals, Honda had artwork on its cars depicting the planet earth, as part of a strategy to give the sport "a more relevant and ethical image".

Nick Fry, the Honda team principal, had said that the sport "has to change or it will wither on the vine and become extinct - just like the dinosaurs".

Intrigued by the green credentials of the sport - a under-reported aspect of the event, even at this newspaper - I went and looked up what the F1 was doing to make itself relevant in today's context of global warming.

After all, I think it's unrealistic to think the sport will be stopped altogether, after decades of tradition and with a massive global cult-following.

Besides, we should realise that innovations made in the sport gets passed down to the average consumer vehicle in making it more energy efficient. Not to mention, there are the arguments that the event will boost the country's economy, its tourism and its image, leading to investment opportunities with countries all over the world.

So if the F1 is here to stay, then let's look at how it can be improved.

And there's some good news: the sport is changing. It will get greener, simply because it has to.

Formula One's governing body, the International Automobile Federation (FIA), has been reported to want the sport to cast off its gas-guzzling image. It has proposed rule changes for 2011 that include, for example, a switch to smaller turbo-compounded 2.2 litre engines running on biofuel.

Another rule would require cars to have a 25kg device to store brake energy to use when accelerating. Also planned are limits on the number of staff teams can take to races and on wind tunnels, which use vast amounts of electricity.

Such modified rules of the game could lead to technological advancements that cater specifically to making transport in everyday-life more efficient. And the sport could also do well with more marketing on its impending "green" changes.

Needless to say, some F1 bosses are not too happy with the environmental concerns pressurising the sport. One head honcho, who has vocally said this isn't a priority, even came up with a lame defence that "the millions of people watching F1 races on television are thus not using their cars while the race is under way".

The way I see it, he will soon be a lone voice protesting against a very real tide of change. The sport cannot continue to enjoy its popularity if it doesn't address the environmental concerns surrounding it.

Meanwhile, all eyes will be on whether the FIA will do what it says. And in Singapore's case, when the novelty of the first night-race wears off next year and it has to up its game, the country could do well by distinguishing itself from other destimations if it engineered a much more environmentally-friendly event.

That, I think, is a sure-win strategy to stay ahead in the game. Not to mention, it will help to keep its own citizens happy and proud hosts of the F1 sport.

I mean, I might even watch the entire race from beginning till end when it comes around next year again.