Despite the UK government urging everyone else to “Go Green” it isn’t quite so keen to get recycling itself. Yes it will quote tonnes of paper recycled, energy saving from newly insulated buildings, and so on, but these are all easy options, when it comes to making a real commitment, things can be very different according to environmental transport consultancy, Aardvark Associates.

One of the biggest costs any vehicle fleet operator faces is that of its tyre supply. It comes a close runner to fuel, the biggest cost, and labour, the next biggest cost. The commercial market has realised that where truck tyres are concerned there is a clear cut case for retreading as an integral element of a fleet’s tyre programme. The UK has some of the largest truck fleets in the world and some of the biggest run a retread tyre policy for their drive axles and trailer axles.

Retreading extends the life of the tyre casing – the most costly part of the tyre, and saves millions of barrels of oil every year in the UK. In hard economical terms, retreaded truck tyres pay dividends for everyone from the new tyre manufacturer through to the consumer of the transported goods. In environmental terms retreaded tyres extend the useful life of a tyre casing, therefore making the use of raw materials more efficient. They require less energy to manufacture than new tyres, and they delay the day when the used tyre has to be disposed of. Which is why fleets operated by Tesco, ASDA, Sainsbury’s, Christian Salvesen and others all run on retreaded tyres.

Interestingly the MoD doesn’t run on retreads, yet the US Army recognises their worth and stocks up on retreads for its forces in times of trouble. The MoD is happy to use thousands of new tyres during vehicle testing and manoeuvres, which get sold part worn on the surplus market – when they could just as easily use retreads without putting anyone at any risk and save money, save natural resources, and at the same time create an independent database of real life statistics on retread tyres.

According to industry figures, the UK consumes something close to 47 million car tyres per annum, many of these car tyres could be retreaded, but they are simply scrapped, or shipped to overseas markets either for resale to third world countries, or for retreading in South America. Retreaded truck and car tyres have to meet stringent standards in Europe and the UK, and it could be argued that they meet stricter test standards than new tyres. Yet our government refuses to sanction the use of retreaded car tyres on municipal or government vehicles.

Moreover, it insists that retreaders in the UK pay full Climate Change Levy, whilst new tyre manufacturers receive massive discounts – creating an uneven playing field that allows the new tyre manufacturers to transfer manufacturing operations to China, where they produce the self same tyres they used to manufacture in the UK, doubtless without the same emission controls, and ship them halfway around the world to sell them on the UK market at prices that not even the UK retreader can match. The carbon footprint of  a tyre manufactured in China and shipped to the UK where it will ultimately be scrapped must be outrageous compared to a retread alternative.

The civil servants who deal with enquiries about retreading are patently acting on outdated information. The last survey carried out by the government into retreads was some 10 years ago – before computer assisted inspection and manufacturing processes. The process of retreading a tyre today is highly controlled, has to meet high standards and has to be very efficient on pure economical terms. The adjustment rate for retreaded tyres, that is the level of returns from manufacturing faults is around 0.5% in most quality retread operations. This compares with a reputed 5% adjustment rate from new tyre manufacturers (of course that latter figure cannot be confirmed as no new tyre manufacturer will admit to its failures).

The government refuses to sanction the use of retreaded tyres on non-HGV vehicles. The reasons quoted vary from them having a shorter lifespan and being uneconomical, to being unsafe. The lifespan is subjective, any retreader worth his salt can generate real figures showing how well his tyres perform compared to new tyres. If they want longer lasting tyres the retreader is in a better position to create them than any mainstream manufacturer as compounds can be custom blended for small batches of tyres. It follows then that the economic argument can also be deflated, as this depends upon the new tyre cost, and the lifespan of the tyre. Simple maths says that a quality retread has to be cheaper than a new tyre (especially if the Climate Change Levy disparity is taken out of the equation).

As for the safety aspect, again this is based on subjective opinion. There have been no objective tests carried out to prove this argument one way or another, but niche markets such as off roading and motorsport suggest that safety is not an issue. Not to mention the simple fact that aircraft tyres can be retreaded as many as nine times. Or that earthmover tyres from most manufacturers are retreaded now as a matter of routine.

Moreover, the retread industry may well be under threat simply because it does not have the political clout to be heard above the ranks of the mainstream manufacturers. Until recently the suppliers of new goods vehicles could supply tractor units fitted with retreads as original equipment (OE) – and this was a real option for some buyers. However, this OE option was closed off, and may well also be closed off for the trailer market too. This restriction on the market is bad enough, but there is legislation coming that will require truck tyres to be certified for their passing noise level and also their rolling resistance.

The new tyre manufacturers are pressing the EU for a rule that insists on all tyres meeting these standards, but are also quite adamant that there is no need for retreaders to have their tyres certified. It seems that they might wish to control the retread market by specifying the tread patterns and the compounds used in tyre construction, thus eliminating all but the biggest independent competition, and taking full control of the retread market for the new tyre manufacturers. Since the independent retreader cannot financially meet the demands of certification he will excluded from the market.

So, Aardvark asks, how does this impact upon the environment? Well, if you are a new tyre manufacturer you will only retread your own brand of tyres. Michelin do not retread Bridgestone tyres and so on. This creates a restrictive trading practice, that means non-retreading tyre manufacturers who might sell their tyres in the EU, such as Yokohama and Toyo, are left with no retreading option – remember the independents have all been pushed out of business, or been forced to sign up to a new tyre manufacturer franchise. So those tyres which get sold on new price rather than lifetime costs have nowhere to go at the end of their useful life. They become environmentally inefficient.

The worst case scenario is that tyres deemed unfit for Europe get shipped out to third world countries for “retreading” but actually end up getting sold as roadworthy tyres – this already happens now. As far as the tyre industry is concerned they can wash their hands of the tyres once they reach Lagos, or Accra, or Johannesburg. One might read that as an African life not being worth the same as a European life – A sentiment not going un-noticed in many parts of Africa which are becoming dumping grounds for Europes’ automotive waste.

So, how green is our government in light of this evidence? In all of the above, the UK government could take a stand on environmental issues and actually do something that makes a real difference.