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.

There has been a drive since the early 1970’s that started with environmental pressure groups, to move away from private transport wherever possible, the secondary message has always been to downsize to smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. Of late that has become a campaign that has been joined by the motor industry and governments around the world. However, just how committed can they be to the ideals, say environmental transport consultants’ Aardvark Associates?

The motor industry giants have been dragged screaming and kicking into realising that they need environmentally friendly vehicles, they started with smaller cars, and smaller engines, and then they built demand for more accessories, more comfort, all needing bigger cars and more powerful engines and the vicious circle begins. Instead of smaller cars we have larger vehicles with larger engines. Moreover, the motor industry plans on more powerful, bigger vehicles in the future.

For years there has been a small car niche in continental Europe, with manufacturers in France, Germany, Spain, and Italy. Volumes have been low, and their success has been qualified by special license arrangements and some dispensation from Type Approval regulations that apply to larger vehicles. These small cars known generically as microcars, are specified in EU legislation as “quadricycles”. They must fall within limited weight limits, and have power and speed restrictions imposed at the point of manufacture.

These quadricycles are smaller, lighter and more fuel efficient than any conventional vehicle. They have limited top speeds – and have lightweight polycarbonate bodies that absorb pedestrian impact. They can come with electric motive power as an option, thus transferring the pollution created by their motive power to a controllable centralised point at the power stations.

So, in quadricycles such as Microcar, Aixam, Ligier, Reva (G-Wizz), and others, there is a low impact personal transport solution for urban areas. Areas where traffic speed can be as low as 3-4 miles per hour, and certainly the potential to attain the 30 mph/48 kph legal limit is limited. These are vehicles that take up less road space, both on the road and when parked; they are pedestrian friendly; they are economical and environmentally friendly; they are virtually 100 per cent recyclable; they have a light footprint on the road so cause less road damage; they are in short, a real solution to urban personal transport, even local suburban and rural personal transport. No-one, certainly not the manufacturers, claim that these are motorway vehicles, or grand tourers, anything but.

As sales of these vehicles start to grow in the UK, particularly in urban areas, and certainly where sales are driven by congestion charging. Does the UK establishment welcome this move to smaller, more environmentally efficient vehicles with open arms? Of course it doesn’t.

It raises issues about their crash test safety by slamming them into an offset stationary block at 39 mph/64 kph – 5 mph/ 8 kph above the 35 mph/56 kph impact test speed set by EU passenger car Type Approval legislation – a top speed that most will never attain in city traffic, and in the case of some models, one that is physically unattainable. It then questions the safety of the very vehicle they have been campaigning for, for over 30 years and says that it didn’t realise these vehicles would be permitted on the road when the UK agreed to the EU rules on quadricycles. Surely someone involved had been to France and seen the microcars on the street there?

This all raises questions about how committed the country is to the green agenda. There is now a constant drive against the larger motor car, and at the same time the smallest, lightest, option is being targeted by the establishment. Could it be that having unwittingly got what was asked for the government and the motor industry have realised that they have vested interests to protect. The motor industry their investments in carbon technology, big cars and internal combustion engines and their support from their allies in the oil industry, whilst the government needs to defend its revenues. How delightful it must be to have a tax incentive to drive a zero emission car whilst there are none available. How different that becomes when the zero emission vehicle becomes a reality.

Conspiracy theory? Maybe. However, it is clear that the government is duplicitous when it comes to transport solutions. Taxes on larger vehicles have little impact on those who can afford to run them. There is limited investment in public transport when it comes to trains and buses, yet high impact air transport continues to pay no tax on fuel and there are huge expansion plans for the air traffic sector across the UK. There is a serious conflict of message when all this is going on, and the smaller, lighter, more environmentally friendly personal transport solution is coming under attack. One might also ask, how much safer these vehicles would be if they were in the majority on the road? Surely then the heavy, powerful hatchback becomes the dangerous vehicle?

If there is no support for the quadricycle and the case against it is one of safety, then perhaps it is time we all took to the streets in armoured cars on the basis that they are much safer when involved in a collision with another vehicle…