The green façade

On the face of it, both manufacturers and terminal operators are fully signed up to the green agenda: if a piece of handling equipment can be made in a more environmentally friendly manner, everybody declares they want to see it built like that. But do they really?

On asking a whole raft of terminal tractor producers and operators about their green credentials, their responses – or lack of them – were hardly edifying.

The initial approach was to discover whether the carbon footprint of vehicles under production was yet an issue in the industry. The original debate in this area was started by spreader manufacturer Bromma, which recently undertook a study of its use of Swedish steel over cheaper Chinese product. The firm’s executives were surprised to learn that the environmental footprint of Chinese steel was ten times that of Swedish steel because the latter is high quality, which uses less energy to produce.

Operators acquiring these more environmentally-friendly products would therefore be more than justified in highlighting such a move in their end-of-year statements, since green issues are coming to the fore everywhere and everybody wants to be seen to be doing the right thing.

But the terminal tractor manufacturers that PS tackled on this issue asked us to explain why we were writing about it. What transpired is that the overall carbon footprint was of their vehicles was of little importance to them.

Low priority

A number of terminal operators were also approached to try to determine to what extent green issues affected their decision to purchase equipment. One UK-based terminal operating group noted, “The main criteria used when buying plant is cost, quality and fuel efficiency. Our position regarding carbon footprint is being looked at, but is not part of standard procedure at the moment.”

In itself, this very honest response suggests that the green image that the industry tries to project is little more than a sheen at the moment, or even possibly a chimera.

The Port Equipment Manufacturers’ Association agreed to quiz its members on our behalf, but also drew a blank. One high profile terminal tractor manufacturer was prepared to speak to us, but only about its recently released new tractor. It did not have sufficient resources to respond to an environmental questionnaire, it said.

Its own press release emphasised the various qualities of its new product and environmental issues are, clearly, important to it, since improved fuel consumption, noise level and emissions are said to make the new machine even more environmentally-friendly than its predecessors.

These claims are worth further scrutiny.

Fuel consumption is very much an operator issue: the less fuel used, the better the bottom line. But isn’t this a lifecycle cost issue, rather than an environmental one? OK, there are environmental benefits to using less fuel, but let’s not pretend that these are the main driver when it comes to acquiring new tractors.

Bottom line

Is there any controversy behind the other claims of reduced noise and fewer emissions?

In many developed countries, it tends to be the health and safety executive – rather than a government’s environmental arm – that has the greater say in how machinery is built nowadays. If a terminal tractor is too noisy, the operator runs the risk of an employee sustaining hearing damage, which results in compensation claims that ultimately impact on the operator’s bottom line.

Similarly, too many particulates spewed out of an engine will cause breathing problems to those working in the vicinity, so it makes good economic sense to restrict these as much as possible. Yes, there are environmental benefits, too, but these are not the main drivers.

Finally, while commenting on Bromma’s approach to the sourcing of materials, another operator pointed out that, clearly, it does make sense to acquire steel as close to home as possible, not to ensure the lowest carbon footprint possible, but because the cost of shipping it to the tractor manufacturer would inevitably be cheaper, all other things being equal.

“To be honest, in that type of case, it’s more inventory and transport costs that influence decisions on where to source materials, rather than on anything greener.”