Lou Smyrlis

I would like to spend my next few blogs discussing the risks and opportunities presented by the need to move to more environmentally sustainable supply chains.

But first I want to spend a few moments discussing some of the basics we need to understand about the issue of global warming. Hopefully I can explain it to you in a slightly different way than you may have heard before.

From all we’ve been hearing in the media lately about carbon dioxide levels, you would think there’s tons of carbon dioxide about.

Yet CO2 is actually rare in the atmosphere. Fewer than 4 out of every 10,000 atmospheric molecules are CO2 molecules. But CO2 is the most abundant of the greenhouse gases (others include methane, nitrous oxide, HFC and CFC). And it’s produced every time we burn something and every time something decomposes.

And greenhouse gases are critically important because of their ability to trap heat near our planet’s surface.

If you want a mental picture of greenhouse gases at work, think of trying to sleep on a muggy August night in a Toronto apartment building downtown – without your air conditioner on. Now think of trying to fall asleep in a desert . For those of you who haven’t had the opportunity to do so, I can tell you it can be downright cool.

Yet the only difference between the desert and the muggy night in Toronto is a single greenhouse gas – water vapour – which is capable of retaining two-thirds of the heat trapped by all the greenhouse gases.

To give you an idea of the power greenhouse gases actually have to influence temperature we have to look beyond Earth.

Consider Venus. The atmosphere of Venus is 98% CO2 and its surface temperature is 477C. If CO2 was to reach even 1% of the Earth’s atmosphere – it would bring the surface temperature of our planet to the boiling point

The particular challenge with CO2, of course, is how quickly we are adding to it.

Prior to 1800, there were about 280 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. Today the figure is around 380 parts per million. Scientists figure we can go to about 550 parts per million over the next century before we hit the threshold of dangerous changes. That may seem like a large cushion but if we keep going at our current pace it’s estimated we’re going to hit 680 parts per million by 2100.

In my next blog I’ll look specifically at Canada’s contributions to GHG emissions as well as the contribution by commercial transportation.

What I've found most disappointing in chronicling the debate about the need for speed limiter legislation for trucks in Ontario over the past couple of years (aside from shippers not being vocal enough in their support) is seeing the discussion become polarized and degenerate to mudslinging.

How else can I categorize last month’s remarks from Joanne Ritchie, head of the Owner-Operators Business Association of Canada (OBAC), that in considering speed limiter legislation the Ontario Ministry of Transport was “pandering to a handful of (motor) carriers who are either too cheap, too lazy or too greedy to compete fairly” and that “rather than pay their drivers a decent rate, invest in training and anti-idle technology, and implement internal safety and compliance regimes, those carriers have bamboozled government into taking these responsibilities off their shoulders.”

Come on Joanne. Aren’t you going overboard with those comments?

We both know which carriers are pushing for this legislation. They include some of the safest operations in the country. In fact one of the most vocal proponents of the legislation was recently voted the safest carrier in North America. Not only have these carriers invested in anti-idling technology, often before it was in vogue to do so, they’ve also spent millions implementing the latest training technologies. How much more do they need to invest, how many more safety awards do they need to win, to convince you that they care about safety, the environment and their drivers?

They’re so lazy they need the government to do their work for them? In many instances these are the same carriers that keep getting named to the list of the 50 Best Managed Companies in Canada year after year. It would seem they’ve figured out how to compete pretty well.

And from the carriers I know, most seem to have figured out how to compete successfully without breaking the rules on speeding or otherwise. They’re most often the ones that demand their drivers adhere to the rules, including hours of service, rather than expecting their drivers to speed and lie in their logbooks to deliver a shipment. Seems to me these are exactly the kind of carriers that if I was a driver or owner/operator that I would want to work for.

It also seems to me that while the issue has become politicized and polarized, these carriers are the only ones that have not lost sight of what’s most important: the reality that trucking is one industry of many competing for image, funding, and favorable legislation. Its perception among government and the public as a good corporate citizen willing to take the lead on issues such as safety and the environment will determine how the industry is treated in the future.

Joanne your intelligence and hard work have been a credit to your association but I think on this occasion you have let emotion run ahead of reason. For the sake of an intelligent debate on the speed-limiter issue and continued productive and respectful relations between owner/operators and carriers I hope you would consider retracting your remarks.