Fish Go To Thailand And Back As Scots Jobs Axed

[JR Texas]

There have been complaints about the environmental soundness of shipping these things from Scotland to Thailand and back. My previous post about how much fuel it takes to ship a tonne of frozen stuff from Scotland to Thailand and back was meant to address just this point. I'm not so certain that its environmentally significant at all. It really doesn't take alot of energy to ship something by ship I think....that's why costs can be low for sending stuff by ship and why weight isn't the key factor but volume is.... It might take more fuel to ship the product by lory from the River Clyde to the Thames River than it does to go all the way to Thailand and back....but I don't really know...and I think the other posters here who are decrying the environmental travesty of this action do not know either. I like to think of my self as an environmentalist but I like to get my facts together before I point the long finger just to be sure I don't get the reputation for crying "wolf".

Chownah

Of course you are quite correct, these shipments will just be one or two containers on a ship load heading across the world. But how the hel_l can the UK now stand up in front of developing countries and tell them they must cut back on emissions?

OK, it is only a little impact on the environment but a lot of littles add up. Many years ago I was talking to a Thai colleague about the pollution of the sea at Pattaya and the amount of litter scattered generally all around the countyside. She agreed totally that this was a very bad thing not only for the environment but for the image of Thailand. She then proceeded to unwrap a small purchase she had just made and throw the packaging onto some waste ground. I remonstrated with her over this but she could not see the connection "But it's only a little pice of wrapping, nitnoy". Sixty million people throwing nitnoy pieces of paper out of their car window every day adds up.

JR Texas (51, USA): Reply to Chownah and PhilHarries above: PhilHarries pointed out the essence of what I was about to say to Chownah. The "environmental insanity" is about all of the little actions adding up to one big, and as yet unknown, action.

There is likely some professor at Harvard University who can tell us precisely what the environmental impact is from shipping these little sea monsters from Scotland to Thailand to Scotland, but you will have to do research to find him.

You really have two choices: 1) global production/consumption or 2) regional or local production/consumption.

The former requires transportation across long distances by train, plane, trucks, and container cargo. That produces X amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, among other bad stuff (e.g., oil spills).

The latter produces Y amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, among other bad stuff.

Most environmentalists would argue that Y is less than X (averaged out on a global scale). Nobody really knows because we are collectively involved in an insane experiment......not knowing what will happen but hoping it will not be that bad (e.g., actual impact of global warming on future generations).

Solution: Develop and deploy a new energy system that is environmentally sound--no pollution, no problem with oil spills, etc. Do not vote for another politician on the planet that does not support this.

Solution: Reduce demand by reducing global population. Do not vote for another politician on the planet that does not advocate this.

As an aside, can someone tell me if Thais still do that thing with their index finger and nose that makes most foreigners want to upchuck? If so, will that give the langostines from Scotland (aka....freakin' small shrimps) a distinctive taste that is desired and marketable? Yuck!

[Jai Dee]

As an aside, can someone tell me if Thais still do that thing with their index finger and nose that makes most foreigners want to upchuck? If so, will that give the langostines from Scotland (aka....freakin' small shrimps) a distinctive taste that is desired and marketable? Yuck!

Nope... they actually prefer to use the little pinky...

[Berty]

Bizzare!!

[Neeranam]

Probably the only thing I miss from Scotland - breaded scampi. Well maybe fried mars bars too!

[Jai Dee]

Sending langoustines to Thailand

Your Letters - UK Herald - November 16 2006

If sending langoustines to Thailand is about facilitating company growth, the shrinkage of the workforce will likely be matched by a shrinkage in langoustines off our coast. It will repeat the story of over-trawled langoustines in Spain and Portugal.

And what of the product? By my reckoning, Young's latest global exploit of freezing, thawing and refreezing (at least twice), will result in a poorer product, or is it hoping our Thai cousins will shell the fish frozen?

Perhaps it is time Mike Mitchell, scampi director at Young's, carried out a full environmental impact of his "wider plan to grow the whole market". He should consider paying the full cost of local hand-shelling of the langoustine and win profits through quality rather than quantity; only then might Young's live up to its website claim of caring for the environment, and it will give those with private equity in the company an opportunity to demonstrate a fishmongering commitment beyond mere personal gain.

- Daphne Hamilton, Stanton Avenue, Alloa

ON NOVEMBER 15, you report the loss of manual jobs in Annan because the work is being transferred to low-cost labour in Thailand.

It would be interesting to know whether they will be working under legal requirements such as our Health and Safety at Work regulations, those regarding the minimum wage or those relating to the ability of employers to dismiss an employee.

Within the EU there are regulations not unlike those in the UK so that, in terms of competition, the playing field is relatively flat. In terms of competition with Far Eastern countries, the playing field is as flat as the Himalayas.

One wonders about the long-term effect on our economy and labour legislation if more companies adopt this strategy.

- Bill Scott, Lynn Drive, Eaglesham

[Scott]

Those of you who are questioning the environmental impact also need to be aware that these little creatures are frozen, partially defrosted and then refrozen. They are going from a cool climate to a tropical one as well.

[The Dan Sai Kid]

ON NOVEMBER 15, you report the loss of manual jobs in Annan because the work is being transferred to low-cost labour in Thailand.

It would be interesting to know whether they will be working under legal requirements such as our Health and Safety at Work regulations, those regarding the minimum wage or those relating to the ability of employers to dismiss an employee.

Within the EU there are regulations not unlike those in the UK so that, in terms of competition, the playing field is relatively flat. In terms of competition with Far Eastern countries, the playing field is as flat as the Himalayas.

One wonders about the long-term effect on our economy and labour legislation if more companies adopt this strategy.

- Bill Scott, Lynn Drive, Eaglesham

The reason they are doing it in LOS is lapser restrictions on Health & Safety, risk assesment and environmental health regulations.

The fact that at UK minimum wage 1 hour for a British worker buys 2 Thai workers for a day has a lot to do with it to.

I think it is disgusting when things like this happen and there should be something done about it. I know that if it were reversed and Thai jobs were being lost then the Thai government would do something about it.

[astral]

Do they qualify for air miles?

[chownah]

Does anyone know the amount of fuel per ton of cargo per 1000 kilometres is used in a large ship?

Chownah

[astral]

Surely it is by air.......

But still a very expensive job.

[pete_r]

Pray tell why must we NOT refreeze food once its defrosted?

Chownah

P.S. I have no opinion on whether its a good idea or not....I just have some questions about the particulars.

Chownah

In the case of meat and seafood, the ice crystals that form during freezing break the cell membranes. When the food is defrosted, you get a big soup of nutrients leaked out of the cells, an ideal mix for microbes to grow. If the food is cooked rapidly, that's ok, as the heat neutralizes or kills the buggers. But if one tries to refreeze it, they will have a bit of time to multiply before being inactivated by the cold, then more time to multiply after the second defrosting. Hence the big taboo about refreezing.

So, scampis being defrosted and refrozen in Thailand, and fried only in Scotland seem to go against microbiological orthodoxy. On the other hand, if they did the frying in Thailand before freezing and re-exporting, then why not.

[pete_r]

Does anyone know the amount of fuel per ton of cargo per 1000 kilometres is used in a large ship?

Chownah

Found this after a bit of googling - Ship for sale:

2) Construction place: China

3) Date of production finished: May 2004

4) Total length: about 81m

5) Breadth: 13.60m

6) Depth: 6.9m

7) DWT: 3,300MT

8) Sailing speed: 11.5 knots

9) Diesel engine specifications:

a. Power: 1,320kW

b. Fuel oil consumption: 4.5MT/day

10) Generator: 150kW x 2 sets

http://mcb.en.alibaba.com/product/50123760...Cargo_Ship.html

I think MT means Metric Tonnes, so that's 4500kg of fuel per day.

[Steph1012]

Those of you who are questioning the environmental impact also need to be aware that these little creatures are frozen, partially defrosted and then refrozen. They are going from a cool climate to a tropical one as well.

Thats a minimum as well.

Have they seen what happens when pallets of shrimp are left on the dock or on the bridge of a ship or in the back of a truck with the doors open? Plenty more opportunities there for defrosting.

Factory workers have a priority in life even above working for a slave wage to ensure Scottish Prawns do not get left out in the factory, and this is eating.

In my experience work comes to a dead halt at the merest hint of a hunger pang, eating in our office is a mimimum of two hours of pock pocking and gossiping. Another opportunity for defrosting.

We've had power cuts two days running in Patong, and this is their premier resort with a superior electricity supply.

So this stuff is going to be caught, shipped to a factory (1) moved to a port (2) put on a ship (3) taken off a ship and put on a truck (4) taken off truck into factory (5) factroy to truck (6) truck to ship (7) ship to truck to factory (8) Factory to retail outlets. Thats a minimum of 8 moves and processing in 3 factories, as well as the initial cleaning on the trawler. Then theres the poor punter getting it home from the supermarket in the London traffic in summer. Lovely

Nice one Youngs. Should help the price of real Thai Prawns a bit when shops realise the lunacy of this.

Edited November 16, 2006 by Steph1012

[JR Texas]

Surely it is by air.......

But still a very expensive job.

JR Texas (51, USA): Reply to Astral: Please don't call me Shirley! But since you asked kindly, it is ship (probably container cargo).

According to Pete R, it will use: Fuel oil consumption: 4.5MT/day. To calculate the environmental impact you must do the following: Divide 4.5 by 7.456 and square the root....multiply by pie (I like chocolate myself)....subtract for the wind speed velocity of an unladen swallow (precisely 2.68579978686859 meters per second per second according to Monty Python's Flying Circus).

You will get a big number.......oooooh, very big. After that you multiply it by the number of left-handed people on planet earth who eat langostines and actually like them and who have blue eyes (no brown eyes allowed in the equation) and who can dance on the head of a pin singing Chinese folk songs backwards.

Wallah.....presto.....you have your environmental impact answer. Simple.

Maybe Chownah will correct my mathematics. I feel it coming. A more precise answer.

[chownah]

Haven't found the answer yet but I did find this:

http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/

Which contains this:

" The Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C turbocharged two-stroke diesel engine is the most powerful and most efficient prime-mover in the world today. The Aioi Works of Japan's Diesel United, Ltd built the first engines and is where some of these pictures were taken.

It is available in 6 through 14 cylinder versions, all are inline engines. These engines were designed primarily for very large container ships. Ship owners like a single engine/single propeller design and the new generation of larger container ships needed a bigger engine to propel them.

The cylinder bore is just under 38" and the stroke is just over 98". Each cylinder displaces 111,143 cubic inches (1820 liters) and produces 7780 horsepower. Total displacement comes out to 1,556,002 cubic inches (25,480 liters) for the fourteen cylinder version.

Some facts on the 14 cylinder version:

Total engine weight: 2300 tons (The crankshaft alone weighs 300 tons.)

Length: 89 feet

Height: 44 feet

Maximum power: 108,920 hp at 102 rpm

Maximum torque: 5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm

Fuel consumption at maximum power is 0.278 lbs per hp per hour (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption). Fuel consumption at maximum economy is 0.260 lbs/hp/hour. At maximum economy the engine exceeds 50% thermal efficiency. That is, more than 50% of the energy in the fuel in converted to motion.

For comparison, most automotive and small aircraft engines have BSFC figures in the 0.40-0.60 lbs/hp/hr range and 25-30% thermal efficiency range.

Even at its most efficient power setting, the big 14 consumes 1,660 gallons of heavy fuel oil per hour."

Check it out....some good pictures of this monster....7780 horsepower PER CYLINDER!!! Twice the fuel efficiency of most car engines!!!!

Chownah

[JR Texas]

Haven't found the answer yet but I did find this:

http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/

Which contains this:

" The Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C turbocharged two-stroke diesel engine is the most powerful and most efficient prime-mover in the world today. The Aioi Works of Japan's Diesel United, Ltd built the first engines and is where some of these pictures were taken.

It is available in 6 through 14 cylinder versions, all are inline engines. These engines were designed primarily for very large container ships. Ship owners like a single engine/single propeller design and the new generation of larger container ships needed a bigger engine to propel them.

The cylinder bore is just under 38" and the stroke is just over 98". Each cylinder displaces 111,143 cubic inches (1820 liters) and produces 7780 horsepower. Total displacement comes out to 1,556,002 cubic inches (25,480 liters) for the fourteen cylinder version.

Some facts on the 14 cylinder version:

Total engine weight: 2300 tons (The crankshaft alone weighs 300 tons.)

Length: 89 feet

Height: 44 feet

Maximum power: 108,920 hp at 102 rpm

Maximum torque: 5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm

Fuel consumption at maximum power is 0.278 lbs per hp per hour (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption). Fuel consumption at maximum economy is 0.260 lbs/hp/hour. At maximum economy the engine exceeds 50% thermal efficiency. That is, more than 50% of the energy in the fuel in converted to motion.

For comparison, most automotive and small aircraft engines have BSFC figures in the 0.40-0.60 lbs/hp/hr range and 25-30% thermal efficiency range.

Even at its most efficient power setting, the big 14 consumes 1,660 gallons of heavy fuel oil per hour."

Check it out....some good pictures of this monster....7780 horsepower PER CYLINDER!!! Twice the fuel efficiency of most car engines!!!!

Chownah

JR Texas (51, USA): Reply to Chownah: I am impressed. I am guessing you are an engineer. It seems, from what you pointed out that the engine used to propel the container ship is an efficient engine, but it still is an internal combustion engine that produces carbon waste.

If you have to move a lot of items from one point on the globe to another, it is probably the best and most efficient way to do it given existing technology (but we need a new energy system on the planet).

Each container cargo ship has can transport hundreds of containers during each journey. Imagine moving each separate container from one point to another in a different ship. Bad idea.....too costly....too much energy waste and CO2 release...not efficient. So, you stack em up one on top of another and only use one ship to move hundreds of them. Much smarter....much more efficient...an idea that Aristotle Onasis turned into a billion dollar idea.

Still, I think the point is valid that the cumulative negative impact on the environment from a "global" transportation system is greater than the cumulative negative impact on the environment from a "local/regional" transportation system. Why? All things being equal, less distance traveled (via container cargo, plane, truck, train) leads to less CO2 output.

[chownah]

Still, I think the point is valid that the cumulative negative impact on the environment from a "global" transportation system is greater than the cumulative negative impact on the environment from a "local/regional" transportation system.

JR Texas,

I'm not sure that this is correct. I belive that in the US the bulk of the oil is used by cars....which are predominently used for local/regional transportation. I'm not sure but I think that local/regional transportation actually consumes more fuel and adds more to energy and environmental problems than does global transportation.....and that is part of the reason for my previous posts in this thread...to try to point out that no one here really knows if the impact of shipping the frozen shrimps to Thailand and back is especially significantly from the energy used to manufacture and distribute the product locally/regionally.

If people want to decrease energy use and its associated environmental impacts then one way to accomplish very little is to invest your time in complaining about how and where frozen fish are shipped.....a very very good way to actually accomplish alot in this regard is to stop eating frozen foods...stop eating prepackaged foods...stop eating processed foods........but of course its easier and more convenient to just point the finger at some small frozen fish monger in Scotland than it is to change your food purchase habits.

Another example in how energy can be saved: Notice how when I replied to you in this post I only presented a small portion of your post to which I'm replying. Notice how you reproduced the entirety of my post to which you were replying. Reproducing everything form another post in replying is certainly an easy thing to do but it means that everyone reading the resulting overly long post will take more time to scan the reproduced portion to see if it contains new information or in the event that they know they need not read it then it still take extra time for them to scroll down over the unnecessarily duplicated material. All of this means longer time in front of the computer and thus longer computer on times and thus more energy consumption. It may seem like a small savings in evergy but think about how many millions of times this happens everyday....it all adds up!!!

Chownah

[Jai Dee]

<snipped for brevity and energy consumption>

[JR Texas]

<snipped for brevity and energy consumption>

JR Texas (51, USA): Reply to Chownah and Jai Dee with quotes removed:

To Jai Dee: Yes, it is getting a bit funny. ........but Chownah is making a very good point. There are economists, politicians and environmentalists who would find it illuminating.

To Chownah: If we were to measure the negative impact on the environment (e.g, impact on global warming) from shipping items via cars and trucks and compare that with the negative impact from shipping items via container cargo ships, it would look like container cargo ships have almost no impact. Why? Because there are far more cars and trucks on the planet.

It would therefore look like a "global system" is less environmentally destructive than a "local/regional system." The simple fact is that, at present, more items are shipped locally than globally. But, what if the reverse eventually occurs? And we are moving in that direction. Right? Then what I have stated will become true in both theory and fact: the global system will be more environmentally destructive because of the relationship between distance and amount of pollution.

But your point is smart and reveals problems with the simple environmental argument. My point is more theoretical and addresses future trends.

It also reveals my personal bias: I think it is critical to move away from globalization and create as much local/regional self-sufficiency as possible. I don't mean completely do away with globalization (people can't always produce locally/regionally what they need). I means start moving in the opposite direction. And do it with a new energy system (one that will make this discussion pointless because it is environmentally sound) and far fewer people on the planet............

[JR Texas]

<snipped for brevity and energy consumption>

JR Texas (51, USA): Addition to earlier remarks: I think that was confusing. Let me erase the blackboard and try again. We are currently dealing with two economic systems: 1) global and 2) regional/local.

Both utilize all available forms of transportation to send items from point A to point B: cars, trucks, trains, planes, container cargo, animal and human transport.

ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, the global system will result in more environmental damage than the regional/local system. Why? Because the global system requires that objects be transported greater distances. That leads to an increase in fuel consumption and CO2 output.

Greater distances means more wear and tear on objects. That means more production (and energy use) to replace them and more CO2 output.

ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, the global system may appear to be more economical because cheap labor seems to offset the increased transportation cost. So, you end up with a situation where langostines are caught in Scotland, shipped to Thailand, processed, then shipped back to Scotland. But, maybe not if the increased environmental cost is included in the cost-benefit analysis.

The problem is trying to figure out what the actual environmental cost is. To do that, you have to figure out the negative environmental impact, not just from the container cargo ship, but from all the transportation systems involved. No doubt, smaller ships were involved (catching the langostines). Then they were transported to a factory by truck or by plane. All will result in an increase in CO2.

Put differently, the global system is like an attachment to the regional/local system that leads to greater shipping distances and more CO2 output. It is, therefore, more destructive to the environment.

Now I have probably just made the issue even more confusing. So I will leave it to others to clean up this mess.

We are losing focus on the real issue: the loss of jobs in Scotland. One thing that should be mentioned is that the globalization process enlarges the labor supply, creating what amounts to a global supply of slave labor. That is what is crushing labor movements/unions worldwide. It creates an impossible situation for labor and puts downward pressure on wages.

The MNCs have know this for 50 years. The vast majority of workers have not really understood it. It is odd that it is not talked about in the mainstream mass media.

[lannarebirth]

There have been complaints about the environmental soundness of shipping these things from Scotland to Thailand and back. My previous post about how much fuel it takes to ship a tonne of frozen stuff from Scotland to Thailand and back was meant to address just this point. I'm not so certain that its environmentally significant at all. It really doesn't take alot of energy to ship something by ship I think....that's why costs can be low for sending stuff by ship and why weight isn't the key factor but volume is.... It might take more fuel to ship the product by lory from the River Clyde to the Thames River than it does to go all the way to Thailand and back....but I don't really know...and I think the other posters here who are decrying the environmental travesty of this action do not know either. I like to think of my self as an environmentalist but I like to get my facts together before I point the long finger just to be sure I don't get the reputation for crying "wolf".

Chownah

Just as a rough guide. the average container ship is roughly 5,000 TEU (twenty foot equivalent units) big. A fuel efficient diesel engine will burn about a barrel (42gals) of Bunker C fuel per nautical mile. Bunker C fuel is crude oil that has been stripped of anything of value at the refinery. It's like barely liquid asphalt. I don't know what it's price is now but it would be $40/bbl or less. You could probably get 25 MT of frozen fish in a 40 ft (2 TEU) container. You can do some rough math from there.

My guess is when you're done, you'll discover that the pollution caused from shipping is less than the former employess created driving back and forth to work each day.

Oh, and add about 50% to the distance of 12,00 miles RT. I think it's closer to 18,000.

Edited November 17, 2006 by lannarebirth

[Diablo Bob]

There have been complaints about the environmental soundness of shipping these things from Scotland to Thailand and back. My previous post about how much fuel it takes to ship a tonne of frozen stuff from Scotland to Thailand and back was meant to address just this point. I'm not so certain that its environmentally significant at all. It really doesn't take alot of energy to ship something by ship I think....that's why costs can be low for sending stuff by ship and why weight isn't the key factor but volume is.... It might take more fuel to ship the product by lory from the River Clyde to the Thames River than it does to go all the way to Thailand and back....but I don't really know...and I think the other posters here who are decrying the environmental travesty of this action do not know either. I like to think of my self as an environmentalist but I like to get my facts together before I point the long finger just to be sure I don't get the reputation for crying "wolf".

Chownah

Just as a rough guide. the average container ship is roughly 5,000 TEU (twenty foot equivalent units) big. A fuel efficient diesel engine will burn about a barrel (42gals) of Bunker C fuel per nautical mile. Bunker C fuel is crude oil that has been stripped of anything of value at the refinery. It's like barely liquid asphalt. I don't know what it's price is now but it would be $40/bbl or less. You could probably get 25 MT of frozen fish in a 40 ft (2 TEU) container. You can do some rough math from there.

My guess is when you're done, you'll discover that the pollution caused from shipping is less than the former employess created driving back and forth to work each day.

Oh, and add about 50% to the distance of 12,00 miles RT. I think it's closer to 18,000.

Using your numbers, we get a cost of $.03 per kilogram for transportation. Not bad...... when you consider that overland transportation is limited to 2-3 (Depending on where you are from) 40' containers per tractor trailer unit you should be looking at a significant reduction in polutants due to transport.

[lannarebirth]

There are a few other variables, such as shipping to Mallaca side or Gulf of Thailand side, new containerships are double the size of ships built 5 years ago, and are to to double in size again in the next 5 years. But you get the idea, financially it's a cheap option. There are some unaccounted for environmental costs, as the difference between emissions allowed on ships vs. land vehicles, etc

[Laulen]

J R Texas - Massive engine; looks as tall as my house!

On a more serious note, isn't it time that the environmental costs of company activities are taken into account? What would Youngs say if they bought into this 'carbon neutral' idea of offsetting the CO2 generated by planting a number of trees equivalent to the damage caused?

Then if they wanted to continue with this 'crazy' idea, at least the planet would be compensated.

[JR Texas]

J R Texas - Massive engine; looks as tall as my house!

On a more serious note, isn't it time that the environmental costs of company activities are taken into account? What would Youngs say if they bought into this 'carbon neutral' idea of offsetting the CO2 generated by planting a number of trees equivalent to the damage caused?

Then if they wanted to continue with this 'crazy' idea, at least the planet would be compensated.

JR Texas (51, USA, in China): Reply to Laulen and others: There really are two issues here. One relates to jobs. The other relates to the environment.

Good idea to plant trees to offset CO2 generated. But jobs are still being lost due to the globalization process. The movement is primarily from the developed to the developing world (high wage to low wage). Labor is losing. It is a race to the bottom. If you are the top things could not be better. But only 1% are at the top.

About trying to figure out the environmental cost of shipping langostines from Scotland to Thailand to Scotland via container cargo. Focusing on container cargo cost is not enough........you have to include all of the costs related to the activity and that means regional/local transportation costs PLUS global transportation costs. They are always tied together. That means cars, trucks, trains, planes, container cargo and any combination. A cost-benefit analysis should include the total cost of the entire process.

In the case of langostines, you no doubt have small boats involved in catching them, small trucks involved in transporting them from where they are caught to a processing factory, then more transportation to a port, then on the container cargo.........etc. Container cargo is only one part of the puzzle.

[Thaddeus]

Can I be permitted to sum this up in one paragraph.... I may need two, I'll take the second as a freebie.

When a company is faced with a situation that they have to choose between environmental issues or profit .... profit will come first, every time.

When the 'still small voice' gets to say "told you so" ...... too late.

[JR Texas]

Can I be permitted to sum this up in one paragraph.... I may need two, I'll take the second as a freebie.

When a company is faced with a situation that they have to choose between environmental issues or profit .... profit will come first, every time.

When the 'still small voice' gets to say "told you so" ...... too late.

JR Texas (51, USA): Reply to Thaddues: Good summation.....we needed a genius to step in and clean up this mess.

Future generations will kick us in the balls for our collective decision making with regard to the globalization of the economy, protection of the environment, and creation/preservation of quality jobs.

Here is what one smart man said about profit:

"Labor is the superior of capital and deserves much the higher consideration."

--Abraham Lincoln

Translation: People are more important than profits. He probably would no doubt argue that jobs should not be eliminated in Scotland just so the company can make a few more dollars.

[chownah]

I would like to point out that jobs are not lost if the processing is done in Thailand.....the jobs are simply now in Thailand and not in Scotland....and on top of this the shrimps are presently being peeled by machine and in Thailnad they will be peeled by hand.....this seems like an increase in jobs!!! Maybe we should be praising this company for its outstanding efforts in job creation!!

From an environmental perspective it might be a good thing to create jobs in Thailand instead of Scotland. My guess is that the average Thai worker consumes less energy in their life style than the average Scots. For instance the average Scots shrimp peeler has to burn fuel to heat their home for a good part of the year and the average Thai shrimp peeler only uses a fan...I'm guessing that the fan consumes far less energy than home heating in Scotland. The average Thai shrimp peeler will take their broken fan in to a repair person and have it fixed while I imagine that the average Scots would buy a new one....but I'm not sure on this because the Scots are legendary for thier frugality but certainly in the US a broken fan would be discarded. I'll bet that the percentage of Scots shrimp peelers who drive cars to work is alot higher than the number of Thai shrimp peelers.

This sort of arguement really does not address the true issue here (in my view). Eating frozen, processed, packaged food is harder on the environment than eating natural local fresh food. If people want to help maintain the quality of the natural environment then they should change their eating habits......they might find that an unexpected consequence of this change that they will actually improve their health and have tastier food to boot!!!!! And don't forget that eating fresh natural local food also creates jobs....local jobs!!!

Chownah

P.S. Lannarebirth, Thanks so much for that information. I spent some time looking for just that...where did you find it?

Chownah

Edited November 18, 2006 by chownah

[Jai Dee]

Customers threaten to boycott firm over Thai shellfish plan

Customers have begun threatening to boycott the Scots company which controversially announced plans to ship langoustine to Thailand on a 12,000-mile round trip.

They have written to Young's Seafood with concerns about the environmental impact of the journey, with some saying they would consider refusing to buy its products as a result of the decision. It comes after the company revealed that it would send langoustine for scampi to the Far East for hand-peeling instead of having the process carried out by machine at its facility in Annan, Dumfries and Galloway. Now the director of scampi for Young's has spoken out amid fears that the langoustine industry will suffer and claimed that estimates on CO2 emissions had been "grossly exaggerated".

Mike Mitchell said that instead of the reported 47,500 tonnes of emissions, shipping the langoustines to Thailand and back would produce around 200 tonnes, the same as 50 vehicles over the course of a year.

He said: "At last count, we have had contact from 147 consumers, most of whom were concerned about the fact that it was affecting the environment. Most of the consumers were critical about what we are planning to do and some said they would boycott. We fully understand that they are concerned on the numbers they have been given, but they are a gross exaggeration. We will be shipping between 400 and 600 tonnes a year to Thailand which is between 190 and 200 tonnes of emissions.

"It concerns Young's that the Scottish langoustine industry is getting some really bad press. There is good news about Scottish langoustine and we should be supporting that."

The langoustine industry is the UK's most important fishery, worth around £200m a year and employing around 9000 people in Scotland.

The Annan factory is the UK's largest breaded scampi facility and, until now, langoustines have been deshelled on the premises by machines. However, research has shown that 70% of people think that hand-peeling produces langoustine which are sweeter and have a better texture.

The company has said "prohibitive" costs in the UK mean it is cheaper to have that part of the process carried out in the Far East. However, environmentalists had raised concerns about the "carbon footprint" of the return journeys between Thailand and Scotland, blaming the "madness of globalisation" for the decision.

Last night Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said 200 tonnes of CO2 emissions still had a negative environmental impact.

He said: "There are still additional emissions. It is not a big amount, but it is the principle of unnecessary emissions that is at stake. Often the problem is that when one company starts doing something because it generates savings, the others are forced to do it too. Every decision that leads to emissions going up tends to be a small, single decision, but if everyone justifies their individual decisions we will suffer catastrophically."

Mr Mitchell insisted the company was working on how to further reduce emissions and pointed out that in Thailand the shells would be reused by being put into fish meal.

He added: "We are also working with a company which can turn it into dye to use in Chinese medicine. That will give more income to the economy locally in Thailand.

"We take our social and environmental responsibilities very seriously and we will continue to work to look at how we can further reduce emissions."

Source: UK Herald - 18 November 2006

[lannarebirth]

I would like to point out that jobs are not lost if the processing is done in Thailand.....the jobs are simply now in Thailand and not in Scotland....and on top of this the shrimps are presently being peeled by machine and in Thailnad they will be peeled by hand.....this seems like an increase in jobs!!! Maybe we should be praising this company for its outstanding efforts in job creation!!

From an environmental perspective it might be a good thing to create jobs in Thailand instead of Scotland. My guess is that the average Thai worker consumes less energy in their life style than the average Scots. For instance the average Scots shrimp peeler has to burn fuel to heat their home for a good part of the year and the average Thai shrimp peeler only uses a fan...I'm guessing that the fan consumes far less energy than home heating in Scotland. The average Thai shrimp peeler will take their broken fan in to a repair person and have it fixed while I imagine that the average Scots would buy a new one....but I'm not sure on this because the Scots are legendary for thier frugality but certainly in the US a broken fan would be discarded. I'll bet that the percentage of Scots shrimp peelers who drive cars to work is alot higher than the number of Thai shrimp peelers.

This sort of arguement really does not address the true issue here (in my view). Eating frozen, processed, packaged food is harder on the environment than eating natural local fresh food. If people want to help maintain the quality of the natural environment then they should change their eating habits......they might find that an unexpected consequence of this change that they will actually improve their health and have tastier food to boot!!!!! And don't forget that eating fresh natural local food also creates jobs....local jobs!!!

Chownah

P.S. Lannarebirth, Thanks so much for that information. I spent some time looking for just that...where did you find it?

Chownah

I spent my career as a Merchant Marine officer for many years was a Master of a containership in the Pacific Rim. Since my retirement 5 years ago, ships have doubled in size and plans are for them to double in size again over the next 5-10 years. Slow Speed Diesel emgines are becoming ever more efficient and IMO regs are becoming ever more environmentally friendly. The economies of scale brought about by ocean shipping are much more environmentally friendly than overland transportation.