Pinko perverts in the pay of Peking

Housing is on my mind for a couple of reasons: during August HB maintained a presence at the Highland Housing Expo; and, to the utter amazement of anyone who knows Sandie and me, we have just moved into the house which we have been building for nigh on a decade.

Although some opportunities were missed, and as one architect said to me; “it will be really good when it is finished”, the Expo was an undoubted success with an impressive range of building styles, methods and materials in a well laid out site. Visitor numbers exceeded expectations and most organisations with advisory or promotional stands ran out of leaflets. Visitors proved to be very receptive to information on renewable energy and other sustainability issues; at Highland Birchwoods we were reprinting wood fuel advice material on a daily basis to keep up with demand.

As to moving house, it is invariably an interesting process insofar as it presents an opportunity to rediscover all those little bits and pieces that had gradually disappeared from view over time. I rediscovered all sorts of things – samples of cork from Spain, early samples from Finland of the Thermowood process applied to broadleaves; and, an endless collection of press cuttings and leaflets which, at the time, must have seemed worthy of retention even if their value is less apparent now.

One old Guardian caught my eye. Sandie was using to wrap ornaments, and had exposed a headline which ran something like “Senator claims cycle schemes are plot to take over US cities”. Being part of the generation that grew up with the infamous, and possibly apocryphal, 1960’s Senatorial description of American students as “pinko perverts in the pay of Peking” the urge to read on was irresistible.

It seems that the senator in question was referring to several US cities that were now adopting cycle schemes that made bikes available for hire and drop off at sites throughout them. Apparently the senator was concerned that these schemes were being “foisted” on the city authorities by a UN related organisation in a way that was indicative of an intention to take control of the cities themselves.

I read more as I was curious to find out the identity of this mysterious organisation as I felt like sending them a copy of the article together with a note of congratulation. It turns out that it was ICLEI, which is also a partner in one of HB’s projects!! Gratified that we are still choosing our partners wisely I didn’t bother scanning the article as I knew I would be seeing ICLEI later this month.

ICLEI work very closely with local authorities; indeed they are a membership organisation, the members being local governments throughout the world with an interest in sustainaility. Hardly a recipe for a takeover conspiracy is it? However it does go to show how easily the most laudable actions and the best of intentions can become misrepresented in the media.

The new “wikimedia” have immense positive potential, but by their very nature they make negative impacts inevitable unless all of us who are metaphorically speaking “in the pay of Peking” take great care to pro-actively explain what we do and why in very clear and transparent terms that leave no room for subsequent misinterpretation.

Market Forces

The assertion that “the market will decide” issues of supply, demand and pricing is widely accepted but the blunt truth is that free markets rarely exist, and the “decisions” they make often result in market failure, usually with undesirable consequences for society in general and the disadvantaged in particular. When these markets are being supported with public finance these consequences are also often extremely expensive.

Farming is a good illustration of this issue. Extreme weather has had a drastic impact on global wheat production with shortages and dramatic price rises anticipated. Unfortunately the UK has not been affected significantly by these weather patterns and thanks to decades of public subsidy it is approximately 130% self sufficient in wheat.  

Why “unfortunately”? Because, despite the public financial support they receive, our farmers will sell their crop on the international market to the highest available bidder resulting in either shortages or price increases for their loyal, subsidy providing domestic customer base.

Surely there needs to be a better reconciliation between public support and public benefit?

Sadly timber markets have similar issues. For decades our timber processing industry has been based on a secure state sector timber supply. Owing to the financial incentives provided for woodland establishment and management the private sector is now rapidly displacing the state sector despite being both unable and unwilling to say how much timber it has, or when it will bring it to market. Uncertainty over timber availability discourages long term investment in skills and machinery and undermines Scottish Government policies on renewable heat, carbon and sustainable construction.

Uncertainties over raw material supply seem to be a major constraint on wood fuel market expansion. FCS is increasingly concerned that its timber is all committed and I am told that the private sector are delaying felling until the Renewable Heat Incentive is in place as the wood fuel sector will then be able to pay a higher price. Meanwhile government policy is stalling and important economic development in rural areas has been postponed because a publically subsidised timber supply is unavailable.

We could ensure a better understanding of the timber supply and give better guarantees of its availability simply by extending the life of a forestry grant for the lifetime of the crop, and include felling periods which must be adhered to, and only amended by prior agreement. However, one of the reasons why the private sector holds out for a price improvement is because it has often had the rough end of the stick in terms of the distribution of added value throughout the supply chain and this issue must also be addressed at the same time.

In the future real raw material shortages will pose real challenges. The last thing we need is to create artificial shortages through a combination of inappropriate market structures and public support systems. If you have an interest in stimulating debate on alternative market mechanisms to promote a more equitable added value distribution and a closer alignment of public support and public benefit we would love to hear from you.