Your news feature (16 April 2004), entitled "The government is evolving the ideal eco-friendly home for the 21st century.
But can we afford it?" once again airs the sustainability question – but does little to promote progress.

The feature seems to miss the fundamental point of sustainability, which is to enable us to continue to live and develop in a sustainable way.

There is a cost associated with developing in an unsustainable way, and up to now this has been ignored. And as we continue, the cost to redress the damage grows and will hurt more. For the House Builders Federation to cry about the "draconian measures" being introduced (surely some exaggeration here) is to ignore the fundamental issues.

Although cost is a prime factor in the success of new developments, the sooner we acknowledge and include the environmental cost, the more sustainable will be our growth.

Instead of being seen as the imposers of draconian measures, the government should be congratulated on trying to get a grip on the sustainability of future development.

Finally, the claim that the government's environmental policy is "demanding" should perhaps read as "realistic", as it was formulated to achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and limit climate change and global warming.

If we continue to do nothing, then the burden and environmental cost will become even greater.

There appears to be a new acronym appropriate here, which rather than reading NIMBY reads NIMLT. The letters stand for Not In My Life Time.

Postscript

Raffoul Darrer, via email