From where I'm sitting …

According to the latest figures from the Office of National Statistics, construction is not only the greatest creator of waste in the UK, generating three times more landfill every year than all UK households put together, but this figure also represents a staggering 20% rise in just four years.

Add in the Environment Agency's calculation that household CO2 emissions will rise 22% in the next five years and the increase in localised urban floods, and we begin to understand the adverse effect the construction industry can have on the communities it builds.

In the face of slow progress, the government is seeking to address these issues by creating a Code for Sustainable Homes (see page 49). This is a laudable exercise, but it is unlikely to stimulate real progress.

Of the six core standards, only two - household waste segregation space and the use of A-rated materials from the Green Guide for Housing - are likely to do any good. In addition, the proposed star rating system will mean nothing unless the consumer is first educated about what "sustainability" means.

Far from being a significant step forward, in its current form the code may merely serve to generate the perception of progress. In making the code voluntary the government has recognised the heavy burden of construction legislation. But reliance on market forces and the catch-all nature of the code suggest the required speed of change has been greatly underestimated.

Driving environmental best practice up the agenda depends on setting specific, relevant targets and clear mechanisms for achieving them. In terms of CO2 emissions, the Kyoto target has the most effective profile. Reflecting this in terms of an acceptable CO2 level per dwelling would give the industry a target that is meaningful and consumers a clear indication of what they're buying.

Waste creation is increasingly straightforward to quantify and a league table showing contractor performance combined with incentives for construction customers to stipulate low levels offers a quick way of reducing it.

The code merely serves to create the perception of progress

In Germany tax incentives rewarding businesses that provided planted roofs on their buildings saw coverage rise from 10 million m2 to 84 million m2 within four years. A similar system recognising the effectiveness of low flow taps, grey water recycling systems, porous tarmac and sedum roofs would elevate water management quickly, without imposing a legislative or financial burden on the industry.

Paul Drechsler is chief executive of Wates, which has just produced the sustainability report, Failing Communities: Breaking the Cycle (www.wates.co.uk)

The Earth cannot support 6 billion people with first world aspirations, let alone 12 or 20 billion. The solution to sustainability does not lie in alternative technology but a smaller population.

But we still need to reduce environmental impact. We also need community cohesion, comfort, health and safety for individuals and their societies and a secure economy.

Economy, environment and society are the three pillars of sustainability. This drives the pages on corporate social responsibility and environmental performance in big-business' annual reports.

It is therefore somewhat disappointing that the government is peddling a dilute set of environmental performance standards for new dwellings under the grand title, a Code for Sustainable Homes; disappointment compounded by an almost proud admission that site-related matters are to be excluded because they are dealt with by planning law.

No mention is made of social or economic impacts. So the first message is, if you are writing a code for reduced environmental impact housing, you cannot call it a code for sustainable homes; they are not the same thing.

Measuring sustainability in housing is a Holy Grail

The proposed code is a half-hearted reworking of the BRE environmental impact assessment method for dwellings, EcoHomes. The EcoHomes standard is already better than what is proposed for the new code and as one of its stronger critics that is praise indeed.

The code should report against absolute performance standards for reducing fuel use, CO2 emissions and for use of potable water. It should also reflect the relative impact of different materials and construction methods in different locations. For example, in the West Midlands there is a substantial metals industry. Locally made steel-frames for housing, already with a very high recycled content, have a lower environmental impact than timber frames made out of clear felled, 1000-year old hemlock from Vancouver Island.

A better code would also reflect measures to:

• reduce reliance on fuelled transport by making home-working, walking and cycling easier
• minimise pollution
• protect and enhance biodiversity.

If we really want to approach sustainability we will have to add standards for social and economic performance.

Sustainability and housing provision are not mutually exclusive, but measuring the performance of housing in terms of sustainability is probably a Holy Grail.

Richard Baines is senior environmental consultant for the Black Country Housing Group