Dear editor, i can only assume this slipped you by or other forces were at work, cos this article turned into a pile of utter self-righteous greenwash bullshit... and the final paragraph is certainly not worthy of print.

i get bsd (www.bsdlive.co.uk) and theres a q&a article with a pr guy on greenwash - i'm driven to quote it
--
how do you think greenwash is affecting the green agenda?
i hate it when some over enthusiastic pr (journalist?) gets hold of something vaguely green and hypes it out of all proportion, without really understanding the issues or backing it up with credible evidence. It weakens the whole green agenda and we run the risk of compounding cynicism right across the board. It happens in the built environment too. Some client tacks on some wind turbines (wood insulation/ufh/pellet boiler) and the pr agency suddenly claims the buildings sustainable. Utterly pointless, and it discredits the whole small scale renewables industry. To those kinds of pr's i say sort your act out. Understand the detail, understand the real story behind it.
--

the whole article is based on rhetoric.
two elderly people living in a five bedroom house is not sustainable.
energy consumption based on assumed and untested air tightness figures is irrelevant.
what is green? what is it? this article sums it up... unspecific, untested, unproven, great strapline.

Pretty harsh that Ali. But then I don't see anyone disagreeing with you.

Is this a story in the current issue Ali. Who is the author?

Thanks for the feedback though.