---

The PLP has published a series of questions in an ad in the Royal Gazette. Unfortunately, most of the questions are framed as accusations, which is a tactic usually adopted for propaganda rather

than elucidation.

Never mind. Self-respect and respect for the principles on which the PLP was founded prompts me to respond to the two questions directed at me without resorting to return attacks.

The first asks for my definition of Sustainable Development (SD).

That's easy. My definition of SD is shaped by my understanding of

that most vicious of diseases, cancer. Cancer just consumes its host

to death - cancer cells just continue to multiply until other good

cells are either starved or totally crowded out. We seem not to make the connection that our economic system, based as it is on unending growth-for-the-sake-of-growth, mimics the self-destructive habits of the cancer cell.

For me, SD would include an economic system that did not consume more resources than the ecosystem could replace; that did not produce more wastes than the ecosystem could absorb. SD would recognize that increasing drug use, crime and disease are indicators of an unhealthy social environment. SD would foster a healthy cultural environment

where customs and traditions were taught, revered and maintained. SD includes political systems that do not waste human creativity and energy by pitting community leaders against each other or rewarding abuses of power.

All this is over and beyond a requirement to protect the physical environment, the ultimate resource for human survival.

The second question posed is why didn't I (or BEST, the Bermuda Environmental and Sustainability Taskforce) object to the development at the Reefs. The Reefs application was submitted in April of 2006, long before BEST was formed. Case closed. The same question has been posed about the condo development west of White's grocery in Warwick. The same answer applies. That project was given approval over eight years ago. BEST wasn't in existence then.

Back then, just like most of us, I depended on the Bermuda National Trust to carry the torch on development applications. And the National Trust did object.

There is, however, more to the answer. BEST has a keen interest in the protection of our diminishing undeveloped spaces. We are more likely to champion protection of a "greenfield" area (one not before built-upon) than a "brownfield" area (one previously developed). If you look at the high profile BEST campaigns, they are all about greenfield protection.

However, that didn't stop BEST from joining the campaign to save

Alexandrina Hall, or lending support to a small back-of-town

neighbourhood group that asked for our assistance. It also doesn't

display the other work BEST does, for example, contributing to the 2008 Bermuda Development Plan, or initiating the formation of Eco-Clubs in schools and youth organisations, or spearheading a

Sustainable Tourism Forum or a Community Empowerment Workshop.

It's too bad that these questions are being framed to personalise and demonise critics of government policies, many of whom were once allies.

Don't take my word for it. Talk to the PLP foot soldiers who slogged uphill through the most trying of conditions and times. Listen to their laments about how the honour they felt for their party and its objectives is being overshadowed by feelings of disappointment now that the "new" PLP treats some of its own worse than the "old" UBP did. That's hardly a sustainable development.[[In-content Ad]]

---