In response to the well-written and accurate but incomplete guest column on energy codes not being the enemy [“Energy codes are not the enemy of affordable housing,” April 6], what we are facing is a perfect storm of the failures of our economic system of choice.

While pro-capitalism has reigned in our country it has also vilified democratic socialism and denied the failures of the all-knowing market when it comes to housing, health care and education.

As an experienced affordable housing development consultant, I have personally facilitated the distribution of over $167 million in project development costs in western Massachusetts over the last 10 years. You would all be shocked at how few new homes that funding has created. The rub that was likely on display at the recent forum on housing and affordability resonates with me since the burden of the new energy codes is unjustly falling on those who can least afford it, the underhoused.

Let’s be clear, those in the top 1%, 5% or even 10% are not being asked to pay for the climate change policies we so often fervently promote. The collective “Haves” benefit from homeownership and the wonderful interest deduction and fly off for vacation to far reaches of the globe. This behavior has contributed to the “woke” moniker that has helped drive our politics to the extremes we are now realizing. Be careful what you wish for…

Back to the energy code issue. Correct one is to say the adoption is a choice by the community, but are those unhoused making this choice or is it comfortably housed with time to engage in the process. On the front lines of construction and development we are experiencing a runaway train, the engineers get the vendors to write the specification for the job they are designing, the vendors promote the latest gadget and the end users including the team of architect’s builders and owner operators make do with what is handed down from above. Everybody, including myself, makes a living. What is lost is common sense, our energy grid is privately owned and largely supported by the burning of fossil fuels and will be for decades to come. As we create efficiencies on the housing front, paid by those who can least afford it, we invent new ways to outstrip our supply of electricity (yes, I am referring to AI) forcing the costs up.

The question we all need to ask, is what is so bad about democratic socialism when it comes to housing, health care and education?

Peter Graham lives in Leeds.