I did not respond to your article because I did not find it engaging. I am responding instead to your suggestion that Environment is not at the heart of the AECB.
The AECB has focussed upon resource efficiency for many years. It strikes me that it has done so by examining how we can improve energy efficiency. This is not an oversight rather it is down to the fact that there is an awareness that if you take a moment to think about it peak oil, climate, affordability, avoidance of mould growth, indoor air quality, least life cycle cost, water (hot and cold), heating, cooling, usability etc. all get considered within that banner i.e. this emphasis is a product of whole systems thinking. This represents quite a large set of benefit from a single investment/decision. I don't think that anyone in the AECB would suggest that this is everything, but it arguably represents a good start. The AECB has also repeatedly given feedback relating to government policies in the hope that more intergrated strategies and policies could be developed.
....Also, I presume that you did not attend this years AECB conference, if you did you did not attend the sessions that discussed embodied energy, indoor air quality (discussing, in part, the toxicity of materials and secondary chemical reactions in buildings), straw bale construction, district energy systems (as a part of retrofit), Brettstapel etc. Last year retrofit, usability, embodied energy/carbon all received a good deal of attention.
Considering community, transport and food production etc. is of course important to a sustainable future but these are difficult for the building sector to engage with in a direct way. Whilst the community of practice that the AECB represents is quite unique, one thing that the organisation has not done is to extend beyond its remit. It remains focussed upon the buildings rather than communities etc. To my mind this is because, as members we are people that work in (or associated with) the building industry, and have little direct ability to influence such community groups (when such groups approach members hopefully they get all the support that they need.) I personally do not have an issue with this as it is a pragmatic and realistic boundary condition that reflects the reality (and no doubt the limited capital that the board of the AECB has to spend on supporting its members.)