As it stands, the burden is on the consumer to do the research and make the right choices and one could spend all their waking hours deciding instead of doing. I can only hope that someday, whether it comes about due to market pressures, public policy, regulation and/or just good faith, that sustainability will become “built in” and we won’t all have to work so hard for it.

Incorporating sustainability into one’s consumer practices is probably at the heart of it all. As Americans, we are bombarded with a huge array of choices for nearly every purchase. The sustainability of our choices depends on an even larger array of factors.

Say I need a hammer to perform a task on my house. From most sustainable to least sustainable, some of my options might be: 1. Borrow one from a neighbor. 2. Buy a used one from another neighbor’s yard sale. 3. Buy a used one from a thrift store that I walked or rode my bike to. 4. Buy a used one from a thrift store I had to drive or take bus to. 5. Buy a new one that was made in a factory close to where I live, from a store that I walked or biked to. 6. Buy a new one from a store that I had to drive to that was made in a factory hundreds of miles from where I live.

Ironically, #6, the least sustainable, would have the most positive impact on U.S. GDP.

I cringe every time I hear a news report that cheerfully declares the economy is on the upswing because “sales of new homes” or “housing starts” are up. Just drive by all the vacant lots, homes and buildings in Detroit, with all that existing infrastructure (above and below ground) just going to waste, and tell me this country is on a sustainable path.

I think the historic district commission is particularly relevant in the discussions because there are potential clashes between buildings designated as historic and sustainability efforts.

For example, a property may be so poorly insulated and sealed that it would be more energy-sustainable to demolish it and build a new one, but if it is in a historic district, that would be difficult.

[This is where I would insert all the qualifiers about "specifics are important," "not trying to start a fight," and all that.]

Ms. Wineberg wrote, “Many realize that the greenest buildings are those already standing. To leave out the existing environment and focus only on new construction seems to miss the point of recycling and reusing what we already have.”

This does not mention old or historic buildings at all. (Yes, she does mention the Historic District Commission but I took that to imply that someone from that group might be more likely to be the champion for the existing built environment.) It is not evident that she was using the terms ‘those already standing’ and ‘existing environment’ to be synonymous with ‘historic buildings’ or even ‘old buildings’. A building that is already standing may be just a few years old and not quite ready to be called ‘old’. Certainly also many old buildings are not historic as the Department of the Interior has standards that must be applied before a building can be declared ‘historic’.

I believe that you are already familiar with the distinctions I am pointing out but wanted to do so because very often these terms get used interchangeably when they mean very different things.