While I support and encourage the use of green materials whenever possible, I think it is important to look at the project as a whole.  A new house built in the Colorado countryside negatively impacts the environment in many ways and creates an unsustainable lifestyle for its inhabitants (unless there's a bus stop at the end of your driveway).  Smaller houses or apartments which are well designed can provide a wonderful sense of place for their inhabitants and have less impact on the environment, especially when they are located in/near a community center.  
Mr. Shaw, your house may be made with green materials, but that doesn't make it a green home.  Materials and energy use are part of the solution, but we as Americans need to change our mindset of how much land and house space we should have.

Once upon a time "recycled" building materials were what poor and creative people used. Poor people used them because they didn't have the bucks for spiffy new. Creative types used them because - well, they're pretty variable. Non-standard, as they say.
For instance, my life mate ran the dump for a few years in the late 1970's, before recycling was groovy and when it was still frowned upon by the powers that be. She didn't have much in the way of money, but she was able to get a lot of stuff. When her single wide trailer started leaking, she built a roof over it and kept going. Its funky and not up to code, but someone is still living in that 288 square foot domicile.
This changed in the 1990's. As an activist, I used to get the register of all environmental reviews in Washington state. One day I saw that the Port of Seattle was going to tear down a bunch of old warehouses on the waterfront. Having the builders' itch (288 square feet was kind of tight), I called the port. Seems a bunch of people had inquired, so they were having a walk-through. On the walk-through were a couple of guys from construction companies that did demolition and salvage - hammer and crowbar type guys. Also along was Bill Gates' architect. And of course, little ol' independent me.
The warehouses were beautiful - maybe 1/2 million board feet of gorgeous turn of the century Douglas Fir. I figured maybe the takings from 10-20 acres of prime northwest forest as it used to be. Beams of every size and description. Not all of it was clear, mind you, but you can't have everything.
Well, the rest is history, as they say. Gates bought up damn near every stick of recycled wood in Washington to build his Lakefront palace. I hear his architect threw most of it out because it wasn't up to his exacting standards.
Now-a-days if you want used lumber better rob a bank, because Manhattan apartment/ LA sellout/ digital junk peddling/ and other assorted jackpot hitters will be at the head of the line waving cash in hand. There's certainly no chance of un- and underpaid activists giving these capitalists a run for their money.
Of course, this is the way it has always been for those to whom necessity is the mother of invention. Build a better mousetrap, and your door might get taken.

I live in a $615 a month 1-bedroom aparment in Kent (East Hill, my 'hood).

I spend between $60 (winter) and $30 on electricity which takes care of my heat, light and hot water needs.   I drive a 1991 Grand Prix, and it gets 20-25 mpg.  I only live 6 miles from work.

My apartment is part of a 12 unit town house style apartment.  Because I am on the 3rd floor, my neighbors and I basically "conserve" heat because they are on two sides of me (down and left).

As far as these "Green" people you mention, I have to laugh, since I probably use and consume something like 0.00001 of these guys.

When we talk about "America" using all this energy, how about breaking it down to "what economic segment" of America is using all the energy.  Is is a high consumer, low efficiency type like Al Gore or Bill Gates?   It's certainly not the moms with two and three kids who live down the way from me, and ride the bus every day, trying to get to work or taking them to the mall.

These are probably the most energy efficient people in the world in terms of what they do, and what they have to work with.

Next time you think about writing some ridiculous article about a mega-acre "green" house -- come down to Kent and we can ride the bus and see some "green" moms.   There's some great all you can eat Indian food here.   A buffet for $7 at lunch.  No not Richard Branson's individual chef.  But one chef serving tens of people at great efficiency.

It is important to remember where the electricity comes from.  If the builders of the house produce all their own electricity (net electricity, they may produce more in the summer and power the grid, and take out more in the winter) using the sun then does it really matter how efficient the house is if no carbon is put into the atmosphere?  It's possible that they could leave the lights on 24 hours a day with no production of greenhouse gases, which doesn't hurt the environment.  Building a new house in that location is another matter though.

urban sprawl blows.

A lot of good ideas, but I think importing barn wood from Nova Scotia might have been counter productive because of the energy expended in transport.

Does anybody know where I can buy toxin-free plywood?