It's amazing to me that people have the audacity to criticize a zero energy home, no matter if it's large or small. I truly wonder how many of this guy's 'critics' live in zero energy homes themselves? Only in Boulder could somebody doing the right thing be targeted as a hypocrite.

And yet, like your article says, John Edwards and Al Gore have a far greater environmental impact by doing virtually nothing themselves yet spend their time lecturing the rest of us on what WE should do. What a sad commentary.

   Under most circumstances a 13,000 sq.ft. home, when examined closely doesn't usually qualify as a "green home". The amount of resources it takes to construct a home of this caliber, along with all of their granite counter tops, old growth Doug. Fir post and beam and whatever other overly consumptive fetishes, can exact more environmental calamity than can be saved in probably a 100 years of net zero construction. At what point does a big house become excessive (50,000 sqft). The green energy movement is not only about using less energy to run your house, but less to build your house. A guy who builds a lavish 20,000 sqft. "green" compound has a long ways to go to catch up with a person living in a 800 sqft. abode who remembers to turn off the lights.

While Al Gore and John Edwards may be outspoken environmental and energy advocates, let's not be too quick to identify them with those who point out the conflicts in this situation. Let's be clear: a 13,000 sq ft home, even if built to a "green code," is still a very large structure with enormous footprint, both spatially and ecologically.

It's been said that "regulation is a result of bad design," and that statement rings true here. What point is the CEO trying to make by asking the county to relax its regulations? That sustainable design should (or can) be scaled to an individual's tastes? That if a building is energy-neutral, then that trumps all other considerations? Again, this is short-sighted, as is pointing to current political leaders as the sustainability-minded community's idols. Building codes are frameworks developed by a community to ensure that development proceeds within the community's vision of itself.

Perhaps Mr. Abramson could find time to research the building site and the code in his chosen community before designing his dream home. It seems that this is an excellent example of a short-term self-centered project where long-term community-centered planning is more appropriate. Indeed, by definition sustainable design is for the long term.

Mega-houses aren't a mistake if the price paid includes all costs incurred. We as a society are far from internalizing these costs, however, and until people like Mr. Abramson can understand that they are externalizing those costs onto the rest of us, regulation must step in.

No matter what good intentions lie behind the design and construction of a single family home whose square footage bumps into 5 digits, the truth remains that they are manifestations of unnecessary excessive consumption. Whether it's a house, car, food, wardrobe, what-have-you, some people just can't get enough! They choose more because they love it, or because it's a way to stand out and keep score, or simply because they can. Until we as a society find other ways to acknowledge and recognize the individual, and until we as individuals come to realize that we have gone way beyond 'enough' as enough to satiate our basic needs and that our higher needs cannot be satisfied through material goods, then excessive consumption will never end.

I suppose that if Mr Abramson plans on boarding his entire extended family, then 13,000 square feet is justified....or if he has 15 children. Short of that it is a bit excessive, I agree that moderating scales of both space & consumtion are the first steps to establishing a sustainable lifestyle. And after this life is over, how many square feet does he get to take into the next one anyhow?

Seems that a few of the comments here reek of insane jealousy. Mr. Abramson is not taking resources from others to build his house. From what I gather, the house is probably made of many recycled materials that would otherwise go into a trash heap and decay. Is a trash heap a better use of materials than using creativity to build a house? Last I checked, by the way, most materials used to build homes are sustainable even if not recycled - trees regrow, stone comes from the earth which is a molten planet and makes more of it every day and glass comes from sand which is plentiful.

Amazing to hear some of the comments here that act as if he's taking from somebody else to build his house. It's his money to spend - if he wants to spend it on his house and make it a zero energy home then I say, good for him!

I think part of the point of the commenters (and the author) is that he's choosing to build in Boulder County, specifically, yet is unwilling (or unable) to conform to its building codes. It is admirable that he's trying to implement green building practices in his home, but why didn't he (or his architects) figure out earlier that he wouldn't be able to meet the codes, and scale back the scale of the project before asking Boulder County to make an exception? I agree that's not good for PR, either for him, his company, or the green building industry, and Boulder County certainly doesn't need the business.

To say that trees and rocks are sustainable is to ignore a lot of other factors too, such as finite resources, deforestation, fossil fuel use, etc. That's not personal, just ecological.

"From what I gather, the house is probably made of many recycled materials that would otherwise go into a trash heap and decay."

Maybe I've had too many PBRs tonight, but I didn't see anything in the the article talk about where the building materials came from. If the wood and other materials he used were raw, then he is taking from everyone. Afterall, just because you can buy something with money doesn't mean it isn't costing the rest of us. If a shit ton of trees were cut down to build that house, he's likely contributing to our kid's deaths. Now if all the building materials were recycled, we have a different conversation.

So what does the building code require regarding building materials?