Sustainability in design

An American Landscape architect in USA writes;
“LA house, a single family residence, advertised as a "sustainable" house that is the "Ultimate Green Home" for the Next Generation. This house has over 6,500 square feet of AC area, 6 bedrooms, 7 bathrooms, a 3-car garage, swimming pool, a home theatre, an elevator, etcetera.
Next week he will report back to us on how this home measures up to an unbiased assessment of its level of "sustainability." He will rate this property on my sustainability scale: from "reality" (i.e., it really is sustainable) to something less sustainable, for lack of a better descriptor let's say we will call it "green" (LEEDish or Energy Star) to the next levels of "green-wash" and finally to "hog-wash."
Of course, we can discuss what it means to be "sustainable" all day long. Your sustainability characteristics may be quite different from his (actually, he really likes Janis Birkeland's list). He states in advance, the measures that he would consider in his report to us:
1. Does this house improve human and ecological health, resilience, and viability?2. Does it increase natural capital, biodiversity, and ecosystem goods and services?3. Does it increase secure access to food and water?
At this point you are likely saying, "give us a break" since there is no house in North America that could possibly come close to meeting your first three measures. He says, not so, we have architects and developers who are doing it now. Let's continue with the measures of "sustainability" by which this house will be judged . . .
4. Does this house enhance urban space for both people and natural processes?5. Does it help to transform our infrastructure from fossil fuel-driven to solar/wind powered?6. Does it conserve open space, wilderness and natural resources?7. Does it increase life quality and substantive life choices for present and future generations?
Food for thought indeed.