The stone throwing began shortly after an article about a local environmental engineer appeared in my Oregon hometown newspaper.

The upbeat piece described the house that the woman and her husband had built themselves incorporating numerous eco-friendly features and using local and/or recycled materials. It also discussed her work and leadership in community energy conservation. (Disclosure: I know this person and have worked on some community sustainability committees with her.)

So far, so good. The newspaper chose to spotlight someone who is trying to live more lightly on the Earth and is devoting much of her time and energy, both professionally and as a volunteer, to helping others do the same.

But shortly after the article was published, a letter to the editor appeared, criticizing the engineer’s house and lifestyle. The letter started with some legitimate questions: “How ‘green’ is it to build (the engineer’s) 2,000-square-foot house for just two people? How ‘green’ is building said house on the edge of town, making driving a necessity?”

On the whole, I agree with these critiques. I’m an advocate of downtown and infill development. One of the first articles I wrote for this series, eight years ago, encouraged people to convert their existing home into their ecological house rather than build a new house.

However, the letter’s author went on to attack “so-called ‘environmental leaders,’ who are generally white, privileged and utterly clueless about their own hypocrisy.”

She then stated that she and her husband live in a 900-square-foot house, close to the center of town, from which they can conduct their daily business by literally walking the walk of environmentalism rather than just talking the talk. The letter concluded: “some believe such greenwashing displays of conspicuous consumption (like the engineer’s house) are virtuous, but so far as I know, gluttony is still a sin.”

The letter’s author might want to know that almost half the world’s population lives in houses of less than 180 square feet per person, and the United Nations’ recommended minimum house size for a family of four is about 450 square feet.

Also, she overlooked the part of the article that described how a portion of the engineer’s house was used as office space for her business and that of her husband, who operates a solar company. And one could ask if the letter writer’s downtown house is energy-efficient, water-conserving and generally environmentally friendly.

My point isn’t to throw stones. My point is that we’re all in this together and need to applaud and encourage each other’s environmentally beneficial behavior, even as we question and debate differing approaches to sustainable living. Constructive criticism builds vibrant movements.

Can you reach a point where, on balance, you are doing more good than harm to the biosphere? It’s easier for us to struggle with these dilemmas if we have the support of an empathic community at our ecological house.

Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Oregon. Reach him through his website, www.your-ecological-house.com.