I have a good friend who has been preaching sustainability for about twenty years ... since before the term really got legs. He has had very little success with it, outside the corporate world where it has become a buzzword that big companies must adhere to. For the masses, the word seems to be a turn-off.
I think it is the same lesson that I got from Julian Robertson years ago. There was a tee I was thinking of building on the 3rd hole at Cape Kidnappers, that would have required a fairly expensive bridge to access. I mentioned it to him, but said I had decided against it on the basis of cost / benefit, and he bristled at that. He said that the whole place was a $50 million project and if that bridge would make it significantly better, then I should not worry about the cost, I should only let him worry about it. I responded that I didn't think it would make the course significantly better, and he said okay then, don't bring it up at all.
For years before that I had always thought my leaning in the direction of minimalism [and sustainability] was appealing to clients, but I suddenly realized that talking about it in terms of costs was a total turn-off. Clients like Mike Keiser or Julian Robertson are focused on building "the best" possible project, and they don't want to admit that cost has anything to do with it -- even if they do appreciate cost savings at the end. They want you to make the best recommendation you can for the project.
Sustainability is the same. It is the best recommendation you can make, but you have to be careful to say why these conditions are better, instead of making it sound like you are settling for something, or apologizing for it, or worse yet, being cheap about it. So Jeff's original post is very much on point. Mike Davis should leave the talking to Bill Coore and Bob Farren on this topic. He has probably been worried about the potential for negative feedback, and is overreacting to it instead of making his own positive points.