I love tree houses, I adore forests, I worship nature, and would love to live in a primitive tree based community BUT.

This project represents the massive contradictions of the “green” movement.  
Its a model of a “sustainable” rain forest community.  But how can anyone say that living in the rainforest IS sustainable.

The best way to protect/save the rainforest and what is left of our natural treasures around the world is to LEAVE THEM ALONE.

The only really sustainable space for human beings to live in, which has a controlled and sustainable footprint is in concentrated, vertical cities like New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.  (in opposition to LA, Chicago, Mexico city which are the opposite in their massive and resource hogging sprawl.)
vertical and concentrated cities, although not seemingly green, reduce the overall foot print by concentrating all the needs of society and reducing energy waste, focusing human damage to one area, and concentrating population that could cover a hundred square miles of houses, sometimes into one square city block.

Living GREEN outside of cities is for most intents and purposes, an oxymoron.
We need to focus of further greening the cities we have, and systematically improve their quality of life with gardens, and parks, and Urban/roof farms.

What we DON’T need is more human developments ANYWHERE.

There should never be developed communities in protected natural environments, we should push for totally returning as many of these to their original states as possible.

Despite romantic ideas of “green living” in these fragile ecosystems based on Ewoks or other “primitive” models, humans and any other mass societies’ foot print in these environments is/will always be destructive. (look at the similar destructive force of concentrations of ants/elephants/apes/termites,  on any environment total destruction.)

you can find more about those treehouses here:

sustainable rainforest community