This is a discussion paper addressing the factors involved when considering the total environmental footprint of wood doors. The discussion is within the context of a new amendment to BC energy regulations affecting doors and the subsequent market shifts that will occur as a direct result. The energy regulation applies a U-value threshold to doors. U-value is a physical (thermal) property of an assembly indicating the rate of conductive heat flow through the assembly. A maximum U-value for doors is being specified in BC that cannot be met by the current commonly-manufactured configuration for solid wood doors. In this paper, a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach is used to discuss the broader environmental picture beyond the single criterion of U-value, specifically focusing on the trade-off between embodied energy in a product and the impact of that product on the operating energy of the building in which it is installed. Any change to the current manufacturing process for wood doors for the purpose of improving thermal characteristics should be done within an LCA perspective so that the changes don’t inadvertently lead to a net increase in total lifetime energy consumption. Similarly, any market shift to non-wood alternatives for doors should also be done within an LCA perspective for the same reason. A detailed and precise analysis of door footprints requires LCA data and energy simulation results, both of which are beyond the scope of this study. In place of full LCA data, we accessed existing literature and existing partial LCA data (from the Athena Institute) to roughly estimate the embodied energy differences between door types, and to discuss the other environmental impacts of a substitution from today’s common wood doors to non-wood alternates. Three generic door types were compared: wood, steel and fibreglass. In all the environmental metrics examined, including embodied energy, the wood doors have the lowest impact. Although insulated steel and fibreglass doors typically have a lower U-value than wood doors, they involve more energy consumption in their manufacturing. This means that the added energy investment in steel and fibreglass doors will require some time to be paid back through reductions in a home’s heating and cooling costs. Similarly, an improvement to wood doors to reduce U-value may increase the embodied energy, requiring a payback period that may or may not be reached within the lifetime of the door.