This paper presents a comparative analysis of the carbon footprint, energy demand and life cycle costs of a model of a building located in the Central Europe climate zone. One specific example—the quantitative differences in global warming potential, life cycle costs and thermal comfort—has been shown, depending on the different construction (wood, brick) and heat sources used; traditional and energy-saving solutions have been considered. The research was carried out using the EnergyPlus simulation program for a multi-zone model of a naturally ventilated single-family house. Calculations were made for a 25-year life cycle using the standard climate data for Warsaw (Poland). The real occupancy schedule of the individual rooms was adopted and the instantaneous ventilation airflow was modeled, and its intensification due to the additional opening of windows was optimized. An estimated budget of the entire structure of the building and the heat sources was used for the cost analysis. The research has succeeded in developing some general conclusions and guidelines and recommendations for both the investors and designers of energy-saving and environmentally friendly houses. Considering the most economical an ecological solution, wooden houses are better than brick houses. In the wooden building, however, there are a larger number of thermal discomfort hours.