Some countries have comparatively high building standards, but none (that I'm aware of) come close to a Passive House standard.
My gripe isn't as much what the minimum requirement is, and more the incentive to never go above it, because property prices are generally only going up with little regard to building standards.
Electric boilers are extremely energy inefficient compared with heat pumps. If you built a Passive House, not going the extra mile for a heat pump seems silly to me. Not to mention that heat pumps can easily protect you against heatwaves (should any happen).
Personally I've addressed that concern with a CO2 alarm in every room (which you should have regardless, so I don't count that against passive houses). I suspect that there exist ventilation fallback solutions that can address a power failure scenario, but I've yet to find any viable ones.
It should be possible to have a system that generates automatic airflow should power fail.
Best ones I've found are solar panels, or geothermal power generator (geothermal is generally really amazing for everything), but that still leaves mechanical failure.
That said, it takes quite a bit of time before ventilation failure leads to a dangerous CO2 buildup. And the addition of having a single entry point for air means that it's easy to filter my air through a HEPA filter, ensuring top quality air all year round.
In general, this conclusion comes from the notion that a passive house has fewer moving parts and requires less attention. A poorly insulated house demands that you take more active measures to ensure that it keeps a positive temperature (so water pipes don't freeze), this is extra pertinent should the power go out. A well-insulated house is also likely to have fewer points of failure (water getting into cracks and whatnot).
A proper passive house generally only has one maintenance point, which is the ventilation / air filtration system, and temperature control is easy. You don't have to worry much about the insides being too hot or too cold, as it should keep whatever temperature you set regardless of the weather outside.
With all that said, you should generally take everything I said with a grain of doubt, as I'm not an expert, and someone could well shoot down all my points in the comments. ;-)
My prime goal with any house I buy is to make sure that I have to do as little as possible; never worry about water being in the wrong place, and never worry about the power bill, or temperature in general.
It saddens me that construction quality is almost irrelevant when building a new building nowadays. The profit difference between a well-isolated passive building and one that merely meets the minimal standards, is often very small, so why bother building a passive building?
My personal interest in passive buildings generally revolve around maintenance. Passive houses seem to require far less maintenance.
Anything larger than the iPhone SE (my current phone) is simply too large. So unless Apple changes course and starts providing smaller phones anytime soon (doubtful), my next one will unfortunately probably be an Android.
I'm of the opinion that if the headline is a lie, then the thread should be flagged; no matter how interesting the content. Lying shouldn't be rewarded.
But then again, I don't have flagging rights yet, so who am I to judge?
While I'd very much wish to put anything Atlassian up front and center, Microsoft Teams is simply way more in my face. I have to use it for communication, and it's a huge pain use. It's huge, bloated, and more importantly; extremely slow and unresponsive. I'd have a hard time suggesting a worse chat application when including all that have ever existed.
My gripe isn't as much what the minimum requirement is, and more the incentive to never go above it, because property prices are generally only going up with little regard to building standards.