For one, net zero houses look pretty comfortable:
* https://www.chba.ca/CHBA/BuyingNew/Net-Zero-Homes.aspx
If you go further toward "passive house" you can have 5000 sq. ft. (500 sq. m.) of living area and only need 1500W (a hairdryer) to heat it:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vul4vMFdkA
Residential energy use accounts for roughly 20% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States:
* https://www.pnas.org/content/117/32/19122
IMHO there's still plenty of low-hanging fruit in just efficiencies that can be plucked before lifestyle sacrifices would need to be made.
The number of Passivhauser in the US is apparently in the thousands. What would it take to scale this up to 100-1000 times? What would it take to change the status from luxury good to mass adoption?
If it was all upside, the established players, in this case home builders, would have already incorporated it to gain a competitive advantage.
I am guessing there are downsides such as cost of materials, expertise, mold, or something that keeps this from being an economical solution.
Aiming for something that can be net zero is probably more practical: building stringently up to a certain point, and then throw some PV panels to offset whatever expected energy use is remaining.
We need to articulate the future, not wax poetically toward some vague economic abstractions. Unless we can articulate some hopeful answer to this question, nothing consequential will change. People really do not want to live as subsistence farmers.