I now believe that passive survivability is a life-safety issue and should be mandated into residential building codes (similar arguments also apply to commercial building codes). Passively survivable residences will protect the lives and well-being of residents. With loss of electricity or heating fuel in winter, a passively survivable home will never drop below a temperature deemed adequate to keep the house livable. The residents will remain safe, and pipes won’t freeze. Furthermore, when such an energy-efficient home is without power or heating fuel, it can be maintained at more-comfortable conditions with just a small amount of heat from a kerosene heater or a woodstove.
Similarly, in summer months, a passively survivable house or apartment won’t become so hot that residents are at risk of heat stroke or hyperthermia. Overhangs block the hottest sunlight, and windows provide natural ventilation, as our vernacular designs did before the advent of air-conditioning. With multifamily buildings and apartment complexes, the design challenges in achieving passive survivability are greater, but so too is the investment in architectural design. If we mandated such performance, design firms would gain the expertise needed to achieve it.
Widespread adoption of passive survivability would, as a major side benefit, reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Under normal operating conditions, a passively survivable building will use little energy for heating and cooling, which will end up being a big benefit in reducing carbon emissions.