I think what we need to do is de-mystify the whole low energy house building thing. I'm guilty of using science and technology here that helps some, but probably confuses and puts off others, and I'm not the only one.
We've had step changes in house building many times over the centuries, from wood and mud huts, to stone houses, then, more recently the introduction of cavity walls and damp proof courses, and more recently still the incorporation of insulation in houses from new (our old house that was built in the late 70's early 80's had no insulation at all, for example).
There's nothing magical about making a more energy efficient house, it's just that solving one problem tends to create a need to solve other problems that arise. This is no different to things like the introduction of cavity walls, they solved the problem of water penetration but created another problem - much higher heat loss than some thick solid walled houses. Our first cavity wall house was icy when compared to the several hundred year old stone cottages we'd lived in before, for example.
We're still working through the solutions to the problems created by reducing heat loss, like needing to provide MVHR because we've improved airtightness to reduce unwanted ventilation heat loss, or needing to fit vapour control barriers on the inside of houses because we've improved the wall and roof insulation to the point where interstitial condensation can be a risk.
Gradually, all these things will just naturally migrate into normal building practice, much as the fitting of central heating to houses has. I bet there were a lot of people who felt that central heating was complicated and unnecessary addition when it first came out.