Having money has always and will always lead to a more comfortable life. Pollution is all a matter of degree, and cities produce plenty of it, even if per capita numbers are marginally less.
Energy = force * distance = mass * acceleration * distance .
I don’t think dense living energy usage is only marginally less due to the extra distance all the mass has to travel. And with current technology, the energy used is basically a proxy for pollution.
The more mass you move (water, sewage, gas, waste, supplies, people) longer distances, the more you pollute. I.e. the more space you use, the more you pollute. Just like using most other material resources.
I only mean “marginally” insofar as living in a cabin with no electricity and growing your own food would use even less. We are all living very high energy lifestyles. The difference, as always, is on the margin. Modern conveniences and comforts come at a price, both ecologically and economically. It’s just a question of whether that price is worth it.
It's not marginal at all, but a huge difference. Rich inner suburbs ("Democrat suburbs" you might say) are the worst polluters per capita, and urban and some truly rural areas the best, but the truly rural case absolutely doesn't scale.
I'm sorry, but your boats-the-shed fantasyland is slowly killing us all.
I don’t think dense living energy usage is only marginally less due to the extra distance all the mass has to travel. And with current technology, the energy used is basically a proxy for pollution.
The more mass you move (water, sewage, gas, waste, supplies, people) longer distances, the more you pollute. I.e. the more space you use, the more you pollute. Just like using most other material resources.