[skhunted]

Having houses spread out and lowering population density is bad for environment. More roads need to be built, more infrastructure needs to be built, etc. We consume too much. America is not in danger of having too much population density. We are too spread out as it is.

[rickydroll]

If people want to live in cities, I am all for making it possible. My only request is to control outdoor lighting. Nighttime outdoor lighting has many negative side effects on humans, animals, and plants.

However, cities are not for me. I work in my home office on the outskirts of a minor city. Right now I am listening to house finches and goldfinches arguing over places on the thistle feeders and smelling petrichor as rain showers move in.

Here is the important takeaway: I would never try to force you to live outside of a city. I hope you can grant me the same consideration and not force me to live in a city.

[skhunted]

I don’t care where anyone lives. I’m just stating the fact that being more spread out, having larger homes, larger yards, etc. is not a low carbon option.

[rickydroll]

I agree it's not a lower-carbon option. I think if smaller cities would cover all their parking lots with photovoltaics (complete with a big ass battery) and covers many rooftops with photovoltaics, it would go a long way to reduce the impact of spread-out properties. I would also try to change city practices to encourage rewilding of one's property. I've done a small amount of rewilding, and we have so many more birds in just two years. Of course, we lost a lot of produce to birds and chipmunks, but, heck, they deserved to eat as well.