Originally Posted by
cooker
Your personal lifestyle may well be sustainable, and of course you are free to live it, but for many rural residents it's an illusion that country living is somehow greener than city living. They occupy more space, drive more, need more energy for home heating and other uses, it takes more energy to deliver mail and parcels to them, their malls and mall parking lots take up more space, and in those and many other ways, they strain nature in general far more than if the same number of people lived in a fairly compact neighbourhood; and most of them eat food produced some distance away by somebody else, just like city people.
It's definitely greener out here. Had our first spring rain the other day and you could smell the green. Delightful.
Generally speaking, malls are more a function of suburban living than rural living. I haven't been in a mall in years, but ironically the only mall that exists in the greater metro area I live near is located in the city.
Undoubtedly delivery of services is more efficient in densely populated areas. But there are downsides as well. Heat island effects and stormwater/wastewater concentration are two that spring to mind. Social issues also tend to increase in high density populations.
All human existence impacts the environment and regardless of where they live it is the increasing number of humans that will exacerbate these impacts. I'm not convinced the clustering more people closer together provides any great solution. I think the two most significant steps forward that we could make now in terms of lessening negative impact of humans on their environment would be to eliminate fossil fuels and control population growth. I have hope for the former.