When you understand how quickly the Netherlands changed (it used to be just as car-centric at the US), you might change your view about what's possible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnFYOvcOn_E
1. All my friends/family/professional networks are based in the US. Do I need to convince all of them to move with me to the Netherlands?
2. I would need to uproot my children from their schooling and friends and move them to a foreign country.
3. I would have to get a job in NL--perhaps doable for me, but what if you don't have in-demand tech skills and don't already speak Dutch?
4. I would have to work in NL for five continuous years before being eligible for permanent residency.
These hurdles are indeed not totally insurmountable for some people, but to pretend like it's a viable option for anyone who wants to live in more functional cities is silly. Why can't we just try to make our cities better? Look around at which cities in the world are working better, and learn from them!
Why can't someone want to make where they already are better? Why should someone be expected to accept the status quo?
I remain unconvinced about the argument around climate: when it is too cold to walk less than 15 minutes, roads are also unsafe to drive.
What does altitude have to do with anything? San Francisco has plenty of hills, yet people still manage to move around by bike.
When a city was founded has little to do with what to do with them going forward. Many american cities were very walkable, and then urban freeways where built in them, displacing people and disconnecting neighborhoods. Amsterdam itself was very car-centric in the 70's, yet they are now considered the biking capital of the world. Cities are living organisms, that can and should change over time.
If you don't see how being able to walk when you need milk helps with having a good quality of life then I don't know what to tell you.
Edit: the comparison is relevant because it gives us a good idea of what the lower bound of what it realistically means to downsize the usage of cars in urban environments. It's a very clear example of a place where half the population (which includes children!) has a car, but cities are entirely navigable by foot, public transport or bikes.
For example harsh winters and big temperature differences make maintenance of motorways significantly more expansive compared to railways and walking paths. Hence you have trans-siberian rail but no trans-siberian motorway network.
Also Netherlands did car-centric design in 50s. Then they stopped and reverted it because they realized it sucked.