Concentrating the population in a few areas is actually pretty good for the environment. It leaves room for nature and infrastructure becomes cheaper to build and more efficient to run.
Urban areas often use more resources and generate more waste due to higher levels of economic activity. This contributes to a bigger environmental footprint.
Cities can also shift some of their environmental impact to rural areas or other states or countries where things like food production, resource extraction and waste disposal happen.
So, the true environmental cost of cities is often higher than it appears, especially when you consider the carbon emissions from transporting goods and waste.
you're basically just defining the mean here, this misses the point that cities are more efficient, making their mean consumption per capital lower
No, I'm not.
The environmental impact of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Los Angeles, California, will differ significantly, even if they have similar populations and technology levels. When it comes to meat consumption alone, citizens of Addis Ababa consume approximately 5-10 kg per year, while in the USA, it's about 125 kg per year.
The difference in consumption, or affluence, is the critical parameter here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_cons...
I = (PAT) is the mathematical notation of a formula put forward to describe the impact of human activity on the environment.
I = P × A × T
The variable A in the I=PAT equation stands for affluence. It represents the average consumption of each person in the population
Distributed sustainable communities seem like a better balance than a massive metropolitan city that destroys not only its local habitat but many far away ones for the raw materials to build and sustain the city.
Given that people in cities live in smaller homes without yards, drive less, and are also more likely to not own a car, it’s gonna take some evidence to prove your hunch here.