It looks like a forced dichotomy. What is it compared to the cost of not owning cars and having decent mass transportation, and dense/safe/cities in which peopl

It looks like a forced dichotomy. What is it compared to the cost of not owning cars and having decent mass transportation, and dense/safe/cities in which people can live without the threat of cars? And also what about in both cases the costs of roads, bridge, traffic jam/signals, accidents, policing? Seriously, it is as if the problem for solving man created excessive energy that screws the climate was to make MORE green energy and not about consuming less energy. Consuming more dirty energy or more green energy still results in extra temperature on the surface of the globe.