From what I understand this is a hot topic in environmentalist organizations. Higher density areas do objectively have a lower carbon footprint per person. I be

From what I understand this is a hot topic in environmentalist organizations. Higher density areas do objectively have a lower carbon footprint per person. I believe this is true without even factoring in commutes, because even things like heating and water (no lawn to water, etc.) are used less when people live in denser buildings. Adding in cars of course only makes this difference bigger. But the old-school environmentalist, classic "tree-hugger" types have been going around for decades with the attitude of basically just saying no to as much as possible, any type of concrete structure or large development to them is automatically bad. Of course all this leads to is more suburban sprawl and a higher carbon footprint per person, but as long as it happens in places they don't see these people seem happy to ignore it. See for example, the Sierra club in SF which seems to now be basically a NIMBY group devoted to preventing any new buildings from going up because they might partially block views or cast shadows over existing things.