> My argument is that the story of the per capita efficiency of city dewelpers is nothing more than a convenient story. It seems pretty clear that being able t

> My argument is that the story of the per capita efficiency of city dewelpers is nothing more than a convenient story. It seems pretty clear that being able to walk more, having practical public transportation, having in some cases centralized heating, etc --- are all wins that rural households can't have. Yes, food has to get transported into the city, but most people even in rural environments don't eat food produced close to them (and doing so isn't really compatible with modern expectations, either, for various reasons). But instead we just have an assertion from you that it all doesn't count, because maybe city dwellers do more energy intensive stuff elsewhere-- and gesturing to a long thread with you gesticulating that concrete is resource intensive? (town and rural users use more concrete and other building materials per capita... longer roads per house, less efficient foundations, big storm drainage systems, etc, per occupant, etc. e.g. rural Wyoming used 280,253 tonnes of portland cement in 2020; this is 0.28% of US use while Wyoming is 0.17% of the US population, vs dense New Jersey used 1,392,667 tonnes representing 1.4% of US use and had 2.7% of the population). You have not dispelled any myths: you've just made unsupported statements.