Dense cities consistently produces lower per-capita carbon emissions. This has to do with transit, with transportation of material, with houses (yes, townhouses

Dense cities consistently produces lower per-capita carbon emissions. This has to do with transit, with transportation of material, with houses (yes, townhouses too!) not having as many walls to lose heat from, etc. We can and have designed cities that properly handle rainfall. The issue is not density, but the lack of water-permeable surfaces. Suburban parking lots and wide freeways cause the same issues and on a larger scale due to the low density. The lack of nature is, again, solved not just once. In Amsterdam they have dense urban areas right next to actual farms with cows, free-range ones. Again, you save space for nature by going high density. Compared to sprawling out with cul-de-sacs a you have more people getting closer to nature more often. Same argument for farmers traveling to town. (I do sense a bit of mismatch between conceptions of non-dense-city living spaces. You seem to be talking about something that combines the environment of rural areas with the convenience of suburbia, but these two seldom co-exist without wasting a lot of tax money on maintenance…)