3 ms·

While there are arguments like that for going vegetarian, it doesn't really apply here. The US still has plenty of land that could be used for housing that cur

While there are arguments like that for going vegetarian, it doesn't really apply here. The US still has plenty of land that could be used for housing that currently isn't used at all. Last I checked, I think there's even currently enough housing for everyone in the US. The problem is that the land and houses aren't where people want to live, because of jobs or family or etc. E.g. Detroit has a bunch of cheap and open housing. Rural areas could probably have 10x the current population density without touching agriculture. Carbon footprint arguments are fair, but a change in diet is unlikely to change the cost of living in San Francisco, New York, LA, etc.

myshpa 4y ago
> Rural areas could probably have 10x the current population density without touching agriculture. This does not apply in central Europe. Real estate market in Europe is severely constrained now. There is a demand overhang (for every property you've got hundreds of interested buyers) for family housing (I'm not monitoring situation in other markets) even in rural areas, at the same time all villages/cities are limiting new construction by zoning and/or building regulations. My suspicion is that increasing the area of land intended for urban construction should decrease the house prices and increase their availability.