they can be--but the default for rural life in USA is much more energy intensive, per person, than urban life (and that's to say nothing of the geographical footprint) https://twitter.com/themechaprimate/status/1037183011601690625 …
People in rural areas need buildings too, and they produce a helluva lot less cash to maintain it (or the land...or the people). Whereas urban areas, provided they're not stagnant, produce huge surpluses of cash that they can send to rural areas (as farm subsidies, welfare, w/e)
-
-
In any case: rural life remains, generally, more energy intensive per-resident than urban life
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
We disagree. As population increases in rural areas, taxes go up and life becomes unaffordable to many who are forced out. Cities are poorly designed so they are not supportive for the people who live there. That is why they are so much more expensive. San Francisco, shit hole.
-
Lmao, this isn't a matter of "disagreement;" higher taxes have little to do with environmental impact. Part of the picture is that rural infra is paid for by city taxes. Part of it is that American cities *are* poorly designed (eg SF is expensive bc too little housing).
-
Where do you get you information? Cities do not pay for rural infrastructure. Cities are a cancer on the population. There are no well designed cities. There must be a balance with food production, housing, natural preserve, manufacturing, governance, etc., plus permanence.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
no way.