You bring up interesting points: While on one hand subsidizing transportation and home ownership has encouraged sprawl, it has also discouraged innovation in transportation and housing. Innovations that may have sprung up from a free market may have resulted in hyper-efficient transportation choices that made travel distances negligible. In such a case, sprawl would probably be much broader. But, in balance, probably a good thing for affordability and efficiency.

Incidentally, if you think that “progressive environmentalists” are well-intentioned, then keep in mind that Green Party candidate for President is Cynthia “The-American-Govt-plotted-9/11-and-Jews-control-Congress” McKinney. Good thing the Greens are not evil-intentioned…

I truly think that parts of environmentalism is well intentioned. However, there are opportunists at the core. Some want power. Some want to sell books or movies. Some have a Marxist agenda and actually care little for the environment. They all fight to take advantage of the naive, big-hearted volunteers and activists who really just want to be part of something positive and make a difference in the world. That exploitation is the evil…
Much of mainstream environmentalism must be good intentioned – such as recycling, green buildings, and hybrid cars. Sure, some could argue those things are a silly waste of time or money. But, people must be “wasting” their money with good intentions, or why else would they do it?

You bring up interesting points: While on one hand subsidizing transportation and home ownership has encouraged sprawl, it has also discouraged innovation in transportation and housing. Innovations that may have sprung up from a free market may have resulted in hyper-efficient transportation choices that made travel distances negligible. In such a case, sprawl would probably be much broader. But, in balance, probably a good thing for affordability and efficiency.

Incidentally, if you think that “progressive environmentalists” are well-intentioned, then keep in mind that Green Party candidate for President is Cynthia “The-American-Govt-plotted-9/11-and-Jews-control-Congress” McKinney. Good thing the Greens are not evil-intentioned…

I truly think that parts of environmentalism is well intentioned. However, there are opportunists at the core. Some want power. Some want to sell books or movies. Some have a Marxist agenda and actually care little for the environment. They all fight to take advantage of the naive, big-hearted volunteers and activists who really just want to be part of something positive and make a difference in the world. That exploitation is the evil…
Much of mainstream environmentalism must be good intentioned – such as recycling, green buildings, and hybrid cars. Sure, some could argue those things are a silly waste of time or money. But, people must be “wasting” their money with good intentions, or why else would they do it?

If it’s a matter of low densities being a drain on the taxpayer, then one could also say that education, sanitation, police, fire protection, and every other government-controlled activity is a drain on the taxpayer.

Ideally, private markets would dictate optimal levels of these services, as well as optimal densities — which would be a mix of very low densities, very high densities, and everything in between. But the claim of “sprawl = waste” (in addition to using that needlessly loaded word) is the same as “police guns = waste”.

Perhaps in a world of private urbanism, we would all be living in 75-story high rises like a hyper-Upper East Side (and without low-density Central Park nearby).

Or, perhaps we would live in a world of 20-lane highways and two-acre lots everywhere.

But most likely: When the government gets out of the way, the urban future might very well resemble today’s technology as seen from the 1960s; i.e., something that has not been invented yet, and which no single person alive today can even imagine.

Incidentally, if you think that “progressive environmentalists” are well-intentioned, then keep in mind that Green Party candidate for President is Cynthia “The-American-Govt-plotted-9/11-and-Jews-control-Congress” McKinney. Good thing the Greens are not evil-intentioned…

If it’s a matter of low densities being a drain on the taxpayer, then one could also say that education, sanitation, police, fire protection, and every other government-controlled activity is a drain on the taxpayer.

Ideally, private markets would dictate optimal levels of these services, as well as optimal densities — which would be a mix of very low densities, very high densities, and everything in between. But the claim of “sprawl = waste” (in addition to using that needlessly loaded word) is the same as “police guns = waste”.

Perhaps in a world of private urbanism, we would all be living in 75-story high rises like a hyper-Upper East Side (and without low-density Central Park nearby).

Or, perhaps we would live in a world of 20-lane highways and two-acre lots everywhere.

But most likely: When the government gets out of the way, the urban future might very well resemble today’s technology as seen from the 1960s; i.e., something that has not been invented yet, and which no single person alive today can even imagine.

Incidentally, if you think that “progressive environmentalists” are well-intentioned, then keep in mind that Green Party candidate for President is Cynthia “The-American-Govt-plotted-9/11-and-Jews-control-Congress” McKinney. Good thing the Greens are not evil-intentioned…