Sustainable homes are a joke in poor taste. Cities are vastly better for the environment than the same number of people in so called ‘green’ homes in low density areas.
Sure, you can minimize global harm from pollution etc., but locally even something as simple as a house cat can have large scale impacts. Further, people want large changes like dams to reduce flooding, drainage etc.
Aesthetically, it might seem more natural than asphalt, but lawns are a long way from ‘nature’. Realistically to have anything close to 'nature' assuming zero farming you’re looking at ~1 person per square mile if that.
> Aesthetically, it might seem more natural than asphalt, but lawns are a long way from ‘nature’. Realistically to have anything close to 'nature' assuming zero farming you’re looking at ~1 person per square mile if that.
Not sure I terribly agree with your person per square mile argument. Yes, lawns are a terrible waste (footnote: did you know that lawns trace back to medievel times? How much land you could afford to grow lawn on was a measure of wealth) and should be heavily disincentivized. But at the same time, if my house is zero net energy (solar power, solar thermal for water, tight envelope), and the transportation of myself and the goods I acquire are provided via renewable energy (electric cars/trucks powered by clean renewables), there isn't a strong argument against rural living.
