zlacker

Most of that subsidization has already happened and will be locked in place for some time unfortunately - it's not like governments can realistically get away with discontinuing infrastructure maintenance while people are still living in an area. More politically feasible is higher levels of direct subsidisation for neighbourhoods that do measurably have a lower ecological impact per capita, to entice people to move to them. After all those who've grown up in suburbia with various expectations around house/land size and ability to get yourself everywhere via private motor vehicle are going to need quite some persuading that they can maintain their desired standard of living in much more built-up areas where transit/walking/cycling are the standard ways of getting around. OTOH there's still a lot more than can be done to massively reduce the carbon footprint of the average suburban home (and its occupants).

And yes, it's worth pointing out that in many first world countries (esp. my own), many higher density neighbourhoods actually have relatively high environmental footprints - usually because they're quite affluent ones. But also because they're often occupied by single people who don't have as many opportunities to share/pool resources with others as those in suburbia. So we need to realistic about what could be achieved simply by changes in government policy around subsidisation of various modes of urban development.

>>wizofa+(OP)
> Most of that subsidization has already happened and will be locked in place for some time

Yes An no.

Yes it is already built.

No because there is a lot that can be done to improve existing infrastructure.

Public transport can be retro fitted rail corridors, dedicated bus lanes, bike only paths, walking infrastructure

Zoning can achieve a lot too. Allowing more commercial pepperpotted amongst residential

You do have to defeat many vested interests, but unless we defeat them they will burn the world for profit, so we must defeat them

A real test for democracy