> but such computations are not science

You've made an argument that rural living has lower CO2 emissions. How do you know that you are correct? Because of an intuitive feeling? You've just implied that your own statements are not backed by science, so why should anyone believe you? And I've given equally valid handwaving arguments for why your proposition is wrong.

> Sure, so far, BUT

That's the way physics works. We've had roads for thousands of years. They can be built with manual labor and horses. Flight is energetically more expensive, and only justifiable if road construction is very expensive. Eg, we nearly always use ferries rather than planes to cross smaller bodies of water.

You already need roads, and that need isn't going away. People still need to visit the doctor, dentist, barber, etc. You want trash pickup, and probably want fire service and ambulance access. You probably want a septic truck to visit to pump out your septic system. The recent pandemic shows that education-from-home doesn't work well. Someone may need to visit a dialysis clinic three times a week. And all those workers need to get to their places of employment. Hence, there will be roads, making ground delivery cheaper than air.

> That's theoretically true, practically false: public transports are efficient when are a bit loaded

In what you replied to, I was talking about delivery transport, not public transport.

In any case, of course mass transit needs to be "a bit loaded" - you aren't going to run one person per bus or train.

And in "OR they accept to be far less efficient than private transports MOST of the time" you need to define what "efficient" means. You have two cars, which you rarely use. Figure you replace a car every 10 years, for 40K EUR, that's 4K/year in depreciation. Plus maintenance, insurance, power/fuel, new tires. Perhaps 5K/year? And a bit more since you have two cars.

Checking now, a year card for all of London is £4008. In Berlin, a fare zone ABC card costs €107/month or €1284 per year. And people do live in London and Berlin without a car.

Personally owned cars are not cost effective when measured that way.

Yes, there are definite advantages to cars. But this article is about promoting more alternatives to cars, not getting rid of cars.

> heating prices have skyrocketed

If I read https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/themes/themes/housing/11978-dis... correctly, it's because of factoring CO2 emissions prices.

Which will be the same no matter the heating source.

If I read https://www.publics.bg/en/news/19512/District_heating_and_ho... correctly, that price increase is because they used Russian gas. The prices of coal-based district heating in Bulgaria aren't increasing.

Note too that heat production and pollution controls are effective with district heating than each household providing its own heat, and still likely cheaper than electric heat.

> more small links to traverse it from anywhere to anywhere

Congratulations. By getting rid of highways you've just greatly increased your supply chain costs for everything because all cargo trucks now take 2-3x longer. And you'll be running trucks at lower capacity and/or doing a lot of trans-shipping to supply all those people.

> If you have a bit of reserve at home, EVERY HOME, than the emergency is far less urgent and so maintenance and design costs goes down.

That reserve costs money. Centralization reduces the overall cost, even including paying for "a hyper-quick team 24/7 ready to run".

> It's often easier do 100km in a riviera than 10 in a city. Personal experience

Ahem. I'm from the US. I know people who commuted 125km each way for work. And I've been in the rush hour traffic in Los Angeles. But that's neither here nor there. 100km of car traffic is much more polluting than 10km on an e-bike.

> And how much time you save having cut the trip to the office ALL working days?

Your argument is predicated on rural workers working from home. People can also work from home in the city.

I already work from home, living in the city. Though really, I work from the local library, the local college, a cafe, at the park (if the weather is good), etc. Like I said, I get cabin fever staying at home all the time with no one nearby.

> if enough people flee the city

We had that happen in the US. "White flight", as white Americans took advantage of racist government subsidizes to move to the suburbs.

The result is not financially sustainable. Providing roads and utility services is much more expensive for these homes than in older, more compact urban residential areas because it requires more material per capita.

Furthermore, the Baby Boomers are getting old. More and more of them will be able to drive. They'll need alternatives to having a car.

> But help in a riviera it's not much different than in a city, for instance it means having someone who gives you food

I should have assumed a car-centered person like you would assume the only two options are "be able to drive a car" and "have someone [who can drive] help you."

In a more compact area, with a mix of services, other options include: walk (including with cane or mobility walker), bike, e-bike, tricycle (for those with balance issues), golf carts, moped cars/micro cars, scooters, mobility scooters, and of course public transit.

These can let someone maintain their independence for a long time, even without a car. But they are more effective in urban areas with mixed planning than in spread-out rural areas.