"the simple solution to that is to property tax the shit out of land in the exurbs and suburbs so that urban organization of housing is cheaper than suburban and rural, which is currently the opposite."
You can't really tax people money they don't have. Maybe it'd work in suburbs, but generally (at least in american cities) the more rural areas consist of
1. Farmland owners who likely contribute resources and get tax deductions anyway
2. mid-low income homeowners far from the city who's property cost as a whole pales in comparison to the cities. Either because of mass emmigration (which can be "White Flight" at worst, or simply dwindling resources/income at best in an evolving world) or simply happening to own/inherit land before costs went out of control.
There's not much to squeeze out of these people to begin with. And not exactly any alternative land to offer them that wouldn't be to their massive benefit (Again, this land isn't exactly valuable to begin with, comparatively speaking). Housing struggles to keep up as is and can't really afford this altruistic effort to try and consolidate everyone into a densely packed area.
The simple solution for global warming has been the carbon tax. But obviously it is a bad idea to do "shock" taxes. A shock tax in ICE vehicles wouldn't maximize the effectivity of stimulating long-term BEV demand, it would be a huge regressive tax on the huge number of people that don't rely on new cars, but used cars for everyday transport. It would inevitably simply lead to political backlash.
But a long term phase-in over a decade, which also is difficult to sustain over successive administrations and controls of congress, would be ideal. Obviously American governance is too incompetent to achieve that.
The carbon tax is for the current largest environmental threat: global warming.
But the sixth mass extinction will probably be the next big environmental issue once GW mitigations come into play. And the key to that is a big land tax to change incentives. And the same issues arise: how to avoid shock pricing and instead phase in over an economically adaptable timeframe.
It even has the same technological potential solutions but lack of supply: vertical farms and artificial meat have the potential to eliminate huge swathes of land that are currently used for 1) grazing and 2) crops that feed grazing animals.
Vertical farming and artificial meat should be getting massive research subsidies right now. Every research university should have substantial grants pursuing these. Because the habitats that we can reclaim back to nature and hopefully avert a total collapse of the "species web" is very important.
I feel we are constantly playing russian roulette with extinctions. Was this species so important that everything collapses? No. Well, how about this one? This one?
I mean, insect populations are dropping. Insects. Very concerning.
You can't really tax people money they don't have. Maybe it'd work in suburbs, but generally (at least in american cities) the more rural areas consist of
1. Farmland owners who likely contribute resources and get tax deductions anyway 2. mid-low income homeowners far from the city who's property cost as a whole pales in comparison to the cities. Either because of mass emmigration (which can be "White Flight" at worst, or simply dwindling resources/income at best in an evolving world) or simply happening to own/inherit land before costs went out of control.
There's not much to squeeze out of these people to begin with. And not exactly any alternative land to offer them that wouldn't be to their massive benefit (Again, this land isn't exactly valuable to begin with, comparatively speaking). Housing struggles to keep up as is and can't really afford this altruistic effort to try and consolidate everyone into a densely packed area.