Article talks about how 90% of the land would remain as is as well as 100% of the national parks, simply restoring watersheds that are intermittent or dried up to wetlands.
I didn't use the word good anywhere or even offer a value judgement, I simply called it interesting.
Also your tone sucks and makes me not want to discuss in good faith with you.
Article assumes people want to live in cramped cities.. clearly this is not the case when we look at where Americans choose to live, so premise is flawed. In reality 300 more Americans would spread out and wreck the environment more than it already is.
I didn't use the word good anywhere or even offer a value judgement, I simply called it interesting.
Also your tone sucks and makes me not want to discuss in good faith with you.