based on the information from https://psci.princeton.edu/tips/2020/6/ … ble-cities and https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … re-greener Larger cities with more money tend to be more sustainable based on population size. Big cities like Adelaide Copenhagen and San Fransico have in place a plan over the following years to become mainly if not completely sustainable. Larger cities also have the advantages of things being closer in proximity to the things needed on a daily basis. They also have advantages like public transport like buses, trains, and carpools. In most of these cities, the average family has a lower carbon emission, because they are newer and have more efficient ways to use energy, resulting in less carbon dioxide emissions.

Your argument that cities and areas with more money tend to be more sustainable is valid to some extent. Wealthier cities and regions tend to have better access to resources and infrastructure, which can contribute to a higher level of sustainability. However, many low-income communities have shown a commitment to sustainable practices, such as community gardening and recycling programs, despite their limited resources. Some people make these gardens to better the area they are in, like these people from Boston (https://nextcity.org/urbanist-news/Lati … ens-Boston)
Furthermore, wealth can also contribute to unsustainable practices. For example, people with higher incomes tend to travel more, which is one of the main sources of climate change because of coal, oil, and gas. [(https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation) Additionally, rich communities may prioritize economic growth over environmental protection, leading to a disregard for sustainability concerns. While there are areas like San Francisco that influence sustainability in their city, it doesn’t mean all richer areas are going to be more sustainable.

Economically prosperous cities/areas are capable of maintaining sustainability, however, that doesn't necessarily mean they will. In an article published by The Environmental Science Journal for Teens (https://www.sciencejournalforkids.org/w … rticle.pdf), they state that people with higher incomes are able to engage in excess consumerism. These indulges include flying planes more often, driving more, and purchasing more. In comparison to the average working class, higher income people emit more greenhouse gases. My point being that, having more money doesn't equate to sustainability. Also it should be noted that, since we live in a capitalist society, cities and corporations benefit from more item productions and purchases. This greatly contributes to greenhouse gas production. The University of Manchester (https://sites.manchester.ac.uk/global-s … te-change/) adds that capitalistic reform is necessary in reducing our damage to the Earth. This brings up the issue of civilization prioritizing monetary value over our planet's well-being. So in short, is it possible? Yes, but we, as a community, must disregard the materialistic, and dangerous, practices we've put into place.