In the article “Most people agree that unchecked development is a bad deal—for commuters, for taxpayers, for the environment. But few can agree on how to achieve smart growth” from the National Geographic, a farmer complained that real estate developers keep looking for rural areas to develop into a suburban area, which influences both the local people and is bad for the environment. Urban sprawl, in my opinion, is the biggest problem in sustainability in the developed world. Reducing the size of the suburban area is key to reducing carbon footprint. In a smaller area, people could walk or bike more and drive less. Mixing residential area with shopping areas, schools and businesses can also reduce people’s frequency of driving. With smaller and more diverse suburban planning, public bus and subway services could be more efficient. At the same time, the government could restore land used in urban sprawl to natural habitats or parks for recreation, which decreases human impact on the environment.
Some might argue that reducing the size of suburban area equals to forcing p eople to a new city, which is not entirely true. Population density might increase slightly, but the equivalent would still be a small town with less population as the nearby city. The government should promote public transportation trains or subways like BART in the bay area, which further decreases the carbon footprint of people working in the city.