We really need to reduce the population. It will help with carbon footprint reduction too.
If you're so concerned about carbon footprint reduction, you should be fighting as hard as you can to ban SFH policies and for pro-density policies, since land-use and long commutes are such massive contributors of climate change.
The reverse is also true. Their desire for affordable housing doesn't trump people's desire to not live near denser housing.
>If you're so concerned about carbon footprint reduction...
I don't have children or pets. I have worked from home for the last 20 years.
If I die (lowest footprint possible), it has almost no impact on society in terms of climate change. But if I change behaviors of many (through legislation...) then that is enormous in comparison.
Affordable housing that is also low on climate impact (higher density and close to places people need to go) should be prioritized over “I want 10 acres of land”.
You forgot to mention zoning law which restrict the supply of housing a lot, much more than any wheeling and dealing cities may do with developers.
Supply is simply not allowed to increase in many areas. It is not a free market, it is government controlled and the priority is to preserve/increase the property values for existing home owners, and restrict where people can live by income. Talk of affordable housing does not come anywhere near making up for the restricted supply in cities due to zoning.
There are other countries that have a much different approach to zoning, there's ideas like land value taxes, etc.