It doesn’t. Both sides need to work together towards a common goal. If only one side is doing it, nothing will change.

More jobs = more consumption = more resources. Their idea is for people to consume far less, therefore own less. If people own and consume less there's less incomes.

Don't own a house, only rent a small apartment in a dense urban setting. Don't own the means to your own transportation, only get by with walking and transit. Price meats so high most people can't afford them regularly.

Two out of the three things you mention are so 'undesirable' that the few dense walkable urban areas in the US are more expensive than living in the suburbs. There's a reason why left-wingers use the word "gentrification" a whole lot. In many cases suburban home and car ownership is actually cheaper than the traditional urban lifestyle, for various reasons including but not limited to:

1. Supply being limited because America outlawed dense urban construction decades ago. Dense cities cannot legally expand to meet demand and building up gets more expensive and unrealistic after a certain number of floors.

2. People in suburbs being further away from lucrative jobs - i.e. proximity to one's work is priced into the cost of the home.

3. Various government subsidies and tax credits that distort the market to produce more resource-intensive suburban housing.

"America" didn't outlaw the expansion, the cities did it to themselves. The cities are in charge of their zoning and planning, not the federal government. They could allow for more density, but the voters choose no.

It's not like the government subsidies and tax credits exist even though nobody wants them. They exist because, once again, that's what voters have suggested they want when they go to the polls.