I thought it was the other way around? Don't people in cities have a lower carbon footprint because of public transportation, smaller homes, and other things that can be shared?

Yes it seems people were confused by my first sentence. I should have said "the perception of the climate crisis will increase, leading to faster adoption of green policies".

There's a reason why people in rural areas are less aware of climate change due to human pollution. The effects of pollution are much less apparent in rural areas due to the far lower human density. Rural areas are "clean" to the human eye, so we have large swaths of the population that simply don't care about long term effects of pollution, because to them, even the short-term effects are almost indiscernible.

People are moving to cities at a faster rate despite the proliferation of the internet. As such, we'll eventually reach a critical mass of the population that eventually leads us to adopting greener policies. All because people are moving into cities from rural areas. I get that it sounds counterintuitive.

I'm not following your logic. Yes, humans are leaving rural communities for cities, but I'm not sure how that exacerbates climate problems...unless they're all moving to New Orleans.

I’ve seen at least one article suggesting the end of centralization into cities. I suspect LEO based internet services will further help people move back to the country. All that’s needed is work out there.

A friend lived outside a city of 20,000 in rural Colorado. He dropped $10-20k to get fiber run out. It seems like a lot, but If that's literally the only thing keeping you from moving from the Bay Area to a small town, you just haven't done your research.

Yeah people think the internet alone is powerful enough to reverse physical centralization, which is happening due to much, much stronger factors.