First off, no, it is extraordinarily unlikely that getting rid of small cities/towns will improve our environmental situation, in fact quite the opposite unless you're about to go full buy-in on socialism. The flood of people from rural places to urban ones has been associated with severe environmental degradation, as corporations tend to take over the land that families and small landowners leave behind and then totally fukk it over.
This is an article a friend of mine from Oregon sent me some time back. It shows how the forests in western Oregon have been absolutely wrecked by corporate control and the death of all the little towns that used to prosper in those regions.
Big money bought the forests. Small timber communities are paying the price
How are you going to solve that issue without shifting massive tracks of land from private control to public? The profiteers don't want to give it up, so are you just going to have a massive confiscation of land? How will that work?
And the issue I was speaking of with forest encroachment isn't small towns. The small towns that have been there forever aren't encroaching on the forest. Rural communities are shrinking, not growing. The issue is individual landowners, often wealthy people who don't even live out there full-time, buying up properties in the middle of nowhere and putting summer homes and shyt on them. It's the 2nd homes or the retirement homes of people who don't live off the land but want some beautiful spot to chill and take their friends to. Those are the people who ain't going to let no prescribed burn happen anywhere near their property and threaten their forest mini-mansion.
How are you going to stop people like that? Especially when both the liberals and conservatives are doing it - hell, wealthy old Democrats are probably MORE likely to be moving into those granola homes than Republicans are, that shyt has been turning Montana blue. How are you going to get the Republicans and Dems both to go after their own fundraisers and power brokers?