Actually, that’s not quite true. Cities, with people crammed into small apartments in big apartment buildings and few owning cars, tend to be lower energy consumers per capita than more sprawling environments.
But this woman’s “friend” couldn’t be more obnoxious and I can’t imagine suggesting she come for a visit. (Having a friend living so close to the land also must have raised her competitive hackles incredibly.) But I certainly know plenty of low- to high-income people whose religion has become the expatiation of this kind of guilt with massive “sustainable” rituals.
That city mouse spends more time following neurotic trends than pursuing a long term survival strategy. Her supply chain is non-existant and at the first earthquake she will be in a public shelter begging for handouts.
Compare apples to apples. People don't need a big city to increase their energy efficiency. Country people can move into a 500 square foot compartment too. For an equivalent quality of life though, living in a big city is less energy efficient than living in the suburbs. As a rule of thumb, price is a surprisingly accurate proxy for energy consumption. Big city living is both more expensive and more energy consuming on an apples to apples basis.
If government transportation were at all energy efficient, the taxpayers wouldn't need to subsidize 90% of the fare to get people to ride it. Government transportation in general is *NOT* energy efficient, nor is it a pleasant quality of life experience.