All of us sitting at our ivory workstations would really rather be in a park.

We shouldn't be afraid of living in a densely populated world; instead it is something we should embrace. That's the short of it from Edward Glaeser, an economist at Harvard University, who, for the past two decades, has been studying urban economies in the US.

“There is absolutely nothing unhealthy about having lots of tall skyscrapers and people walking around between them. Not only is it good urban policy, it is a good environmental policy as well,” declares Glaeser in an interview with Singapore's national English daily, the Straits Times.

In developed countries, non-urban dwellers are often spoilt by an excess of land. Why bother building multi-storey car parks when you can have a parking lot the size of a football field? Move to the city, however, and parking lots evolve into libraries of cars, with even automated garages that park your cars for you. Such is the product of city life – its constraints become challenges for the urbanite, spurring innovation.

Cities may thus be the place for minds to converge and develop new ideas, but are they also a lesser threat to the environment than suburban or rural areas, as Glaeser claims?

Not according to the latest data from the US Department of Energy. The graphic below shows the amount of carbon emissions per capita per country. At a glance, it is clear that the more urbanised countries have higher carbon emissions than others.

Source: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, US Department of Energy

Glaeser’s recommendations have more to do with economic growth (he enthuses about the “buzz” of innovation in the Silicon Valley) and emergence theory, than environmental impact mitigation. One then can’t help but ask if such innovations – which benefit just the minority of us living in cities – are really what humankind needs.

In fact, densely populated areas produce greater stress on the environment than Glaeser would have us believe. For instance, while city-dwellers may travel a lesser distance to get to work compared with those living in the countryside, congestion in the city actually means an equal or greater amount of time is spent commuting, generating more carbon emissions.

Meanwhile a leading expert has warned that Britain’s population must halve from its current 60 million if the country is to build a sustainable society.

“Each person in Britain has far more impact on the environment than those in developing countries so cutting our population is one way to reduce that impact,” said Jonathon Porritt, one of Gordon Brown’s chief green advisors. He could have substituted “far more impact” with “300% more carbon emissions”, which is the actual statistic. It is a bold statement to make, but a necessary one.

The quality of life also depreciates for the average urbanite caught in the concrete jungle. That’s why green spaces have become so important in big cities. The Bois de Boulogne in Paris, London's Hyde Park, and New York City’s Central Park became necessary developments as the cities expanded and people were drawn to the few open spaces, to get away from the noise and chaos of urban living.

And as Singapore’s population continues to balloon, its few nature reserves are struggling to accommodate the severe amount of human traffic. Cars are double-parked and those who can’t find parking space wait for a lot with their engines idling.

“I grew up in New York, a city of 8 million. Six and a half million doesn't seem so big to me,” says Glaeser.

“People get used to anything. Living with 6.5 million people doesn't mean you necessarily have less private living space. That can be accommodated by building up without too much difficulty. It doesn't mean that you have less shared spaces. You've actually got a lot of green space on this island and there's lots of room for moving things around.”

Glaeser’s New York is 141,299 square kilometres. My Singapore is 692.7 square kilometres. No, there’s no more room for moving things around. But there’s plenty of room for improvement.