Flawed study claims urban ag bad for planet
Did you know that growing food in cities is more damaging to the climate than industrial farming? Six times worse, in fact!
That’s the absurd conclusion advanced in a recent study — and promoted by the mainstream media. So, city folk, quit trying to feed yourselves. You’re destroying the planet. If you gave an actual dang, you’d drive to Walmart for your trucked-in fruits, veggies, eggs, and meat.
THE STUDY. “Comparing the carbon footprints of urban and conventional agriculture” was funded by Springer Nature (more on them in a bit). It purports to compare the carbon footprints of urban agriculture and conventional agriculture.
WHAT’S “URBAN AGRICULTURE?” The study defines three types of urban agriculture: “urban farms (professionally managed, focused on food production), individual gardens (small plots managed by single gardeners) and collective gardens (communal spaces managed by groups of gardeners).”
The study examined 73 operations in the US and Europe. Apparently, only the first type is considered food production. I guess we home gardeners are just in it for entertainment.
WHAT’S A “CONVENTIONAL FARM?” Who knows! Incredibly, the authors never provide a definition. If by “conventional” they mean big and industrial, then we’re talking about all kinds of heavy machinery, tiling, confinement buildings, lots of energy to heat and cool buildings, massive lagoons for manure storage, society’s cost to clean up any messes, etc. No carbon footprint there, folks. Continue Reading →
