What is the point of the article? Shamelessly promoting Cleb Harper?<p>Seriously, there&#x27;s not a single real argument or piece of data in the article, just a bunch of complaints about &quot;first world problems&quot;.<p>- How does growing food locally in sub-optimal scale in urban environments stack against high-efficiency farms?<p>- Cities&#x27; water systems are strained and wasteful due to old infrastructure, and require that water is brought from hundreds of miles away, while some agricultural areas face similar issues, how does this compares with the average agricultural area?<p>- Why would someone try to grow anything in San Francisco using tap water?<p><i>“Everyone wants transparency in food. Anyone right now that’s building opacity in the offering to consumers is going to die.”</i><p>AFAIK, starving people are more worried with finding the next meal, not with the terroir of the wheat in the bread. Sounds too much like many SV startups: solving first world problems first.<p><i>&quot;including boxes that create controlled environments to grow specific types of food&quot;</i><p>So, instead of growing crops where they grow best, and efficiently shipping them around the country (freight accounts for 6% of the total food chain emissions), we&#x27;ll use energy to create boxes that maintain controlled temperature, humidity and luminosity so we can grow our favorite crops just next door? That sounds totally inefficient for me (but I&#x27;d love to see data on that).