Meh, they're just trying to make money and contraversial headlines and bylines like this are effective.

I do think the framing is deceptive, and looking back at the source material, it looks like the researchers were much more focused on how urban farming can improve.

If I wanted to play that same game, I could pull out choice quotes like "most urban farms are carbon-competitive with conventional farms", but I'd rather focus on the bigger picture.

As for the impact they're citing, I don't like what it, but that doesn't mean it's inaccurate.
 @nostr:npub1pncg62q25h704u6qcf56hnmxx46jdlwfpw2t860ld5685s0sjzms9rqlgr already gave some good critiques here: nostr:nevent1qqsqvg6fzske2vuf6hn6f6ukthntqy80m9he6d93pkuxmd2g66rsljcpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgq3qpncg62q25h704u6qcf56hnmxx46jdlwfpw2t860ld5685s0sjzmsxpqqqqqqznv6cql and in fact the researchers even had some similar comments in their "future work" section. They suggested "comparing UA to other urban land uses, such as housing, parks and industry". Not quite the same as comparing them to mown turf grass, but it's along those same lines.

Source material for the article is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s44284-023-00023-3