You have a point about quality, but I don't think that there is anywhere in the US where the CO2 emissions from growing warm weather crops under artificial ligh

You have a point about quality, but I don't think that there is anywhere in the US where the CO2 emissions from growing warm weather crops under artificial lighting are lower than those of importing said crops from places where they can grow outdoors. Growing under artificial lighting can produce crops that don't need to endure prolonged storage and shipment. Some people will pay a flavor-and-quality premium for things like fresh tomatoes, salad greens, and herbs that can be grown this way near the point of consumption. But the bombast about remaking the "global food system" this way is ridiculous. The vast majority of crops, measured either by dollar value or by calories eaten by humans, are not going to be grown this way. For most crops it would greatly increase the cost and the fossil fuel consumption if they were grown under artificial lighting, and there wouldn't even be a corresponding quality improvement to motivate buyers. The article even says as much: In fact, all things considered, says Mark Bomford, director of the Yale Sustainable Food Project, “it’s generally a lower-impact proposition to move food around the planet than to move the climate.”