Your taxes pay to survey home gardeners to claim they have a 6x greater carbon footprint than industrial agriculture.
If true (and there are many caveats) So what? The Attack on Food
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44284-023-00023-3#Ack1
Urban agriculture (UA) is a widely proposed strategy to make cities and urban food systems more sustainable. Until now, we have lacked a comprehensive assessment of the environmental performance of UA relative to conventional agriculture, and results from earlier studies have been mixed. This is the first large-scale study to resolve this uncertainty across cities and types of UA, employing citizen science at 73 UA sites in Europe and the United States to compare UA products to food from conventional farms. Results reveal that the carbon footprint of food from UA is six times greater than conventional agriculture (420 gCO2e versus 70 gCO2e per serving). However, some UA crops (for example, tomatoes) and sites (for example, 25% of individually managed gardens) outperform conventional agriculture. These exceptions suggest that UA practitioners can reduce their climate impacts by cultivating crops that are typically greenhouse-grown or air-freighted, maintaining UA sites for many years, and leveraging circularity (waste as inputs).
Every study of fake meat has found that it has a massively larger carbon footprint than any natural form of animal husbandry.
The intention is to monitor, control and monetize carbon use everywhere. Just like the focus on Public Health has nothing to do with real individual health, but rather profits and control of behavior, the focus on carbon and climate has nothing to with real climate outcomes and health, but rather profits and control. Chris Martenson (Peak Prosperity podcast) is an excellent resource for this topic. I understand that we often understandably focus on the health and politics of today but truly, at its core, this is all a money play...they are going to try and control the money supply.