This makes no sense. The whole point is to find a model for feeding 7 billion people that preserves the environment. Local and organic do _more_ damage to the environment than producing the same equivalent amount of food industrially. They use more land and more energy.
A solution for the environment cannot involve starving the world, or needing to allocate even more huge swaths of it for agriculture.
sorry, that's the claim that is not substantiated by evidence and it isn't close to being accurate. Conventional farming is a toxic mess, and it's heavily subsidized by unsustainable resources and practices at every level. It may be the case that the cost of doing farming right is high (and that is not necessarily meeting the "organic" standards which are themselves heavily biased by conventional interests, but by farming using truly organic methods) but that's because it tends to include costs to the planet, or not include cost savings that are causing extinction level changes to the planetary chemistry. There are people who will tell you that sustaining our population is not possible and that we are headed for an extinction event, however other people say that it is possible to live within our means, if we start factoring in the real cost of things like conventional farming, and therefore change our practice.
And technology is definitely a factor in that transition, so if you buy the phony trolling argument going on here that greenhouses, and automation is incompatible with sustainable, organic, local farming practice, then you are being sold a bill o' goods!
A solution for the environment cannot involve starving the world, or needing to allocate even more huge swaths of it for agriculture.