we can make better use of resources that are abundant. These abundant resources include human creativity and capacity, global genetic resources, design solutions
I don't usually say this but that is a load o' crap.
Let's parse this one sentence:
A 21st century “greener revolution” would also focus on energy and biodiversity conservation, community economic development, improving nutrition and building local resilience and sustainability. Urban farms are one expression of the burgeoning interest in local and diverse food systems.
What does that mean?
OK, energy conservation, but biodiversity conservation? That means limiting land used for humans, right? So, high density housing, population control, urban "nutrient" recycling and of course high intensity farming. There is something about eucalyptus trees being good and grain and potatoes being bad. But that ignores the fact that eons of trial and error have shown that the most efficient use of energy and land inputs is wheat, maize and potatoes. The proof of that statement is the very fact that those are the crops that we grow to survive.
Next, "economic development" – what? Another buzzword thrown in I guess to placate those who want to increase consumption not reduce it.
Here is the good one though;
"building local resilience and sustainability"? This means living at the carrying capacity of the local region, right? But remember, we are going to conserve biodiversity so we must live in high density housing in order to not encroach further on native ecosystems. So how do you balance the need to live local on whatever the region can sustain and also not encroach further on native species if you live in say, Los Angeles or heck, I'll go out on a limb and ask; how do you do that in any town now that the last green revolution and Global Specialization have increased monocrop efficiencies enough to add a couple of billion mouths in the last 40 years?
Then comes "urban farms"? What is an urban farm? In the first part of the sentence we were going to preserve biodiversity, which at base means reduce our physical footprint. That means living in high density urban settings and maximizing the efficiency of food production to the smallest area possible. IOW, we can't all raise tomatoes and eucalyptus on little mini farms.
I'm going out on another limb here and say there is absolutely no difference in planting a billion acres of trees or a few hundred million of wheat. Again, there is a reason the human population has grown with the spread of wheat agriculture instead of trees, it's more efficient.
This is merely pablum for crunchy Portlandians to feel good about their fair trade coffee and organic baby arugula. No different and probably even worse than the myopia of flat earthers who deny limits, because telling themselves organic arugula is the solution relieves them of doing the only thing that will resolve "peak everything" and that is to stop consuming everything.
The OP says we'll replace physical resources with creativity. Reminds me of the interview posted here the other day wherein the interviewee said capitalism, communism and any number of other 'isms can be successful if given enough free energy to overcome their shortcomings. "Creativity" replacing resources in a kind of a Mystic Granola Juju version of "demand
creates resources", supply side, infinite growth because we deserve it egoism.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)