<p>A recent study found that urban agriculture is far worse than agribusiness in its carbon emissions. This finding contradicts the common assumption that alternative forms of food production, especially those practised in urban situations, are feasible for reasons to do with sustainability. Aspects of the study leading to its conclusion are critically considered. And I argue that the study is misleading. Firstly, its findings regarding carbon emissions are questioned. More importantly, I argue that the merits of alternative agriculture require comparisons across a wide range of costs and benefits other than to do with carbon involved in the supply of food and other biological products. A consideration of several of these factors indicates that in terms of ecological, economic, and social consequences, alternative practices are far superior to agribusiness.</p>