In our Global Perspective, Cannabis and the Environment: What Science Tells Us and What We Still Need to Know (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00844), we summarized existing scientific literature around cannabis and the environment. Our study was narrow in scope, with one exception; we reported only results that were peer reviewed and provided empirical evidence on environmental impacts associated with cannabis. We used this evidence to make policy suggestions. We thank Dr. Mills for correcting our interpretation on a number of factors concerning energy use in cannabis,(1) where we clearly made factual errors. We have compiled an Addition and Correction to our Global Perspective in response to those errors (https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00330). In addition, we would like to highlight new research on greenhouse gas emissions from indoor cannabis cultivation,(2) published just after our Global Perspective. This research provided a range of emission estimates from 2283 to 5184 kg CO₂-equivalent per kg of dried flower and a median of 3685 kg CO₂-equivalent per kg, suggesting emissions of a similar order of magnitude as Dr. Mills’ estimate of 4600 kg CO₂-equivalent per kg.(1) This new research suggests that indoor cannabis farmers, on average, are still far from reaching the higher efficiencies reported by New Frontier Data(3) and further highlights the high risks of cannabis cultivation in terms of energy use. We agree broadly with Dr. Mills’ assertion that indoor cannabis production can have environmental impacts beyond energy use. Yet, we stand by our findings that there is currently no peer-reviewed research on these issues. While Dr. Mills cites reports prepared by municipalities, consulting groups, and government agencies to highlight the availability of new data and the harms of indoor production, we note that these findings did not meet the standard of our Global Perspective. Our point here is not to downplay the importance of industry and government research or to critique these reports individually. Rather, we reiterate our call to increase the pace and scale of scientific peer-reviewed research on cannabis indoor cultivation and on environmental impacts of cannabis more generally. Given the limitations of peer-reviewed science on the topic, we do not believe there is sufficient data to claim indoor or outdoor cannabis cultivation as inherently superior from an environmental perspective. As we emphasize in our Global Perspective, there are trade-offs between production techniques, as there are with other agricultural products. Many factors, including geography, farm scale, and technologies used, may influence the sustainability of any given production method. Variability in research methodologies, and in priorities and perceptions regarding the valuation of environmental impacts, may add further uncertainty. We suggest that the most important policy research will focus on quantifying environmental trade-offs across different production techniques and on identifying pathways to sustainable production. In this way, researchers may support the development of a sustainable cannabis industry, be it indoor or outdoor. The authors declare no competing financial interest. The authors declare no competing financial interest.
This article references 3 other publications. This article has not yet been cited by other publications. This article references 3 other publications.

中文翻译：

---

回应评论“大麻与环境：科学告诉我们什么以及我们仍然需要知道什么”

在我们的全球视野中，大麻与环境：科学告诉我们什么以及我们仍然需要知道什么（https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00844），我们总结了有关大麻和环境的现有科学文献。我们的研究范围很窄，只有一个例外；我们只报告了经过同行评审的结果，并提供了与大麻相关的环境影响的经验证据。我们使用这些证据来提出政策建议。我们感谢 Mills 博士纠正了我们对大麻中能源使用的许多因素的解释，(1) 我们显然犯了事实错误。我们针对这些错误编写了一份对全球视角的补充和更正 (https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00330)。此外，我们想重点介绍有关室内大麻种植温室气体排放的新研究，(2) 在我们的 Global Perspective 之后发表。_{2 -}每公斤干花当量，中位数为每公斤3685 公斤 CO _{2 -}当量，表明排放量与米尔斯博士估计的 4600 公斤 CO ₂相似- 相当于每公斤。(1) 这项新研究表明，平均而言，室内大麻种植者仍远未达到 New Frontier Data(3) 报告的更高效率，并进一步突出了大麻种植在能源使用方面的高风险. 我们广泛同意 Mills 博士的断言，即室内大麻生产可能对环境产生超出能源使用的影响。然而，我们坚持我们的发现，即目前没有关于这些问题的同行评审研究。虽然 Mills 博士引用了市政当局、咨询团体和政府机构编写的报告，以强调新数据的可用性和室内生产的危害，但我们注意到这些发现不符合我们全球视角的标准。我们的观点不是要淡化行业和政府研究的重要性，也不是要单独批评这些报告。相反，我们再次呼吁加快有关大麻室内种植和更普遍的大麻环境影响的科学同行评审研究的步伐和规模。鉴于同行评议科学在该主题上的局限性，我们认为没有足够的数据表明室内或室外大麻种植从环境角度看本质上是优越的。正如我们在全球视角中强调的那样，生产技术之间存在权衡，就像其他农产品一样。许多因素，包括地理、农场规模和使用的技术，都可能影响任何给定生产方法的可持续性。研究方法的可变性，以及关于环境影响估值的优先事项和看法，可能会增加进一步的不确定性。我们建议，最重要的政策研究将侧重于量化不同生产技术之间的环境权衡，并确定可持续生产的途径。通过这种方式，研究人员可以支持可持续大麻产业的发展，无论是室内还是室外。作者声明没有竞争性经济利益。作者声明没有竞争性经济利益。研究人员可能会支持可持续大麻产业的发展，无论是室内还是室外。作者声明没有竞争性经济利益。作者声明没有竞争性经济利益。研究人员可能会支持可持续大麻产业的发展，无论是室内还是室外。作者声明没有竞争性经济利益。作者声明没有竞争性经济利益。
本文引用了其他 3 篇出版物。这篇文章还没有被其他出版物引用。本文引用了其他 3 篇出版物。