It seems that the retort failed to recognize the strong premise behind Nikhil's argument. To suggest that lawns, golf courses, and grass provide environmental benefits and contribute to mental health is completely in line with Nikhil's outlook, as he never argued against using lawns wisely, or using golf courses for recreational activities. In fact, he even noted that properly managed lawns and golf courses could be beneficial, which is why he suggested outlawing them specifically.
Furthermore, despite the potential benefits of lawns and golf courses, Nikhil's argument still stands that these activities often have a negative impact on the environment. In many cases, residential and commercial lawns are not managed appropriately, causing them to consume large amounts of water, fertilizer, and energy. Similarly, many golf courses require the excessive use of fertilizer, water, and other resources.
Finally, Nikhil's essay acknowledged the aesthetic benefits of properly maintained lawns and golf courses, yet was still critical of their potential misuse. He never suggested that these activities should be eliminated altogether, simply that they should regulated more strictly to prevent misuse and maximize their potential benefits. So UrRong to suggest that Nikhil's essay was unfounded in its criticism. Perhaps if society took a closer look at regulating lawns and golf courses to ensure their proper management and use, we could truly unlock the potential benefits -- while simultaneously avoiding the pitfalls -- of grass and lawns.