From ClimateRealism

By Anthony Watts

The Independent’s recent article, “Engineering climate may not be enough to save coffee, chocolate, and wine,” warns that even extreme geoengineering might not preserve “luxury crops” in a warming world. The whole story is based on a false premise that some technological fix is necessary to prevent crops like cocoa, coffee, and wine grapes from declining. The writer’s mistake is to rely on flawed computer model projections rather than real-world agricultural data that show the crops the story claims are under threat are actually thriving in today’s slightly warmer world. An understanding of crop biology indicates crop yields and production should continue to improve in the future.

The study behind the article relied on simulations of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), a highly controversial technique that would spray reflective particles into the upper atmosphere to block sunlight, cooling the Earth. SAI is increasingly promoted as a last-ditch tool to “fix” global warming, but the science and potential side effects make it a profoundly bad idea. The models used to justify SAI’s necessity already exaggerate warming by a wide margin, so any proposed “correction” risks overshooting reality. Studies have warned that SAI could severely disrupt global precipitation patterns, may impact global systems and human health outcomes, which could undermine food and water security far more than modest warming would. The cooling effects of volcanic eruptions — often cited as SAI’s natural analogue — also illustrate its dangers. After Mount Pinatubo’s 1991 eruption, global temperatures dropped briefly, but so did rainfall, crop yields, and sunlight reaching the surface. Moreover, research from the American Geophysical Union shows that stopping aerosol injections suddenly could trigger rapid rebound warming worse than the original problem. In short, SAI would amount to a global-scale experiment with unpredictable consequences, addressing symptoms rather than causes and risking climatic side effects no computer model can reliably forecast.

Researchers cited by the Independent concluded that while SAI might reduce global temperatures, it would not reliably protect coffee, cacao, or wine grapes from future climate shifts. What the article doesn’t mention is that such predictions come from models that have repeatedly exaggerated past warming trends. According to Climate at a Glance: Climate Model Fallibility, climate models “run hot,” overstating observed temperature changes by roughly a factor of two. If the models are off in their temperature projections,  any conclusions drawn about future agricultural impacts are equally suspect.

The problem is that the Independent’s reporter, Emily Beament, presents these simulations as if they reflect reality. They do not. Real-world crop data tell a very different story. In the actual world, the three crops supposedly in peril are thriving. Climate Realism has repeatedly demonstrated that global coffee output has been rising for several decades, setting new records and repeatedly debunking sporadic warnings of decline. Higher carbon dioxide concentrations act as plant fertilizer, enhancing photosynthesis and improving drought resistance—factors that have helped coffee plantations, not harmed them.

The same pattern holds for chocolate. West Africa, which provides about 70 percent of the world’s cacao, continues to produce robust harvests. Climate Realism has pointed out in Chocolate Shortages? Not in the Real World that production trends remain strong, and farmers are adapting successfully through irrigation improvements and hardier hybrid plants. There is no evidence of a climate-driven collapse, only the ongoing evolution of agricultural practice that has always defined farming.

Even wine grapes, the article’s third “endangered” crop, have prospered. A warmer world has actually expanded vineyard regions, especially in northern Europe. Climate Realism reported in Warmer Weather Is Expanding, Not Shrinking, Wine Regions that England now produces high-quality sparkling wines in areas once considered too cold for grape cultivation. Meanwhile, global grape yields continue rising, with improved quality linked to longer growing seasons and CO₂ enrichment.

Hard numbers confirm these assertions. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reports that since 2000:

• global coffee yields have increased by approximately 30 percent;
• cacao yields grew by nearly 10 percent;
• and grape yields continue to hit or approach record levels, rising by more than 25 percent.

These are not the statistics of crops “under threat.” They are indicators of a more productive, resilient agricultural sector benefiting from modest warming and the fertilizing effects of carbon dioxide. (see the figure, below)

The Independent’s article also fails to distinguish between natural climate variability and long-term trends, instead lumping all weather fluctuations, what they call “worsening weather extremes of climate change,” as another factor affecting crop yields. The facts say otherwise, showing severe weather is not increasing globally. Real-world data show no significant increase in extreme weather over the past 100 years. Nor does the Independent address the extensive body of satellite data from NASA showing that the planet has become significantly greener over the past four decades, a trend confirmed by multiple studies on CO₂ fertilization and vegetation growth. As a result, cropland productivity is up, not down, across much of the globe.

In the end, the Independent’s warning that your morning coffee, your chocolate bar, and your evening glass of wine are in jeopardy is falsified by actual data. The Independent’s hyperbolic, alarming claims about coffee, cocoa, and grapes are based on the outputs of notably flawed computer models, and quotes from a single researcher.

By omitting any reference to actual crop performance, the piece reads less like reporting and more like a climate advocacy handout. A sincere journalistic effort would have compared model predictions with field results, consulted agricultural experts, and reviewed FAO data before repeating unverified, patently false claims of climate-driven decline. The failure to do so is indicative of the seriously flawed and ideologically compromised way that the mainstream media covers climate change.