False, Forbes, Climate Change Is Not Threatening Food Security

Forbes’ recent article, “Climate Change Threatens Food Security—Can Data Be the Real Hero?” pushes a familiar but misleading claim: that climate change poses a significant threat to global food production. This narrative is not only false, it implies just the opposite of what is true. Real-world agricultural data, and the sciences which study plant growth and food production, show that the modest warming and rainfall improvements thus far have benefitted plant growth in general and crop yields, more specifically.

Agricultural yields continue to reach record highs, and multiple scientific analyses show no evidence of imminent climate-related threats to farming. In fact, a recent peer-reviewed study published in Scientific Reports found no significant global climate-related risks to food production. Yet, Forbes and other media outlets continue to promote an alarmist view that doesn’t align with observed trends.

The study published in Scientific Reports explicitly contradicts Forbes’ fearmongering. Researchers found that climate variability has not led to a global reduction in agricultural productivity. Instead, technological advancements, better farming methods, and increased atmospheric CO₂ levels (which enhance plant growth) have more than offset any minor regional climate fluctuations. The study states:

“There is no clear trend indicating a decline in global agricultural output due to climate change. Instead, yields have continued to rise, supported by improvements in irrigation, genetics, and farming techniques.”

This aligns with broader research that shows human adaptation continues to far outpace climate-related challenges, both real and theoretical. The notion that climate change is an existential crisis for agriculture simply does not withstand scrutiny.

If climate change were truly devastating agriculture, we would expect to see declining yields and widespread crop failures. Instead, the opposite is happening. Global production of staple crops—corn, wheat, rice, and soybeans—has been consistently increasing. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) both report record-setting agricultural production year after year.

For example:

  • Global wheat production is at an all-time high, despite claims that climate change is making farming more difficult.
  • Corn and soybean yields have continued their upward trend, benefiting from improved technology, CO₂ fertilization, and better farming practices.
  • Even in regions often cited as “at risk,” such as Africa and South Asia, crop production has been increasing steadily.

Forbes’ claim that food security is under threat is debunked by the reality of the greening Earth and record crop yields. The truth is that food abundance has grown dramatically over the last century, and there is no data suggesting a reversal of this trend.

Forbes’ article follows a long line of exaggerated claims about climate change and farming, many of which have been debunked. For further evidence, consider these reports from Climate Realism, which highlight real-world agricultural success despite alarmist claims:

These fact filled rebuttals, informed by government and industry data, completely refute Forbes’ claims about food security being threatened by climate change, suggesting that its speculation about the future is politically motivated. Data clearly show that agricultural productivity is increasing, not declining, and scientific research finds no significant global climate threats to farming. Instead of pushing unfounded fear, we should recognize the continued success of modern agriculture, driven by technology, adaptation, and CO₂ fertilization.

Global warming lengthens growing seasons, reduces frost events, and makes more land suitable for crop production. Also, carbon dioxide is an aerial fertilizer for plant life. In addition, crops also use water more efficiently under conditions of higher carbon dioxide, losing less water to transpiration.

The benefits of more atmospheric carbon dioxide and a modestly warming world have resulted in 17 percent more food being available per person today than there was 30 years ago, even as the number of people has grown by billions. Indeed, the last 20 years have seen the largest decline in hunger, malnutrition, and starvation in human history. These facts should have informed Forbes’ analysis of the impact of climate change on food security – instead the media outlet ignored declining hunger and malnutrition to flog the catastrophic climate change narrative.

The real threat to food security isn’t climate change, rather it is flawed reporting being used to encourage and provide cover for bad policies. Restrictive environmental regulations, misguided carbon reduction schemes, and anti-modern-agriculture policies pose a far greater danger to global food production than natural climate variability ever has.

Forbes, as usual, has chosen narrative over nuance. The data tell a much different story—one of resilience, progress, and record-breaking harvests. Readers deserve facts, not fear.

Anthony Watts

Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.

Originally posted at ClimateREALISM


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/QhBv9YE

February 28, 2025 at 08:05AM

We need to get smart about climate

We need to get smart about climate
David

Climate hyperbole abounds. We are being misled about the looming "climate apocalypse," and we’re also misled that a coming green transition will make energy cheaper, societies safer and everyone richer.

We need better information on how to tackle climate change smartly, while ensuring that we have resources to respond to all the other challenges and to invest in growth and development.

Category

Articles
Climate change
English

Published by Financial Post

https://financialpost.com/opinion/bjorn-lomborg-we-need-to-get-smart-about-clim…
Financial Post

via Lomborg

https://ift.tt/mt2rYhg

February 28, 2025 at 06:52AM

The Seventh Carbon Budget

By Paul Homewood

 

image

https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/the-seventh-carbon-budget/#publication-downloads

.

The Seventh Carbon Budget, covering the period 2038 to 2042, has been well covered by the media, so you are probably aware of the major recommendations. By 2040 we must:

  • Cut GHG emissions by 75% from current levels
  • Have three quarters of cars on the road  electric
  • Drive less
  • Make half of homes have a heat pump, meaning effectively a total ban on gas boilers by 2035
  • Reduce consumption of meat and dairy by a quarter.
  • Put Potential limits on flying
  • .

    image

    .

    And we are all supposed to do this while the rest of the world does nothing!

    .

    image

    .

    But the issue of costs has barely rated a mention in the pro-Net Zero media.

    The BBC, for instance, merely repeats Emma Pinchbeck’s lies:

    The costs of tackling climate change have become highly politicised in recent years.

    The CCC estimates most of the expense will be borne by the private sector and calculates the savings from moving to more efficient technologies should outweigh costs by the early 2040s.

    "We are crystal clear in this analysis, in this carbon budget, for the first time we start to see the economy making savings from this investment, and they make savings over and above what we would do if we stay dependent on fossil fuels," Ms Pinchbeck told BBC News.

    This should improve energy security and filter down to lower bills in the long term, the CCC argues, provided the government acts to make electricity cheaper.

    It advises removing policy costs – funding for social and environmental schemes – from electricity bills. That would cut them by about 19% based on expected 2025 prices, the CCC says, making it more cost-effective for people to switch to electric vehicles or heat pumps.

    These costs could instead sit on gas bills or general taxation.

    "Regardless of what you think about climate change, what we are laying out today is a massive industrial revolution," said Ms Pinchbeck.

    "It will save the economy money by 2040, it saves people money on their energy bills, it saves people money on their driving costs, but all of that is underpinned by a cheaper electricity price."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70ekknr2rwo

    .

    According to the CCC, additional CAPEX and OPEX will amount to £319 billion by 2040. But after 2040, renewable costs will miraculously fall away, making us all better off to the tune of a couple of hundred billions.

    Never mind the fact that half of us will be dead by then!

    image

    .

    However all of the costings are based on two highly unrealistic assumptions:

    Falling cost of renewable energy

    The CCC have made assumptions about the cost of wind and solar power, which are not only unrealistic but are contradicted by current prices.

    For offshore wind, for instance, their costings are based on a price of £51.12/MWh for this year, dropping to £37.60/MWh in 2030. (All based on 2023 prices). Yet the latest strike price already stands at £82/MWh, and there is every indication this will rise again this year.

    Similarly with solar, which they assume is currently £46.00, and will drop to £34.42 by 2030. However AR6 prices stand at £69.

    image

    Based on current strike prices, CCC have understated their costs by approximately £16bn a year, using generation profiles for 2040. Over the full period to 2050, we are looking at something like £400 billion.

    The comparison with the CCC’s fake costings with NESO’s figures is striking. In their Clean Power 2030 plan, NESO said we would need to spend £48 billion a year up to 2030 on electricity supply CAPEX. The CCC’s figure is just £18 billion for a similar increase in capacity.

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/image-38.png

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2025/02/14/clean-power-2030-plan-will-cost-242-billion/

    .

    EV Parity

    The second big lie concerns the cost of buying EVs, which the CCC say will reach price parity with petrol cars between 2026 and 2028, and quickly become 10% cheaper:

    image

    We have heard the same nonsense for years, yet EVs still remain a good £10k dearer, and there has been no evidence of this gap shrinking in recent years.

    Between now and 2040, the CCC calculate that car owners will be £6 billion better off because of “cheaper EVs”. In reality, at current price levels they will be £20 billion a year worse off.

    Nobody knows what will happen after 2040, and for the CCC to claim they do shows this report is a sham. It is fair enough for them to build in risks and opportunities in their assessment – drivers “may” be better off if EV prices fall. But it is dishonest for them to publish a report where the central case is based on such flimsy, extremely unlikely and optimistic savings.

    The EV and renewable energy scams together probably mean that they have understated the true cost of Net Zero by £700 billion. It does not give much confidence that their other costings will stand up to scrutiny.

    It is abundantly clear that this Carbon Budget report was specifically written to deflect mounting criticism of Net Zero and the catastrophic effect it will have on the economy and people’s standard of living. And it has clearly been written to give Ed Miliband cover for his policies, indicating that the CCC are not “independent" at all.

    It is much like a glossy brochure from a timeshare company, which fails to tell you the real cost of signing up, the fact that the advertised villas have not even been built yet and that you will probably discover it is double booked when you want it!

    Tomorrow I’ll go into more detail on the technical stuff.

    via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

    https://ift.tt/ehNEOB7

    February 28, 2025 at 05:57AM

    UK aid budget cuts threaten climate finance pledges, say alarmists


    It’s the usual hype such as ‘people will die’, attacks on supposed fossil fuel subsidies and so on. Despite the cuts the notion of ‘tackling climate change’ is still in government heads.
    – – –
    The UK said it will cut its overseas aid budget in a new blow to vulnerable nations, says Climate Home News.

    The move will make it more difficult for the government to deliver on a promise to increase climate finance to developing countries, analysts have warned.

    On Tuesday, Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced plans to slash the UK aid budget from 0.5% to 0.3% of national income in order to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027.

    The UK’s climate finance commitment comes from its aid budget, which was already reduced from 0.7% to 0.5% of national income a year before the country hosted the COP26 climate talks in 2021.
    . . .
    The decision came as a shock to the international development community, which is still reeling from Trump’s decision to freeze USAID spending and from a string of cuts to overseas development aid by European governments. Germany, Sweden, France, Belgium and the Netherlands have all announced significant cuts to their aid budgets recently.

    “Catastrophic blow”
    International charities and aid organisations have responded in dismay, slamming the move as “a betrayal”, “short-sighted” and “a truly catastrophic blow” that will cause more people to die and lose their livelihoods in the world’s most vulnerable nations.
    . . .
    Prime Minister Starmer told UK members of parliament the decision had required some “extremely difficult and painful choices” and that this was not one “that I wanted to take or that I am happy to take”.

    “We will do everything we can to return to a world where that is not the case and to rebuild a capability on development,” he said, insisting the UK will “continue to play a key humanitarian role” in Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza, as well as tackling climate change.

    Full article here.

    via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

    https://ift.tt/I8KiQ4C

    February 28, 2025 at 05:56AM