From ClimateREALISM

By H. Sterling Burnett

A recent CNN story claims that climate change has caused recent disruptions in food production across the Caribbean and South America. This is false. Although in Latin America as elsewhere farm production varies from year to year and weather in 2023 did bring hardship to some farmers in some countries, since 1990 overall crop production in the region has regularly set records. Despite being a period during which the Earth warmed modestly, improving supplies of major crops resulted in a decline in hunger. With no sustained decrease in production and no long-term trend, it is simply false to claim climate change is harming food production in Latin America.

The CNN story, “Climate change is disrupting food systems across Latin America, UN report says,” cites a recent U.N. report, “Latin America and the Caribbean Regional Overview of Food Security and Nutrition 2024,” to claim:

Violent weather exacerbated by climate change fueled hunger and food insecurity across Latin America and the Caribbean in 2023, according to a new United Nations report.

Extreme weather drove up crop prices in multiple countries in the region in 2023, the report, which was written by several UN agencies including the World Food Program (WFP), says.

To begin, extreme weather affecting crop prices in 2023, or in any other year, is not unusual, ask any farmer. Extreme weather is not unusual across Latin America or elsewhere. Every year, extreme weather strikes somewhere at some time. When it does, it can hamper planting, tending, harvesting, and/or transporting crops, complicating getting crops from field to market. As my colleague award winning meteorologist Anthony Watts and I have discussed at Climate Realism many times previously, here, here, and here, for example, the World Meteorological Organization is clear that weather is not climate. Only long-term weather trends can signify a change in climate, and there has been no sustained, multi-decade or even multi-year trend of more frequent or more severe weather events across the Caribbean or South American.

While there is no evidence climate change impacted Latin American agriculture in 2023, El Niño, a natural large scale oceanic shift, almost certainly did drive multiple severe weather events across the region. El Niño results in shifting weather patterns, like excessive rainfall in some areas, causing flooding, and less rainfall in others, causing drought. It can also impact the formation of hurricanes, their strength, and where they are likely to strike, and contribute to conditions favorable or disfavorable to wildfires. There is no evidence at all that climate change is affecting El Niño/La Niña oceanic shifts.

The strongest evidence rebutting claims that climate change is “disrupting food systems across Latin America,” as CNN asserts, comes directly from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which assembles data on food production. FAO data show that between 1990 and 2025, the most important crops grown in the Caribbean, and in Central and South America, cereal crops (maize, rice, wheat, oats, barley, rye, etc.) and tubers and roots (potatoes, sweet potatoes, yams, manioc (cassava), carrots, beats, etc.) have all set records for production repeatedly over the period.

• Cereal grain production grew approximately 44 percent across Central America, 18 percent in the Caribbean, and 275 percent across South America;
• Tuber and root production expanded by about 91 percent in Central America, 52 percent across the Caribbean, and by 6 percent in South America. (See the figure below)

Facts are facts and while CNN and the U.N. may try to spin a single year’s food disruption for some farmers in some countries into evidence of a regionwide climate crisis, the data tells a different story. Amid ongoing modest warming, while some farmers, in some countries, in some years, have down years, and transportation may be made difficult due to storms, overall in Latin America food production is increasing. Farmers and agricultural areas across the region are doing well. There is no evidence, none whatsoever, that climate change is disrupting the food supply or causing hunger or malnutrition in Latin America.

H. Sterling Burnett

H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is the Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy and the managing editor of Environment & Climate News. In addition to directing The Heartland Institute’s Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy, Burnett puts Environment & Climate News together, is the editor of Heartland’s Climate Change Weekly email, and the host of the Environment & Climate News Podcast.

This week came the news that permission for the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields was unlawful, owing to a failure to take into account the effect of downstream emissions, i.e. the combustion of the extracted products.

It may seem curious that this matters; everyone knew at the outset what the purpose of the permission was, and that a large chunk of what came up from the deeps would ultimately go up in smoke. But some people saw the chance to put a stop to these new fields after the case of Horse Hill went to the Supreme Court, where it was decided that downstream emissions must be taken account of when deciding permission.

In my view, this position is nonsensical. At the moment, our civilisation depends on the products that Rosebank and Jackdaw would have provided. It provides the grinning idiots who successfully brought the new case with the means to do so. Without oil, civilisation collapses, and successes at the Supreme Court count for naught. Rather than engaging in learned debate, by that point, we’re fighting over the last bag of Bonios – and they ain’t for our pooches. Thus it seems particularly self-defeating to attempt to block new oil fields. As a wealthy country, we are partly insulated against such stupidity thanks to our ability to buy oil from other countries. For anyone to think that blocking Rosebank and Jackdaw is good for our country is Baldrick-level stupidity. It is like the child who thinks he becomes invisible when he closes his eyes. We will import the needed oil from further away, and who knows, maybe part of it will come from dictatorships, and perhaps the environmental protections where it is ultimately drawn from will be weaker. Then, it has to be transported here. You cannot ban this substance until you no longer need it.

Rather than argue the toss about whether downstream emissions ought to have been considered by the planning authority, the court could simply have asked what effect those downstream emissions might have – to see whether they were even worth considering. Both sides could have produced a stubby pencil and calculated the influence of these new fields on the Earth’s climate. Then, if there was a gap between them, they could have argued the toss about that, until their estimates drew closer.

But they didn’t.

So, in the spirit of trying to find out the facts, I offer this calculation to estimate the effect on climate of the Rosebank field. It cost me only time, a cup of coffee, and a few electrons. I wonder how much the green lawfare has cost so far?

Gathering numbers

In Into the Unknown, I laid out some basic facts about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The interested reader can find there: the mass of the atmosphere; the mass of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; the mass of carbon dioxide representing 1 ppm in concentration; and the basic equation to calculate the temperature change caused by a change in CO₂ concentration, given what I considered to be generous (to the cause of alarm) parameters. There, I noted that Wiki states that 57% of emissions of CO₂ are absorbed by the biosphere; I called it 50%, again to favour the cause of alarm.

What about Rosebank and oil? According to the BBC, Rosebank holds 300-500 million barrels of oil. Let’s say 500 mil are extracted, to favour the cause of alarm. The internet says that a barrel of oil has a mass of 136 kg. Radovic gives the mass proportion of oil that is carbon as ~85%.

With these numbers, we are ready to make our calculation.

The Calculation

Combustion of all of the higher estimate of Rosebank’s oil would lead to an atmospheric temperature rise of ~ 1/10,000 of a kelvin. The calculation is made with parameters favouring the cause of alarm. It does not account for the fact that not all oil is burnt. Some is sent to the petrochemical industry, or used as lubricants, or ends up being spread on roads, etc. However, since 0.000092 K is not a significant temperature increase, indeed it will not be measurable, there is no case to prevent Rosebank from being permitted.

The folks that oppose this prefer other metrics to temperature change when they are critical of projects. Millions of tonnes of CO₂ sounds far more frightening that a ten-thousandth of a degree. On another thread, Jaime gives the number of 10.5 million tonnes of CO₂ as the downstream emissions of Horse Hill, which was enough to stifle that project. What temperature rise might that be? Well, I’ll tell you. Using similar reasoning to that given above, it’s 1/200,000 of a degree kelvin – again, given alarm-favouring parameters.

And this is why the metric of tonnes of CO₂ is the preferred one: translated into temperature change, the numbers are trivial. They are theoretical – far too small to be detected.

It’s time these jokers stopped posing triumphantly on the steps of the Courts, chests puffed out like Washington crossing the Delaware. They need to recognise that their lives, and the lives of those they love, rely on the very thing they just gave a kicking.