A recent The Washington Post (The Post) article claims that African farmers, particularly those in Ethiopia, are struggling with crop failures caused by climate change. This is false. While crop failures do occur and have harder impacts on communities that are already poor, there is no data showing that drought or tropical cyclones are happening more frequently or becoming more severe, or that crops production is declining as a result. Worse, the evidence suggests that international organizations climate change efforts undermine the use of technologies proven to increase food production, harming African agricultural progress as a result.
The article, “Farmers race to innovate as climate change threatens African food supply,” begins with a focus on Ethiopia and claims that the Earth’s rising average temperature means “large chunks of Africa are whipsawing between increasingly severe droughts and more frequent and intense cyclones, threatening staple foods for hundreds of millions of people.”
The Post cites claims by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that “each increase of 1 degree Celsius correlates to a three-percentage-point reduction in agricultural output in developing countries,” and predicts that “crop yields in sub-Saharan Africa will decline by 5 to 17 percent by 2050, despite a rapidly growing population.”
Much of the article focuses on organizations that are promoting chicken raising in Ethiopia as a low-emissions, low water-use livestock option, and claims that cereal crops like wheat, rice, and corn (maize) are particularly susceptible to extreme weather.
All of the above claims are false.
As Climate Realism has pointed out in many articles, including here, here, and here, African drought and flooding cycles are natural, and no signal from climate change can be detected in regional or continent-wide staple crop production.
Data clearly show that the IMF’s claims about warming causing a decline in African crop production is patently and obviously false. Crop production in Africa in general, and Ethiopia in particular increased dramatically over recent decades, even as the planet has experienced a warming of more than 1℃. To reiterate the point, as warming has occurred, crop production and yields have increased, not decreased. Also, real world data and peer reviewed agronomy research provides no reason for believing these trends will change in the future, absent political interference in to use of fossil fuels to plant, fertilize, harvest, and deliver crops. Those are the facts, IMF and Washington Post.
Looking at crop production data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, it is clear that the cereal crops (including rice, wheat, maize, and others) that are claimed to be particularly susceptible to the impacts of climate change have seen improvements. (See figure below)
In the past three decades of warming:
- Ethiopian cereal production increased 467 percent;
- Yields increased 112 percent;
- All-time production records were broken 9 times between 2011-2021.

Wheat in particular over the same period saw gains with only recent bad harvest seasons, which should be expected from time to time regardless of climate change. Since 1990, Ethiopian wheat production and yield rose 482 percent and 72 percent, respectively, and broke all-time production records 8 times since 2011, the highest as recent as 2020. (See figure below)

Africa as a whole has benefitted from similar growth in crop production during the recent modest warming. (See figure below)
- Cereal production rose 131 percent;
- Yield rose 48 percent;
- New all-time production records have been 7 times between 2011 to 2021.

What’s true for Ethiopia is true for other countries on the continent as well, and Africa in general, as demonstrated in numerous other Climate Realism posts, like, here, here, here, and here. Clearly, climate change is not causing a decline in African crop production or harming African farmers.
The Post, amazingly, admits that unclear regulations, pricing, and “confusion over what is defined as a ‘climate solution’ have kept most big investors away from climate adaptation in Africa ….”
Outside investment in Africa seems to be more focused on climate change than anything else, if The Post is to be believed, despite the fact that African farmers are already low-emitters. Discouraging Africans from using cheap, plentiful energy from fossil fuels makes it more difficult, if not impossible, to adapt to natural weather extremes. Likewise, suggesting that “sustainable” farming practices, like organic and regenerative agriculture, should make up the bulk of African farming practices going forward will only result in lower yields and increased famine, as it did in Sri Lanka.
The Washington Post and the IMF should do their research and acknowledge these facts instead of fearmongering about African crop production. What’s more, they should not be supporting and encouraging the kinds of farming practices that encourage poverty and famine, and should instead promote economic and agricultural prosperity via the fossil fuel resources that many regions of Africa are rich in.
Linnea Lueken is a Research Fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy. While she was an intern with The Heartland Institute in 2018, she co-authored a Heartland Institute Policy Brief “Debunking Four Persistent Myths About Hydraulic Fracturing.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“”the crop failures caused by climate change.””
So, who annoyed the gods?
“Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.”
Anyone from the WaPo that looked at the chart of increasing crop yields and increasing total production and then sat down to write an article about incipient starvation due to climate change … must be certifiably insane!
Or just could be stupid.
“Against stupidity, the gods struggle in vain”. [IIRC the quote is from Friedrich Schiller]
But also purposefully misleading us to achieve an agenda.
So insanity, stupidity & perfidy. You pick, and note that these 3 are not mutually exclusive.
They forgot to sacrifice some virgins.
Finding them is the bigger issue
War is peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is strength.
A much more appropriate motto for the WaPo than Truth dying in darkness.
story tip
https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/religious-leaders-join-un-wef-to-push-the-global-climate-agenda-5539778?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge&src_src=partner&src_cmp=ZeroHedge
Religious Leaders Join UN, WEF to Push the Global Climate AgendaGlobal organizations have recognized the power of religion in pushing their agenda, but some religious leaders warn that it strays too far from the church.
My take : with so many “religions” onboard, this is
http://www.arcworld.org/ originally from King Charles’ III dad, then https://incrworld.org/, now https://iefworld.org/links.htm
an update to K. Marx: “The climate religion is the opiate of a self serving ruling elite”
We know climate change causes droughts, floods, extremely hot weather, extremely cold weather, stronger cyclones, weaker cyclones, etc., etc.
We know climate change is real; we know there are crop failures in Africa. We know climate change is the cause. We don’t have to show it. We don’t have to show you no stinkin’ evidence. We know. It is known.
The problem with the dislike button, is you can’t undo it. Until I got
to the “…no stinkin’ evidence…” part I was ready to click on (-).
You can push on the “+” button to undo a “-“
And push it twice to change a – to a +.
it’s revealed religion- the climate prophets have told us so
It’s good when Washington Post climate change lies are exposed.
This article does a good job of that (Ethiopian cereal production increased 467 percent).
The Washington Post writers should be ashamed of themselves for lying to their readers.
“ashamed of themselves”? The Washington comPost et al are part of the Left Wing Communist movement and for them the end justifies the means….just do whatever is necessary to win is what they do…..underestimate these commies at your own peril.
In a June 2023 Pew Research poll, they found that 69 percent of Americans favored the steps to become carbon neutral by 2050.
Two-thirds of the Republicans under 30 supported finding alternate Energy sources while 42 percent of Republicans overall supported finding alternate energy sources.
Ninety percent of Democrats favored finding alternate energy sources.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/09/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change/
if the question was “do you favor stops to become carbon neutral by 2050 including purchasing an EV, a heat pump, much higher electricity costs, the landscape covered with solar and wind farms, and becoming a vegan”- the responses might be different, which ought to be obvious to anyone but Mr. scvblwxq
Yeah, it all depends on which questions are asked.
You can make a poll say just about anything you want it to say depending on what questions are asked and how they are worded.
Why are you spamming threads with the same copy clip comment?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/12/08/house-republicans-demand-answers-from-key-energy-dept-official-subsidizing-green-companies-following-dcnf-report/#comment-3827396
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/12/07/predictably-the-rush-to-electric-cars-is-imploding/#comment-3827147
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/12/07/predictably-the-rush-to-electric-cars-is-imploding/#comment-3827129
I’ll give you the same answer:
Which probably means “we’ve skewed the data to give the answer we want people to see”
I don’t really have any expectations that the Washington Post writers will feel any guilt, but they should be ashamed of themselves if they were in their right mind.
Bew Republican Pres calls on washcompost reporter in a press briefing. Tell him to answer a question about whatever the most recent lie they are presenting in their paper. Requires the answer before the wapo can ask any more questions at ANY us government press forum.
Do the same for every MSM outlet.
Finally, hold the briefing in eastern WV and require the person answering to the law to be sworn in by a subcommittee of congress so that they will be under oath and libel for prosecution for perjury if they lie.
The end game is the MSM will no longer go to briefings and only report what they al ready report, Dem talking points.
They will of course sue for first amendment protections, but since the Pres will treat all “reporters” the same, there will be no forced requirement to answer their questions, and they will be allowed IN the briefings but just not allowed to ask questions, with removal for speaking while not called upon as standard practice.
Finally, dissolution of the WH Correspondents Association, a typical leftist organization, with assignment of seats done by the President’s people.
Make sure 50%+ of the reporters in the room are conservative, where currently 80%+ are liberal.
Joke Biden’s polls are in the 30 percent approval range….he will be impeached….the demrats in the Senate will not vote to remove him becuz he’s one of them and they have no principles or morals – just win baby! In the meantime Joke has done his own version of Pearl Harbor on the country.
Joe has done a lot more damage to the United States than the attack on Pearl Harbor did.
And he’s not done yet.
“Crop production in Africa in general, and Ethiopia in particular increased dramatically over recent decades, even as the planet has experienced a warming of more than 1℃. ”
Why are we toeing the line on avoiding mention of the CO2 fertilization contribution to crop yields? And the reduced water requirements courtesy of higher atmospheric CO2? For that matter actual temperature rise in Africa with a global increase is negligible given climateers’ own idea that most of any global warming occurs in Polar nighttime in the winter! The lack of consistency of the ill-born crisis climate theory should be hammered mercilessly.
We sceptics must guard against the ho-hum dulling of our attack that naturally sets in with repetitive nature of the work.
<lone voice in the wilderness>
Can we inject a spot or real realism here.
From the graph, they are getting a yield of about 1.5 Tonnes per acre.
IOW: Compared to ‘proper’ wheat growers getting nearly 5 Tonnes, they are flogging a dead horse
Especially considering the amount of ammonium nitrate, water and pesticide they will be throwing at their crops.
At what financial cost, who exactly is benefitting from this? Nobody in City of London or Wall St I imagine.
Go back in time to when Neanderthal Man was ‘discovering’ cereals.
Considering the seed rate he had to use (0.5Tonne per acre) he would have wasting his time if he got a a crop of less than 1 Tonne per acre = completely without extra water, fertiliser, machinery or crop protection apart from his own children scaring birds and animals away.
Berst of all, he wasn’t even growing this mush for himself or his family to eat>
He wanted it as bait for traps he was setting for what really wanted to eat= Large herbivores.
Just like us, they love eating sugar and are readily ‘trained’ just as Pavlovs dogs were.
Ask ANY livestock farmer.
Even better he discovered, if you throw some of the grain onto a fire, it makes a very distinctive aroma and if you wait till the wind is in the right direction, your intended prey will sense that and come running to you – instead of you having to go running after them.
And 99.99% of the time – getting away.
My, how we have fallen that we are now reduced to eating what is effectively and as Neanderthal Man considered, Rat Bait/Poison
Your kindergarten teacher lied, yet again.
While we cultivate it at only fractionally above the yield he was getting.
And my, Ma Nature knew what she was doing in creating what REALLY IS, a truly grotesque poison in the form of Wheat Gluten – we are in the place of Neanderthal’s ‘large herbivores’ and don’t even realise. And esp, don’t want to realise.
</lone voice>
The only things harming crop production in African countries are the socialist assholes destroying their agriculture systems and muslim assholes burning crops to starve human beings who refuse to submit to their pig god allah. Remove these things and African farmers are amazingly productive.
Production has gone up primarily as a result of nitrogen fertilizers, and a smaller secondary effect of CO2 fertilization. Also there is increased demand as fewer people live in food constrained populations. Climate scientists and economists are notably incapable of assessing farmer’s capabilities to react to market conditions of growing what is demanded by consumers (admittedly based on the previous growing season’s demand). A decade or two from now, this demand will level off and will be used by greenmunists to “prove” an agricultural crisis as a result of AGW.
However the greenmunists are indirectly pushing for reduced fertilizer production ostensibly due to its CO2 footprint….the result, if they succeed, will be reduced production of grains. To the greenmunists, the benefit to them will be being able to show declines in crop production with AGW and use it as a tool in their quest for central planning of all human activities, cuz they know it’s gonna be good for humanity and stop the oceans from boiling….
Hopefully our politicians and bureaucrats will see through this, and get over the aphrodisiac of power and funding they have inherited from the climate scaremongers.
Even wikipedia says that 44% of yields are due to the CO2 fertilization effect and they are on the alarmist side! This does not even take into consideration the additional strong drought resistance imparted by higher atmospheric CO2, which in Ethiopia, means crops in a lower CO2 atmosphere would have been more vulnerable to drought in the past.
This is precisely why arid regions are greening! Increased forest cover of ~25% on the planet as well as ‘fattening’ of existing forests (e.g Harvard’s experimental forest) is almost all CO2 fertilization. Adding a degree of heat in Ethiopia wouldn’t help at all, and certainly, no one is sprinkling nitrogen fertilizer on the new natural growth.
I dare you to say that to Jusper, washpoo..
👏👏
“…African farmers, particularly those in Ethiopia, are struggling with crop failures caused by climate change…”
With cheap energy- farmers, like everyone else, will be able to cope better. They could dig better and deeper wells, irrigate, whatever. They won’t have cheaper energy if we force those farmers into using only “green” energy. And, there’s no way they can prove that any crop failures are due to climate change.
That’s nothing but a wild ass estimate. Some parts of sub-Saharan Africa may do better. That region is everything south of the Sahara- a very vast area with numerous ecosystems.
“Much of the article focuses on organizations that are promoting chicken raising in Ethiopia as a low-emissions, low water-use livestock option.”
Oh, I see- the farmers must go back to farming the old fashioned way- like millennia ago. With no energy and little water. Try telling that to American farmers and see how they respond.
If temperatures are rising then, after time, CO2 rises. More plant food and less water required. Happy farmers and consumers.
“(Feed the World) Do they know it’s Christmas?”
1984 – in the middle of the Ethiopian famine.
Very nice report Linnea. I think it is time to stop referring to climate change, we should always speak about global warming.
It is not simply wrong, the story is a mendacious, slanderous, racist lie from the first word through the last.
Got any fact to go with that statement . . .whether you are referring to the WaPo article, or to Linnea’s article that referenced it.
I’m especially interested in why you decided to play the race card, when such was never implied in either?
“Clearly, climate change is not causing a decline in African crop production or harming African farmers.”
— Linnea Lueken, in the above article
Thank you, Linnea, for such a simple declarative sentence . . . one backed up with quantifiable, scientific data.
In more rational times the Washington Post would issue an apology and retraction of their article based on its obviously incorrect statements.
Today, however, I fear this dog-trainer is just content to follow the government/MSM meme that “climate change” (which nobody yet has clearly defined) is an existential threat to everybody, everywhere since, oh, about 1850.