Wrong, Bloomberg, Climate Change Has Boosted Food Production and Lowered Prices, Not the Opposite

From ClimateREALISM

By H. Sterling Burnett

Bloomberg’s news agency recently published a story claiming that climate change has caused rising food prices, a problem that will only get worse in the future. This is false. Data clearly show that world food production has dramatically increased as carbon dioxide (CO2) levels have increased and the Earth has modestly warmed. Growing conditions have improved as has plant health, and flawed climate models’ forecasts aside, there is no meteorological or biological reason for believing such conditions will worsen in the future.

The Bloomberg story, “What Climate Change Costs You at the Checkout,” begins by listing a variety of factors, from the COVID lockdown to the Iran war, that have spiked food prices periodically over the years, complete with a graphic detailing geopolitical events that caused price spikes and the subsequent equally sharp declines once the various crises were over. So far, so good. Then the story goes off the rails.

“[A] less obvious force is also ratcheting up prices, but its effects risk lasting longer and being harder to predict,” claims Bloomberg. “Climate change is turning one-off weather shocks into more regular events that can decimate harvests and strain supply chains.

“As their effects compound, extreme heat and droughts threaten to make climate inflation an economic fixture,” the Bloomberg story continues. “Economists predict that the higher temperatures climb, the more bloated household costs like groceries may become.”

Those paragraphs are replete with false claims about both worsening weather and worsening crop production.

First, data debunk claims that climate change is making heatwaves and extreme weather more frequent or extreme. As detailed in dozens of stories at Climate Realism, neither droughts, nor floods, nor the number and temperatures of extremely hot days have increased or become more severe. In fact, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports it has “low confidence” climate change has had a measurable impact on flooding, in the process admitting that climate change is as likely to have reduced flooding as it is to have made flooding events more common. The IPCC has also been unable to identify any clear global trend in worsening drought, much less any trend in worsening drought that can be scientifically attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions.

Second, if supposed human caused climate change isn’t making the weather conditions which affect farming worse, how is it boosting crop prices, as the title of the story says it is? It isn’t!

No claim has been refuted more at Climate Realism, than that climate change is harming crop yields and/or production. Climate Realism has responded to more than 260 media reports bemoaning climate induced harms to agriculture, refuting each and every story with hard data, mostly from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, showing that the media’s claims to the contrary, crop production and yields have continued to regularly set records during the modern period of modest warming, largely due to the beneficial affects of increased CO2 on plant productivity and health, and improved growing conditions.

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. These factors have resulted in the largest decline in hunger, malnutrition, and starvation in human history.

Whether one examines the production and yield of staple cereal grains, fruits and nuts, legumes, or less critical but still widely consumed crops like coffee and cocoa, the story is the same around the globe: increased yields and production

Previous Climate Realism posts show agricultural productivity has increased dramatically, for example, in Africa, herehere, and here; in the Middle East, here and here; in Latin America, herehere, and here; in Asia, herehere, and here, and in North America, herehereherehere, and here.

This increase in food production has occurred even as the number of people and the amount of land devoted to growing crops has declined. Fewer people, farming less land, producing higher yields reflects increasing rather than declining productivity.

Because of the growing food abundance, in part climate change driven, the United Nations reports the number of hungry people has declined by two billion people during the past 30 plus years of global warming, since 1990.

So Bloomberg is wrong about climate change causing food shortages and thus higher prices now but what about its predictions, based on climate model projections, about the future. Bloomberg claims “[e]xtreme heat alone could raise global inflation by 0.3 percentage points to 1.2 percentage points a year starting in 2035, according to one study.”

Even if one could trust climate models to accurately portray future climate conditions, which we can’t since they don’t portray past or present conditions accurately without significant “tuning,” botany and agronomy suggests that what rising CO2 has done for crops up until now, should continue into the foreseeable future. The addition of approximately 140 parts per million of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by humans has helped dramatically reduce hunger, by increasing the photosynthetic productivity and improving the water use of plants. Thousands of field and laboratory experiments confirm this basic truth. The result, research shows there is now 17 percent more food available per person than there was three decades ago. There is no biological basis for believing any reasonably expected future levels of CO2 would reverse crop productivity or trends.

In the end, Bloomberg did what other mainstream media outlets have done previously — cite a single alarming study grounded in unrealistic climate model projections, along with quoting select “experts” predisposed to predict climate change doom, to push the narrative that human caused climate change is dooming food production. Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s time for Bloomberg to join the increasing number of media outlets that are reducing their alarming climate coverage, at least in part, in response to climate facts finally getting out and the public’s increasing skepticism or apathy regarding alarming climate claims, especially those that have been discredited multiple times in the past.

H. Sterling Burnett

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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 8 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
18 Comments
June 26, 2026 6:18 pm

1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
3. More arable land is not a problem.
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
6. There isn’t any Climate Crisis.

Ruhaan Pilani
Reply to  Steve Case
June 26, 2026 10:30 pm

ummmmmmmm, u sure about that?

More rain is a problem when u live in an area that is very low lying. ur going to get flooded.

Reply to  Ruhaan Pilani
June 27, 2026 12:04 am

Build on a floodplain.. only one person to blame.

Reply to  Ruhaan Pilani
June 27, 2026 12:07 am

There is basically zero trend in Global precipitation.

No-trend-in-global-precipitation
1saveenergy
Reply to  Ruhaan Pilani
June 27, 2026 1:08 am

I agree, if you are stupid enough to live on a floodplain (there’s a clue in the name), you are going to get flooded, unless you do as the ancients did, put your habitations on hillocks (natural or artificial) or build on stilts.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  1saveenergy
June 27, 2026 7:02 am

A problem here in the UK is that Local Authorities often build housing on flood plains even if the Environment Agency has advised against. Their advise is is not legally mandatory and the LA is generally more interested in the increased Council Tax it can raise from the new developments. It has been a long standing problem and no Government has done anything about it

Reply to  Ruhaan Pilani
June 27, 2026 3:34 am

The Dutch seem to cope very well living in low lying areas.

DD More
Reply to  Redge
June 30, 2026 9:09 pm

Yes, to low level areas flooding.
No, to letting farmers farm and plant crops or work their fields with CO2 producing equipment.

rtj1211
Reply to  Steve Case
June 27, 2026 1:38 am

This must be tempered with the term ‘in the round’. Overall, over the entire globe, more rain is not a problem. But it may be if already wet areas get even more rain causing soil to become saturated and starved of oxygen. It certainly wouldn’t be a problem in equatorial regions which enjoy daily rainfall and daily drying out periods of hot sunshine. It would be a positive benefit to anywhere that currently has less than 1200mm a year of rainfall.

Warmer weather certainly won’t be a problem for 50-60N, but it might be a problem for 30-40N. What you may see happen is Canada and Russia becoming more important food producers, whereas Iberia and the Middle East may become more challenging places to grow food, in the absence of creating shade layers of trees to moderate the intensity of daytime sunshine.

You may also see shifts in production centres for different crops: potatoes may shift further north in the Northern hemisphere (potatoes are a cool weather crop that enjoy plenty of rain), to be replaced with winter squash (which thrives in warm summers with a few heavy rainstorms). Root crops may predominate over leaf crops if places become drier in summer (carrots, parsnips, beetroot all do well without deluges, whereas brassicas do best with plenty of rain).

Bottom line is that humans must adapt to changing weather patterns and never think that the world is some static place which has predictable weather, decade after decade, century after century.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  rtj1211
June 29, 2026 8:49 am

Humans have been adapting to changing weather patterns for well over 200,000 years.

John Hultquist
June 26, 2026 7:32 pm

I wonder if the crew at Bloomberg ever visit an agricultural region? Note the bolded part below.
Local Alfalfa, Timothy, and Orchard grass growers in Central Washington State are in the middle of harvesting the 1st cut. From opening the field to curing and baling. Full swing. Hay is the 6th in value of WA’s exports, with much used locally.
Fresh Sweet Cherries are 8th in value. The harvest will be lower than last year because of spring frost damage and pollination disruption from a cold snap and wind during an otherwise mild winter and spring.
{My plumb trees were likewise affected.} 

Ddwieland
June 26, 2026 7:56 pm

I note that the absurd claim that a change is causing dastardly things hasn’t yet turned to reality. If there were actual and consistent dramatic warming and increase or decrease in precipitation, you could say that has caused climate change. But the alarmists insist on abusing the language and get the relationship between force and change backwards. It seems fashionable now to pervert language in support of “the cause”, pretending that’s not dishonest.

ResourceGuy
June 26, 2026 8:02 pm

There must be a market for up-is-down journalism alongside doom book promotion.

June 27, 2026 1:34 am

This is a result of climate science predicting hotter temperatures without the detail that the warming is mostly in minimum temperatures and in winter. Because climate science uses mid-range daily temperatures, which cannot distinguish climate, the actual facts presented by the temperature measurements gets lost. Aieeeee! Temperatures are going up! The earth is going to burn!

June 27, 2026 4:16 am

I seriously doubt the “greening” of the earth only occurs on active agricultural land. That means CO2 is causing greening of trees, pastures, lawns, etc. where crops are not grown. The question is: does CO2 discriminate against agricultural crops?

1saveenergy
Reply to  Jim Gorman
June 27, 2026 6:07 am

With the Sun, Rain & CO2, everything in our garden is lush, I’m having to spend more time cutting back & our annual green compost heap is now 3x larger than 8 years ago.

Edward Katz
June 27, 2026 2:08 pm

Bloomberg ‘s report only gives us another example of how the media, desperate for one example or another of of climate-related sensationalism will go to the greatest lengths of exaggerations, distortions and outright inaccuracy to spin tales of environmental and human disasters. The irony of these types of stories is that a variety of UN agencies have refuted their claims even before they were published; yet the UN often likes to play the climate crisis card frequently itself.

Sparta Nova 4
June 29, 2026 8:47 am

Need to once again torpedo the nonsense that climate change can cause anything.

Climate change is the result of changes in weather patterns.
Climate is the (now defines) average of weather over 30 years.
A statistical average has no physical substance and cannot affect reality in any way shape or form.