[go: up one dir, main page]

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Fact-checking a Trump administration claim about climate change and crops

Posted on 15 October 2025 by dana1981

This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections

A draft report commissioned by the Trump administration’s Department of Energy, or DOE, misleadingly claims that increasing levels of carbon dioxide could be beneficial for agriculture. In fact, mainstream climate experts have found that rising CO2 levels, by causing climate change, are harmful to agriculture overall – and likely to cause food prices to increase.

The Trump administration’s claim arose from a draft “critical review” report commissioned by DOE and written by fringe experts. The DOE subsequently disbanded that group when faced with a lawsuit alleging that it violated a law requiring that such federal advisory committees must be transparent and unbiased.

The Environmental Protection Agency cited the DOE report in a proposal to reverse its Obama-era determination that carbon pollution poses a threat to public health and welfare. The agency argued that higher carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will increase the amount of food that farmers produce, implying that carbon pollution is a good thing.

“Recent data and analysis show that even marginal increases in CO2 concentrations have substantial beneficial impacts on plant growth and agricultural productivity, and that this benefit has been significantly greater than previously believed,” the agency wrote.

Mainstream climate experts say that’s incorrect.

In response to the DOE report, a group of 85 climate experts and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine each published comprehensive reviews of the scientific literature and arrived at the opposite conclusion. These expert reports found that rather than boosting agricultural productivity, the body of scientific evidence indicates that increased extreme weather resulting from climate change will instead reduce crop yields, making food more expensive. 

Weather disasters are very, very bad for crops

The notion that crops will benefit from climate pollution is based on the fact that plants absorb carbon dioxide during photosynthesis. Scientists have known for decades that in a controlled environment like a glass greenhouse, higher CO2 levels in the air will cause plants to grow bigger.

But Earth’s atmosphere isn’t a controlled environment. Increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere trap extra heat like a blanket, causing more frequent extreme weather like heat waves, droughts, and floods. These events stress plants and hamper their growth and productivity.

Innovations in agricultural practices like the use of fertilizers, pesticides, new seed varieties, and irrigation have boosted crop yields over the past century. But increasingly extreme weather could slow those gains.

To study these complex variables, scientists have conducted what are known as free-air CO2 enrichment, or FACE, experiments. These studies use pipes or vents to release carbon dioxide into large open plots of crops.

A 2020 analysis of 30 years of FACE experiments found that higher carbon dioxide concentrations increased crop yields as expected when “under non-stress conditions.” But when stressed by factors like changing temperatures or precipitation, as climate experts said recently, “the yield increases were suppressed and in some cases erased.”

Climate damages overwhelm farmers’ efforts to adapt

Farmers may be able to adapt to some climate impacts, for example, by adjusting plant varieties, fertilizers, and crop cultivation windows. But those changes won’t be sufficient to fully overcome damage from climate change, according to a study published in June 2025.

The study’s authors estimated that each additional 1°C of global warming in 2100 will reduce crop yields by the equivalent of 4.4% of each person on Earth’s recommended daily calorie intake. Most staple crops, including wheat, corn, and soybeans, will see significant yield declines.

And farmers are already experiencing the impacts of climate change. Another 2025 study found that thanks to more efficient farming practices, the amount of global land devoted to agriculture could have decreased 2% over the past 30 years – while growing the same amount of food. Instead, global croplands expanded by nearly 4% during that time because climate change slowed the growth in agricultural productivity.

The paper estimated that those climate impacts caused over 200 million acres of land to be converted to cropland – twice the area of California. And converting existing ecosystems like forests to agricultural land reduced the amount of carbon absorbed by plant life on Earth. The study estimated that this land conversion added 22 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. That’s the equivalent of about six months of humanity’s carbon dioxide emissions.

It’s a vicious cycle – climate change reduces agricultural yields, which forces farmers to convert more forests to cropland, which adds more carbon to the atmosphere and worsens climate change.

Climate change could make food more expensive

As the law of supply and demand tells us, if crop yields are suppressed while people still need to eat the same amount of food, prices will rise. A 2024 study estimated that “annual food inflation of 1-3 percentage points per year could result from temperatures projected for 2035.”

Another problem is that climate change is worsening many different types of extreme weather, which can sometimes strike the same place at the same time. Scientists call these events compound extremes.

A 2022 study looked at the impacts of these compound extremes on crop yields. The authors concluded, “Since around 2000, these compound extremes, and hot droughts in particular, have been linked to especially poor harvests (up to 30% yield losses) in regions such as India, Ethiopia, the USA, Europe and Russia.” For example, a combined heat wave and drought in the Midwest U.S. in 2012 was estimated to reduce corn yields by 20% that season.

And a 2021 paper found that over the prior three decades, temperature-related crop losses resulted in $27 billion in crop insurance claims due to reduced yields in part as a result of these kinds of severely suppressed crop yield seasons.

The verdict: carbon damages overwhelm benefits for crops

As this body of scientific research illustrates, although plants directly benefit from higher carbon dioxide levels, the damages from extreme weather are already becoming bigger than those benefits.

Farmers have so far been able to overcome those climate damages by devoting more land to agriculture and implementing innovative practices. But there are limits to land and water availability, and detrimental effects on the environment and health from applying too many pesticides and fertilizers.

Meanwhile, climate damages will only worsen as long as temperatures continue to rise. As the report written by 85 climate scientists concluded, “in the major agricultural growing regions of the U.S. (and in most parts of the world), CO2-induced climate change will lead to yield declines.” That will lead to higher food prices until humanity stops the rise in global temperatures by reaching net-zero carbon pollution.

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Comments 1 to 5:

  1. I must give a well done to this blog site to calling out the outright lies this current Trump administration is broadcasting-and certainly not only climate "facts". When I wondered why this admin is so anti-science and anti-change, these facts helped me. Where do the richest billionaires live? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionaires

    And which countries are the biggest GHG pollutors? worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/greenhouse-gas-emissions-by-country 

    And guess what- four of the top five worlds biggest emitters are home to the most billionaires worldwide. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_billionaires 

     I think the heat being added by the equivalent to 40 Hiroshimas atomic bombs every 10 seconds is beyond tragic.4hiroshimas.info/

    You know a million seconds is over 11days-a billion is over 35years!.

    1 0
  2. Greed seems to be a common explanation for anti-science these days. But there's more, for sure. Here's another useful Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Link activated.

    The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box.

  3. Good news for the world is bad news for the worst polluting of the shipping companies, that also means anything the climate change denying and corrupt Trump administration gets upset about means it is good for humanity.

    So this is about the International Maritime Organization which operates under the United Nations umbrella as part of its net zero framework to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from shipping. It has spent the last two years negotiating a legally binding framework to levy charges on vessels that underperform on efficiency.

    Here Mallen Baker,an English commentator on corporate social responsibility and a former politician explains the situation www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvBCnCh28UU

    0 0
  4. Prove @ 3 :

    Yes, Mallen Baker is a pundit making many comments on American and international matters ~ with a heavy emphasis on the American, owing to the fire-storm [the most polite word I could find] of American politics of recent years.  To be clear, Mallen Baker is very much worth hearing, for his calm "outsider" views & analysis.

    For "at home" commentary & analysis, I would also recommend another youtuber calling herself "Belle of the ranch".  She presents herself as Farmer's Wife and ex-military nurse, and gives a 3 or 4 minute video several times per day.  She seems intelligent, with a good network of expert connections, and her commentary is laced with dry humorous witticisms.  Good value !

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Edited reference to Prove's post, to point to #3, #4 was a duplicate.

  5. Thanks Eclectic for letting others know of one of my trusted youtubers too. The corrupt and cruel Trump administration has now, besides lying and gaslighting talking points-attempting to contol all the press. www.youtube.com/shorts/zI8GEamXE7g

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Please try to keep the tone civil.

     

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2025 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us