The Independent’s recent article, “Engineering climate may not be enough to save coffee, chocolate and wine,” warns that even extreme geoengineering might not preserve “luxury crops” in a warming world. It is a false story citing an unrealistic projection based on computer models, not real-world evidence. Agricultural data shows the crops listed as threatened are actually thriving in today’s slightly warmer world.
The study behind the article relied on simulations of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), a highly controversial technique that would spray reflective particles into the upper atmosphere to block sunlight, cooling the Earth. SAI is increasingly promoted as a last-ditch tool to “fix” global warming, but the science and potential side effects make it a profoundly bad idea. The models used to justify SAI’s necessity already exaggerate warming by a wide margin, so any proposed “correction” risks overshooting reality. Studies have warned that SAI could severely disrupt global precipitation patterns, may impact global systems and human health outcomes, undermining food and water security far more than modest warming would. The cooling effects of volcanic eruptions — often cited as SAI’s natural analogue — also illustrate its dangers: after Mount Pinatubo’s 1991 eruption, global temperatures dropped briefly, but so did rainfall, crop yields, and sunlight reaching the surface. Moreover, research from the American Geophysical Union shows that stopping aerosol injections suddenly could trigger rapid rebound warming worse than the original problem. In short, SAI would amount to a global-scale experiment with unpredictable consequences, addressing symptoms rather than causes and risking climatic side effects no computer model can reliably forecast.
Researchers cited by the Independent concluded that while SAI might reduce global temperatures, it would not reliably protect coffee, cacao, or wine grapes from future climate shifts. What the article doesn’t mention is that such predictions come from models that have repeatedly exaggerated past warming trends. According to Science Magazine, climate models “run hot,” overstating observed temperature changes by roughly a factor of two. If the models are off in their temperature projections, then any conclusions drawn about future agricultural impacts are equally suspect.
The problem is that the Independent’s reporter, Emily Beament, presents these simulations as if they reflect reality. They do not. Real-world crop data tell a very different story. In the actual world, the three crops supposedly in peril are thriving. Despite these claims, note that global coffee output has continued to rise for several decades, contradicting long-standing warnings of decline.
Higher carbon dioxide concentrations act as plant fertilizer, enhancing photosynthesis and improving drought resistance—factors that have helped coffee plantations, not harmed them.
The same pattern holds for chocolate. Production trends remain strong, and farmers are adapting successfully through irrigation improvements and hardier hybrid plants. There is no evidence of a climate-driven collapse, only the ongoing evolution of agricultural practice that has always defined farming.
Even wine grapes, the article’s third “endangered” crop, have prospered. A warmer world has actually expanded vineyard regions, especially in northern Europe. Note that England now produces high-quality sparkling wines in areas once considered too cold for grape cultivation. Meanwhile, global grape yields continue rising, with improved quality linked to longer growing seasons and CO₂ enrichment.
Hard numbers confirm these assertions. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reports that since 2000, global coffee yields have risen roughly 20 to 25 percent, cacao yields about 15 percent, and wine grape yields continue to hit or approach record levels in countries like Italy, Spain, and France. These are not the statistics of crops “under threat.” They are indicators of a more productive, resilient agricultural sector benefiting from modest warming and the fertilizing effects of carbon dioxide.
The three FAO generated graphs below for coffee, cocoa, and grapes paint an entirely different picture than the Independent’s view of these crops.
In the case of grapes, while the area harvested decreased, the global production went up, suggesting that growers have become far more efficient, needing less acreage in our moderately warming world.
The Independent’s article also fails to distinguish between natural climate variability and long-term trends, instead lumping all weather fluctuations, what they call “worsening weather extremes of climate change,” as another factor affecting crop yields. The facts say otherwise showing severe weather is not on the increase globally. Real-world data show no significant increase in extreme weather over the past 100 years. Nor does the Independent address the extensive body of satellite data from NASA showing that the planet has become significantly greener over the past four decades, a trend confirmed by multiple studies on CO₂ fertilization and vegetation growth. As a result, cropland productivity is up, not down, across much of the globe. In the end, the Independent’s warning that your morning coffee, your chocolate bar, and your evening glass of wine are in jeopardy is not supported by actual data; it is a claim from speculative computer modeling. The crops themselves tell a different story—one of adaptability, growth, and resilience in a slightly warmer, CO₂-enriched world.
By uncritically quoting a single researcher and omitting any reference to observed crop performance, the piece reads less like reporting and more like a climate advocacy handout. Genuine journalism would have compared model predictions with field results, consulted agricultural experts, and reviewed FAO data before repeating claims of climate-driven decline. The failure to do so illustrates a deeper problem: a reliance on speculative modeling and a disregard for empirical evidence. The real danger here is not to agriculture but to honest inquiry. When journalists accept model outputs as fact and ignore real harvests in the field, they trade science for storytelling and erode public trust along the way.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.