Chocolate can have other benefits, too. I have a double cousin who worked for many years for a major candy company, and who once told me that their best sales were during economic downturns. It's logical when you think about it. Times are hard, and people are worried, but for a nominal fee — I remember when it was as low as a nickel — you can buy a chocolate bar, it's a little treat, it gives you a little endorphin boost, and you feel a little better for a while.

The benefits of chocolate are, then, well-established. What's also well-established is that climate scolds will inevitably take everything people love (like chocolate) and try to weaponize it to cry, "OMG, CLIMATE CHANGE." But when they tried it with chocolate, it turned out the numbers were not in their favor. ClimateRealism's H. Sterling Burnett has the numbers.

Earth.com published a story claiming climate change is causing cocoa production to fall in West and Central Africa. This is false. Data show that cocoa production has increased during the last few decades of modest warming, rather than falling. Part of the reason for this is improved growing conditions in those regions and carbon dioxide fertilization.

In the Earth.com story, “Cocoa production in Africa is under extreme climate pressure,” writer Andrei Ionescu, references a study published in Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, which claims that climate change may result in a 50 percent drop in production across West and Central Africa, a region which accounts for 70 percent of global cocoa production. Ionescu goes further claiming, “Climate change is substantially affecting cocoa production in West and Central Africa.” The problem is the data falsifies this claim, and the projections are based on the worst-case scenario projections from flawed climate models.

Climate change may result in a 50 percent drop in production. So, is climate change, as Earth.com's Ionescu claims, substantially affecting production? Well, if it is, it's affecting it for the better. The four primary cocoa-producing nations have all, since 1990, seen production increases. These numbers come from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization:

The research in particular focuses on cocoa production in Cameroon, the Ivory Coast (Côte d’Ivoire), Ghana, and Nigeria. FAO data for those countries show that since 1990:

• In Cameroon cocoa bean production has grown by more than 157 percent;
• In the Ivory Coast (Côte d’Ivoire) cocoa bean production increased by more than a 194 percent (nearly doubling, and setting a new record in 2023);
• In Ghana cocoa bean production expanded by just over 122 percent;
• And in Nigeria cocoa bean production grew by almost 17 percent.

A slight increase in CO2, as it happens, is good for plant growth. We see this throughout Earth's history; most of the world's coal deposits were laid down in the Carboniferous, a time when the planet was far warmer than now and was covered pole-to-pole with steaming jungles. The O2 and CO2 levels were much higher than now, which made not only the jungles possible but also things like dragonflies the size of eagles. In fact, were humans somehow able to travel back there, the atmosphere would be toxic to us.

So, yes, CO2 has always prompted plant growth, and it always will. That's how photosynthesis works. 

See Related: Want Clean, 'Green' Electricity? New Modular Reactor Project in Tennessee Is the Answer.

Trump Orders EPA Chief Lee Zeldin to Dismantle Joe Biden's Assault on Household Appliances

Mr. Burnett concludes:

In the end, the Earth.com story was long on alarming speculation pushing the catastrophic climate change narrative, and short on detailed analysis. The author showed no evidence of reading the report that he cites carefully and in full, or that if he did, that he understood its nuance and caveats related to its results – at least if he did, he didn’t discuss it in his story. There is also no evidence in the story that the writer checked any real-world data before asserting climate change is harming and will threaten cocoa production. That’s sloppy journalism any way you cut it.

Here's where I will differ with Mr. Burnett. Earth.com's article is sloppy journalism — but it's not just sloppy journalism. It's journalistic malfeasance. Andrei Ionescu, writing freely on a topic he seems to know little about, is making claims that are not supported by the very report he claims to be writing about; the report he has apparently not read or, at best, just skimmed, looking for hot points that support his prejudices. It's climate panic-mongering, written with some sciencey-sounding terminology to conceal the fact that the actual data doesn't support his claim.

So, relax. Enjoy those Valentine's Day chocolates. You'll be able to do that, every year, for many years to come. Cocoa production is just fine.