Activists have claimed for years that climate change caused by fossil fuels puts our food supply under grave threat.
Ironically, the war against Iran has revealed that lack of access to fossil fuels poses a much greater global food challenge.
Today, half of all the calories we consume from proteins, carbs and fats are made possible by the use of artificial fertilizers, derived overwhelmingly from natural gas.
Without fossil fuels, half the global population would suffer a severe lack of food.
Crucially, a quarter of the world’s fertilizer normally passes through the Strait of Hormuz.
But the fighting in the Gulf and the blockade of the Strait — first imposed by Iran, now by US forces — are holding back much of the fertilizer that will help grow the food needed to feed the world in the coming year.
The UN estimates that the conflict could drive fertilizer prices up by 15% to 20% and push at least another 45 million people into acute hunger.
For decades, we’ve been told ad nauseam that fossil-fuel-driven global warming was the biggest challenge to the world’s food supply.
And it made us lose sight of the marvel of one of humanity’s greatest modern achievements: our ability to tackle food security.
Over the past 125 years, food has become dramatically cheaper and more abundant worldwide, thanks to soaring productivity and innovation.
A vessel seen at the Strait of Hormuz off the coast of Oman a day before the US blockade on April 12, 2026. REUTERS Far from a looming hunger apocalypse, the data reveals a story of remarkable progress — with climate change posing only a minor hurdle.
It’s radical emission cuts that risk making food scarcer and more expensive for the world’s most vulnerable.
Consider: In 1928, the League of Nations estimated that more than two-thirds of humanity endured constant hunger.
Today, fewer than one in 10 people worldwide go hungry — a rate that dipped below 7% before disruptions like COVID-19 and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
This isn’t luck; it’s the result of incredible human achievement.
Cereal production has quintupled since 1926, thanks to improved crops, industrial fertilizers and mechanization — more than halving global food prices in real terms.
Incomes have surged, lifting billions out of extreme poverty and enabling families to afford more nutritious meals.
Result: More than 4 billion people have been saved from starvation, a testament to agricultural ingenuity and economic growth.
The UN’s April forecast points to another record-breaking global harvest for 2025-26 because crops were already planted before the Iran crisis began.
But roughly 670 million people continue to suffer from food insecurity today.
In regions like sub-Saharan Africa, where crop yields lag far behind global averages, the barriers are clear and surmountable.
Subsistence farming means a lack of modern fertilizers, pesticides and mechanized handling, depressing food production.
Yet well-fed Westerners have railed against artificial fertilizers because they are fossil-fuel based.
Backed by rich donors and foundations, they blithely suggest that Africa should go organic, despite evidence that this reduces harvests and increases hunger.
When Sri Lanka went organic in 2021, rice yields, the country’s staple food, plunged by more than 30%.
Climate activists paint a dire picture, claiming that rising temperatures will devastate crops and fuel famine.
Climate change will alter local farming conditions — benefiting some areas, challenging others, but with negligible impact overall.
Elevated CO₂ levels have greened the planet, causing so many more leaves to grow since 2000 alone that their total area is larger than the continent of Australia.
Climate policy is a blunt, expensive tool: Even aggressive action takes decades or centuries to measurably affect weather, costing hundreds of trillions while boosting calorie availability by under 0.1%.
Prioritizing economic growth, by contrast, is over 100 times more effective, increasing food access by more than 10% in a matter of years, not centuries.
And emission reductions harm food production more than climate change does.
They inflate costs for fertilizers, tractor fuel and land, putting small farmers out of business.
Naïve climate modelers often overlook that impact, but careful research clearly shows that a low-emission future with high carbon prices overall means 50 million more people facing hunger by the middle of this century.
The war in Iran has exposed the climate-food scare for the distraction it truly is.
To end hunger in the developing world, the poor don’t need expensive carbon cuts or organic farming mandates pushed by rich-world activists.
What they actually need is greater access to affordable fertilizer — much of it from fossil fuels.
Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus and author of “False Alarm” and “Best Things First.”
