Is it better or worse to have a global climate that benefits plant growth? The obvious answer would be, better. However, now that it is has been shown that global warming benefits plant growth, climate activists and their media allies want us to believe more plant growth is bad.

The Washington Post is the latest to assert that more plant growth is bad, consistent with other ridiculous claims seeking to advance the alarmist Climate Delusion. In a January 25 article, titled, “We can’t recall the planet if we mess up: Climate change is risky business,” the article’s first asserted example of an ongoing climate crisis is, “The [National Climate Assessment] says there is at least a two-thirds chance that your asthma or hay fever will get worse because of climate change.” (

Each spring, as plants emerge from winter dormancy and spring to life, the alarmist media publishes articles about how global warming makes allergies worse. For all the benefits of plant life, more plant life means more pollen in the air, so people who suffer through allergies tend to experience more symptoms in the spring. This is a Climate Delusion opportunity the media won’t miss.

While pollen and its effects on people with allergies is unfortunate, few rational people would argue that a more difficult climate for plant life is a good thing. A greening of the Earth is a thing to celebrate. So, too, is more bountiful crop yields. Yet the establishment media ignore these benefits and talk only about allergies, making the argument that when the Earth’s climate benefits plant life, that is a bad thing.

And that is yet another example of the twisted logic of the ongoing Climate Delusion.


CFACT, founded in 1985 by Craig Rucker and the late (truly great) David Rothbard, examines the relationship between human freedom, and issues of energy, environment, climate, economics, civil rights and more.