Can You Guess Why Halloween Candy Prices Are Rising?

Obviously, it’s because you drove a fossil fueled vehicle to work

Halloween Candy Prices Are On the Rise for a Surprising Reason

Surprising? No. These Warmists pull this schtick on a constant basis, and just can’t help linking man-induced climate change to everything

Is there anything more horrifying than a candy shortage? Although we’re in the clear for now, supply hasn’t matched demand for years, and Halloween candy prices have changed significantly. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that prices of the sweet stuff have been steadily rising since 1998, and a lot of that hike has to do with a much larger problem: climate change.

In particular, the cost of chocolate has gone up due to a decrease in cocoa production as a result of changing climates in bean-producing regions. USA Today reports that cocoa bean crops are being devastated by climate-related issues including unpredictable rainfall and rising temperatures. Meanwhile, demand for chocolate is higher than ever, resulting in an imbalance between how much cocoa is produced and how much chocolate is consumed.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

4 Responses to “Can You Guess Why Halloween Candy Prices Are Rising?”

  1. Jeffery says:

    The article seems to agree with you! The climate is changing. The author did not mention the causes of the changing climate only that global warming is impacting cocoa harvests. The article was based in part on a WSJ article making the same claim!

    It’s only reasonable that crops grown in restrictive environments, e.g., coffee, cocoa, grapes will be impacted. That’s not to say that the same crops won’t be grown elsewhere, only that global warming is and will continue to cause changes. Perhaps in 50 years coffee will be grown on the foothills of the Rockies or in Vermont and New Hampshire!

    Most scientists accept the overwhelming evidence that the Earth (land, water and atmosphere) is warming from increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. The CO2 increase has been demonstrated to be primarily from our burning of fossil fuels.

  2. Jl says:

    “Most scientists..” Here we go again, the “we have more guys on our side so we win” argument. How very scientific.

  3. Jeffery says:


    There you go again. You might as well be arguing that Mars is made of cheese. Do you believe the evidence that supports the theory that Mars is made of rock and dust? Why? You’ve never been there. No human has. Scientific consensus concludes that Mars is made of iron, silicon, oxygen, magnesium, potassium etc. It certainly makes scientific sense that Mars is made of known elements congealed into rock dust. Yet, scientists also tell us that Jupiter is not solid but is made of gases, mostly hydrogen and helium. Do you believe them?

    My side has most scientists, every major scientific body on Earth, most corporations and most major religions. Your side has Republican politicians, right-wing pundits and their followers and the fossil fuel industry.

    If you had a growth under your jaw and 99 of 100 doctors recommended immediate surgery would you hold out for number 100 before acting?

    You don’t understand how science works do you? Based on evidence scientists propose hypotheses to explain an observed scientific phenomenon. For example, as the Earth warmed, Dr. Roy Spencer proposed that cosmic rays were impacting cloud formation making the Earth warm. Unfortunately for Dr. Spencer, there was no evidence to support his hypothesis. On the other hand evidence has accumulated consistently supporting the theory that the observed CO2 increase is largely responsible for the observed rapid warming. Does this mean that AGW is proven? No. Scientific theories are rarely proven. What it does mean is that it is very unlikely that the theory of AGW will be supplanted.

  4. drowningpuppies says:

    On the other hand evidence has accumulated consistently supporting the theory that the observed CO2 increase is largely responsible for the observed rapid warming.

    Uh, no it does not…

    Besides who could trust anything from a person who lies about serving in the army.

Pirate's Cove