I agree with a lot of this, and think the move to authenticate coffee's origin a good one.

But do remember that there are no 'predictions' from the modellers. They are best described as 'scenarios' — 'if this were to be the case then that would likely follow'. So far the agreement between past model scenarios and what has actually happened has not been very good, and over the past decade the earth's temperature has not followed the increase in carbon dioxide. We ourselves should be thinking and acting in recognition that climate changes, and that there is no settled state in climate anywhere. The great the human population and its demands on the environment, the more important such thought and adaption will be.

Assuming that the world does become significantly warmer than it does now, won't this incerase the area available to coffee growing? What studies on this can the author cite? In addition, the author equates warmer temperatures with dryer conditions and more storms. These links are all still highly guestionable. Sure the Sahara is close to the equator but so are the Brazilian rain forests.
Victoria is having a dry spell at the moment but is this due to warming or very long cycles of rainfall patterns? The arguments over whether there is any significant increase in hurricane activity, despite undoubtedly warmer conditions in the past two decades are also far from resolved.
As coffee is the second most traded commodity after oil - the author got that right - there must be plenty of studies on production, and production forecasts, but the author does not seem to have looked at any of them.

Peter Baker erroneously interprets the alarmist assertions of IPCC climate scientists to be science. After searching for more than 20 years, the IPCC has failed to find any irrefutable scientific evidence that climate change is man-made. The IPCC, which is dominated by environmentalists, goes out of its way to assert anthropogenic climate change.

The IPCC reports have been tainted with essentially false statements, e.g. the deletion of a key consulting scientific reviewer approved statement, “none of the studies cited (by the IPCC) has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases” from the final draft of the 1995 Report, and the insertion in its place of strong endorsements of man-made warming; the valid inclusion in the 1995 Report of a 1000-year climate history graph showing a warm period from 1000 to 1400 AD with warmer temperatures than today, and its replacement in the 2001 Report with a 'hockey-stick' shaped graph (subsequently shown to be false) showing 900 years of stable global temperatures until about 1910 and then sharply rising temperatures thereafter, and the omission of the 'hockey stick' without explanation from the next IPCC report. (Further material that seriously questions the credibility and integrity of the IPCC's activities and claims may be found at http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm , which lists some 50 articles.)
In fact, the strongest endorsement that the IPCC can give in its 2007 Report, is the assertion: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”.
The IPCC uses unvalidated computer models to project alarmist climate change outcomes. It has failed to explain actual climate history. For example, it was unable to explain why there was a cooling trend from 1940 to 1975, and why there has been a cooling trend since 1998 despite increasing greenhouse emissions, and it has failed to predict the El Nino and La Nina effects.
The IPCC fails to recognize that climate change is a natural process.

Recently came across a book “Our Common Future” a report from the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, published in 1987.It is highly illuminating because it was compiled at a time when thinking about AGW was at a rudimentary stage, and it lays bare some of the motives before they reached today’s much PR-itized forms.

At its core it paints a picture of a UN with a grab bag of favoured programs and insufficient funding .A UN seeking a lever to co-op --extraordinary-- funding from the developed nations.

Over twenty years later –surprise, surprise! we have AGW being touted as being responsible for everything from AIDS to Zellweger Syndrome.
And -almost- all of us have been sold on the idea that the developed world bears the bulk of responsibly , and ABSOLUTELY MUST, MUST make it right again –just a coincidence –I wonder?