A widely cited study on the economic damage from climate change has been retracted.
The study, published last year in the prestigious journal Nature, predicted that global economic output would fall 62% by 2100 under a high-carbon scenario. The forecast was much more serious than other similar studies, which led to a review of the underlying data, the WSJ reported.
“We generally agree with the issues raised and have made adjustments to the underlying economic data and our methodology”, said study author Leonie Wentz of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. “These changes are too significant to correct the original Nature article".
The study examined historical data from about 1,600 regions around the world over the past four decades to predict how changes in temperature and precipitation would affect economic growth, including factors such as agricultural yields, labor productivity and infrastructure.
However, since the study was published, other researchers have found that economic data from one country - Uzbekistan - for a short period from 1995 to 1999 had skewed the results. Without Uzbekistan, the damage estimate for 2100 dropped to 23%, not 62%. The researchers published their critique in Nature this summer.
Another researcher who was not involved in the main work, Christoph Schötz, said that the results are more uncertain than the study suggests, and published a separate critique in Nature in August.
The study has been cited by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, the World Bank, and the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), a coalition of central banks from which the Federal Reserve withdrew this year.
The coalition, which has members in about 90 countries, has incorporated the damage estimate into risk assessment tools that banks can use, for example, to stress-test portfolios to comply with European regulations. The NGFS damage estimate still includes the study – with a caveat noting the withdrawal – awaiting its next update.
Central bank models of the economic consequences of climate change could have long-term implications. If these models show that the consequences will be much worse than expected, regulators could force banks to set aside more capital to buffer against potential losses related to assets exposed to climate change, according to Eli Sandler, a research fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School.
The researchers note that despite the data problems in this study, there is still scientific agreement that climate change is hurting the global economy.
“There is broad scientific consensus about the severe negative economic consequences of climate change,” said Schötz, who added that the withdrawal “does not change that reality.”
Wentz noted that despite the withdrawal, the conclusions of her group’s study are consistent with other research showing that climate change has a significant impact on macroeconomic productivity and that these impacts exceed the costs of mitigating climate change.
The group plans to submit a revised version of the study for peer review.
Nature said it followed the journal's process for addressing concerns about a published article, which includes consulting with the original authors of the paper and seeking advice from independent, external reviewers.
“Our priority is always to maintain the integrity of scientific data,“ said Karl Zimmelis, editor-in-chief of Applied and Physical Sciences at Nature.