Climate Change Authority urged to review emissions targets report after study retracted
The opposition has demanded an urgent review of Australia's 2035 climate targets after a cited study was retracted for exaggerating economic damage projections.
Labor’s most recent advice on its 2035 emissions targets was partly informed by a German study that has been retracted, after environmental experts warned its skewed data significantly over-inflated the possible economic damage of climate change.
The opposition has now demanded an urgent review of the Climate Change Authority’s 2035 Targets Advice paper, after it cited a study that leading science journal Nature announced this week would be retracted.
The paper, compiled by authors from the German-government funded Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), had found a high-emissions scenario would lead to global economic output nose diving by 62 per cent by 2100.
That finding was based off a historical four-decade analysis of 1600 areas around the world in a bid to forecast future impacts on the economy of changed weather conditions.
The figure of 62 per cent prompted scrutiny from multiple researchers, who found that data from one of the countries analysed – Uzbekistan – during a four-year period in the 1990s exaggerated the scale of economic damage high emissions would cause. Without that country their research found the decline of economic output would instead be 23 per cent by 2100.
A note published on Nature’s website stated: “The authors acknowledge that these changes are too substantial for a correction, leading to the retraction of the paper.”
The PIK said in a statement that revised analysis was released in August, but “Nature determined the changes exceeded those of a correction, so the authors will resubmit a new version of the paper for peer review”.
In a further statement the PIK said the “conclusions of our revised (and original) article are in strong consistency with the wider research literature”, including that “climate change has substantial impacts on macroeconomic productivity” and “these impacts outweigh the costs of ambitious climate change mitigation”.
The Climate Change Authority was one of hundreds of authorities and institutions across the world that cited the report. Its 2035 targets advice – recommending a 62 to 70 per cent cut to emissions in Australia by 2035 – was accepted by Anthony Albanese in September.
Opposition energy spokesman Dan Tehan said Climate Change Authority chair Matt Kean should urgently review the 2035 targets paper. “The Climate Change Authority should immediately update all its assessment and analysis given this article has now been shown to exaggerate its findings,” he said.
Mr Tehan referred to Mr Kean’s employment as a director of fundraising at climate-conscious investment firm Wollemi Capital, saying it was important he and Mr Bowen now scrutinise the report. “The part-time Energy Minister Chris Bowen should come out and state clearly that he requires the part-time Climate Change Authority chair, who spends most of his time fundraising for Wollemi Capital, to immediately review the assessments he has made on this paper,” Mr Tehan said.
A Climate Change Authority said spokesperson said their 2035 report “was developed using a multi-pronged approach”.
“This approach included economic modelling from the CSIRO, sector-by-sector analysis of the Australian economy by the Authority, more than 560 submissions and 500 engagements with the public and other stakeholders,” the spokesperson said.
“While it is correct that the now-retracted Nature paper is listed as a reference, it was among more than 100 research reports referenced. The retraction has no material impact on the validity and soundness of our advice.”
A spokesperson for Mr Bowen said: “Unlike the Coalition, the government accepts the science of climate change and is taking sensible, practical action because it is in our national interest.
“The Climate Change Authority’s advice is based on a wide and thorough evidence base and makes clear acting on climate change is an economic opportunity for Australia,” she said.
MST Financial senior energy analyst Saul Kanovic agreed a review of the authority’s findings was warranted.
“The cost versus benefit trade-off is crucial to climate policy and given the Climate Change Authority advice may have been based on this report that has since been redacted due to inaccuracies, it warrants a review of the CCA’s overall findings,” he said.
He added much of academic literature “on the cost and benefit trade-offs from climate policy has a preconceived agenda behind it so needs to be treated with a high level of scrutiny”.
“Would Nature even publish a study that showed the cost of climate policy outweighed the benefits if that’s where the data objectively led?” he said.
“The trade-offs need to be considered carefully and not treated ideologically.”
Mr Kean, in his foreword in the authority’s 2035 emissions target report, stated the ambitious cuts to the country’s output stated Australia’s energy transition was “an economic growth opportunity not a drag”.
“Ambitious action will enrich our economic fortunes as few nations have Australia’s advantages in a low-carbon economy,” he wrote.
Other bodies which cited the German study, such as the Network for Greening the FinancialSystem (NGFS), a collection of central banks from across the world aimed at sharing advice on environment and climate-related risk management, have already issued updates highlighting the retraction of the German report.
To join the conversation, please log in. Don't have an account? Register
Join the conversation, you are commenting as Logout