Experts say Australia's long-term outlook ignores true cost of climate crisis

Australia's newest intergenerational report, a government-commissioned snapshot of what the country might look like in 2066, is facing criticism from researchers who say it fails to adequately account for the economic toll of climate change.

The report, the seventh in a series produced by the federal government to project long-term economic and demographic trends, is intended to guide policy on issues ranging from population growth to public spending over the coming four decades. But at least one academic quoted in reporting on the document argues that its treatment of climate change falls short, understating the scale of economic and social disruption the crisis is expected to cause.

A narrow view of long-term risk

Critics say that intergenerational reports of this kind traditionally focus on demographic shifts, such as an ageing population, and fiscal pressures like healthcare and pension costs, while treating climate change as a secondary consideration rather than a central driver of Australia's future economic trajectory.

The academic cited in the analysis argues that such omissions amount to a form of negligence, given the scientific consensus that global temperatures will continue to rise over the period the report covers, and that Australia is among the countries most exposed to climate-related hazards, including extreme heat, bushfires, drought and coastal flooding.

The criticism raises broader questions about how governments plan for the future when the risks involved are difficult to quantify but potentially severe. Economic modelling of climate impacts often struggles to capture indirect costs, such as damage to agriculture, infrastructure and human health, as well as knock-on effects for insurance markets and property values.

Supporters of a more climate-focused approach argue that failing to fully price in these risks could leave future governments and taxpayers unprepared for the scale of adaptation and mitigation spending that will likely be required. The debate over the report's framing is likely to continue as policymakers weigh how to balance near-term budget priorities against the long-term costs of a changing climate.