The Australian government’s latest intergenerational report projecting life in 2066 has faced criticism from experts for underestimating the economic and social consequences of climate change. Released as the seventh edition, the report acknowledges uncertainty around the long-term impacts of global warming, citing the pace of the global energy transition as a key variable.

According to the report, rising sea levels will most severely affect coastal and low-lying regions, while higher temperatures are expected to reduce worker productivity, lower agricultural yields, and hurt tourism. It warns that increasingly frequent and intense natural disasters over the next four decades will pose substantial economic risks.

However, some climate specialists say the report falls short in addressing the current and future costs of climate change. Associate Professor Ben Neville from Melbourne Climate Futures at the University of Melbourne described it as “negligent” for not factoring in the comprehensive economic damage the climate crisis is already causing and likely to intensify. He cited Treasury modelling within the report that estimates a disorderly transition to net zero emissions could reduce economic output by $2 trillion by 2050, a scenario Neville argues is increasingly likely given current geopolitical and policy trends.

Neville also pointed to the national climate risk assessment, which he says highlights significant gaps in existing economic models that fail to fully capture the complex effects of climate change. He suggested that the report’s omission of this perspective reflects a government approach that lacks sufficient urgency as Australia prepares to co-chair the forthcoming global climate talks in Turkey.

Water scarcity was another area experts felt the report overlooked. Sarah Wheeler, professor of water economics at Flinders University, emphasized that climate-driven variability in water availability will increase the risk of both severe droughts and damaging floods. She warned that without urgent measures to manage these water challenges, the nation’s productivity and wellbeing could suffer extensively.

Climate activist Anjali Sharma questioned the report’s usefulness for younger generations, arguing that it fails to offer a meaningful roadmap as the government continues to grapple with climate policy.

Despite the critiques, the report highlights potential benefits from accelerating Australia’s transition to renewable energy. Frank Jotzo, director of the Centre for Climate and Energy Policy at the Australian National University, noted that the report correctly identifies economic opportunities from clean energy industries, including the prospect of exporting green hydrogen-based products like green iron and ammonia. He acknowledged some disappointment that early enthusiasm has not yet translated into large-scale investment.

Francesca Muskovic, executive director of policy at the Investor Group on Climate Change, stressed the need for coordinated planning to ensure rising electricity demands—such as from expanding data centres—are met with firmed renewable energy supply. She cautioned that failure to secure new clean energy infrastructure could strain the electricity grid and lead to higher prices for consumers and businesses.

Speaking in Sydney during the report’s launch, Reserve Bank governor Michele Bullock highlighted that governments must simultaneously confront climate change impacts, the energy transition, and the investments required—challenging tasks alongside other emerging issues such as the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence.