A new modelling exercise was released in March 2026 by a team of young economists at Deloitte Access Economics (co-authored by Rhiannon Yetsenga and colleagues).

It estimates that, under “current policy projections” for global warming (often described as business-as-usual or insufficient further action), the average Australian in Generation Alpha (born roughly 2010s onward, with the oldest now in their mid-teens) could face roughly $185,000 less in lifetime income/prosperity by 2070 compared to a hypothetical no-additional-climate-change baseline.

Breakdown of the Deloitte findings

• Millennials: ~$130,000 lifetime hit.
• Gen Z: ~$165,000 lifetime hit.
• Gen Alpha: ~$185,000 lifetime hit (nearly 10× the estimated burden on Boomers, and more than double that on Gen X).

These are present-value discounted figures derived from projected losses in GDP per capita, translated into impacts on individuals.

The model compares two paths:

• An “insecure” scenario continuing along current global policy trajectories (with many warming effects already “locked in” due to the long atmospheric lifetime of greenhouse gases, ~30+ years).
• A “secure” net-zero-by-2050 scenario that would avoid ~$50k–$80k of the per-person costs for these generations.

Costs factored in include: reduced worker productivity from heat, damage to infrastructure/property from extreme weather, higher health and healthcare burdens, losses to tourism and agriculture, and broader economic drag from more frequent disasters.

This is economic modelling, not a direct “bill” sent to individuals.

It aggregates projected macroeconomic drags and distributes them across a generation’s working life.

Such exercises rely on assumptions about future emissions pathways, climate sensitivity, economic growth, adaptation capacity, technological progress, and how damages translate to income/GDP.

“Current projections” typically align with policies in place today, which many analysts project would lead to 2.5–3°C+ global warming by 2100 if unchanged—though real-world outcomes depend on what actually happens with technology, policy, and emissions globally (including from major emitters beyond Australia).

Deloitte’s own prior work (e.g., 2021 resilience modelling) has similarly found that inaction carries large costs, but also that adaptation and mitigation investments can offset much of the damage.

Other Australian analyses (Treasury, Investor Group on Climate Change, etc.) have reached comparable conclusions: disorderly or insufficient climate response risks lower GDP, wages, and jobs, while an orderly transition to net zero can support growth through new industries (renewables, green exports like critical minerals or hydrogen).

Deloitte Access Economics’ recent modelling (released March 2026 as part of the Australia’s Youth Agenda series) compares two core scenarios to quantify how climate pathways affect lifetime prosperity for younger generations. The analysis translates projected GDP-per-capita losses (from heat impacts, extreme weather, health costs, infrastructure damage, agriculture/tourism losses, etc.) into present-value dollars for Millennials, Gen Z, and Gen Alpha, benchmarked against a hypothetical “no additional climate change” world.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Australia’s generation Alpha faces $185k bill over lifetime without urgent action on climate crisis, report finds

Global heating consistent with current projections would cost average millennial $130,000 and $165,000 for gen Z, according to Deloitte modelling

The next generation of Australian workers will cop a $185,000 bill over their lifetimes if the country does not act more urgently to address the climate crisis, according to new modelling by a team of young economists at Deloitte. The Guardian has the story.

The new report finds that global heating consistent with the current projections would cost the average millennial about $130,000 over the rest of their lives, increasing to $165,000 for gen Z.

A gen Z Australian’s lifetime income could be $165,000 lower by 2070 without further global action.

For generation Alpha, the eldest of whom turn 16 this year, the bill stretches to $185,000 a person by 2070.

The report estimates the damage to worker productivity, infrastructure and property, as well as increased health risks and healthcare costs. The changing climate and more frequent and extreme natural disasters would undermine tourism and destabilise agriculture.

Rhiannon Yetsenga, an associate director at Deloitte Access Economics, said the analysis, co-authored by Rhiain Powell, Will Neumann and Chern Han Mah, highlighted how “taking action on climate change is not just an environmental or moral issue, it’s really a question of intergenerational inequity”.

“For this generation, climate change is not a distant threat but an immediate, lived experience with severe consequences,” Yetsenga said.

“These compounded impacts slow growth, inflate costs and jeopardise future wellbeing – especially for younger generations,” she said.

Alternatively, if today’s decision-makers can drive the climate action needed to reach net zero by the middle of the century, then millennials and generations Z and Alpha will avoid costs, respectively, of about $50,000, $70,000 and $80,000 over the course of their lives, the modelling shows.

The damage to generation Alpha’s prosperity from a business-as-usual approach to addressing climate change will be nearly 10 times that suffered by boomers, and more than double the costs borne by gen X Australians.

“Many of these costs are already locked in because emissions linger in our atmosphere for 30 years,” Yetsenga said.

“I think there is a lot of goodwill and people trying to do a lot of good things. But it’s fair to say that young people are frustrated.

“For many young people they feel they can’t trust the government to take action on the things that matter most to them, and the two things that came through strongly in our research were housing and climate change.”

The economists modelled two scenarios: an “insecure youth prosperity” scenario where global warming continues based on current policies, and a “secure” scenario where more aggressive action gets the world to net zero by 2050 and limits the damage.

The model then estimates the loss of GDP per capita over the coming decades in both scenarios against an imagined world of no climate change, before discounting that future impact into dollars in today’s terms for each generation.

Read the full story here.