The carbon tax, compensation and households: a two-party comparison

The two main political parties agree to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 to 5% below the 2000 level, or about a 20% reduction below business as usual. However, they propose very different policy interventions, which, in turn, will have different effects on households. Labor government policies…

39dnwmy7-1340951138
The two major parties have taken different approaches to compensating households for the carbon tax. Jonas B

The two main political parties agree to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 to 5% below the 2000 level, or about a 20% reduction below business as usual. However, they propose very different policy interventions, which, in turn, will have different effects on households.

Labor government policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions include: placing a price on greenhouse gas emissions by way of a carbon tax starting at $23 a tonne of CO2 from July 2012, and then switching to an emissions trading scheme from July 2015; recycling most of the approximate $8 billion yearly revenue windfall to households to raise their disposable incomes and to selected businesses; retaining regulations such as the renewable energy target, fluorescent light bulbs, and building design restrictions; and subsidies for investments in some low-carbon technologies and for farm capture of carbon.

If the Coalition is elected, it proposes to: repeal the carbon tax and emissions trading scheme; retain Labor’s increases in social security payments and lower income taxation; retain most of the current regulations; and implement a larger system of subsidies for businesses to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but with the details to be decided.

For households, the Labor package can be described as a tax-mix change package. Placing a price on carbon is a type of indirect tax increase. Similar to the GST, most of the carbon tax ultimately is passed on to households as higher prices. Prices of carbon intensive products, and in particular energy, are expected to rise by from 9 to 11 per cent. But, prices of carbon extensive products, such as clothing, will rise very little.

For the average household expenditure mix, the cost of living will rise by about 0.7%. The increase in social security payments (some of which have been paid already) and reductions in income tax from July 2012 of up to $300 a year will increase disposable incomes for all low and many middle-income households to over compensate for the higher cost of their expenditure.

Election of the Coalition to government – assuming they follow their current policy – would leave the Labor government increases in disposable income, but remove the price on carbon. In turn, prices of greenhouse gas intensive products – and in particular, energy – would fall, and there would be a one-off fall in the average cost of living.

Initially, the carbon tax or cost of tradable permits, is an additional cost of production paid by about 350 large companies in the electricity generation, petroleum products, some mines and waste dumps, and some manufacturers. These represent about 60% of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. Most of the extra cost of the price on carbon will be passed on to customers as higher prices in the same way as businesses pass on higher costs of labour and materials.

Because all businesses use energy as an intermediate business input, in time all businesses in the economy will be affected by the price on carbon. The more energy intensive the business, the greater is the incentive to (and the reward from) changing production methods and the product mix to reduce the now more expensive energy input. In turn, these decision changes reduce their use of energy and their carbon footprint.

The relatively higher prices for greenhouse gas intensive products and the higher disposable income package will have a number of direct and indirect effects on households. First, the package changes relative prices to encourage households to shift their expenditure from greenhouse intensive products to greenhouse extensive products, and so to reduce their carbon footprint. As a result, some might keep warm by wearing an extra jumper and turning the heater down a bit; trade-in for a more electricity-efficient white appliance; catch public transport or walk rather than drive; and generally become more conscious in their use of electricity.

Second, lower and most middle-income households will be able to maintain their living standard because of the compensating increase in their disposable income – but in a less carbon-intensive way. In aggregate, household compensation will exceed $5 billion a year. Some middle income and all higher-income households will not be fully compensated for the higher cost of living. Some years into the future, and with the benefit of forthcoming information on the price of carbon under an emissions trading scheme, the government likely will revisit the income compensation part of the policy package.

Third, for some employees, policy interventions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will result in changes of employment. Placing a price on carbon, or subsidising carbon reduction, involves structural changes throughout the economy. Some jobs will be lost in the carbon-intensive sectors of the economy, but new jobs will be created in industries and firms meeting the increased demand for and production of carbon-extensive products and production processes.

Join the conversation

8 Comments sorted by

  1. Lincoln Fung

    Economist

    There will be a trade/border effect that will see the import of energy intensive goods and services to increase and energy extensive goods and services likely to decrease. Our energy intensive exports are likely to decrease and energy extensive exports may increase.

    report
  2. Josh Byrnes

    Research fellow in health economics at Griffith University

    Hi John,

    Wondering what your position is regarding the 'hit-list' of 350 or so big polluters that are liable. In particular with regards to:

    1) 'big' city councils included in the list where a per capita adjustment appears more appropriate (i.e. city councils that pollute greater than x tonnes per resident as opposed to simply the largest city council being included).

    2) The net effect on "efficient" businesses that are on the cusp of the list. Perhaps short term incentive to stall or…

    Read more
  3. Dave Kinkead

    logged in via Twitter

    "As a result, some might ... catch public transport or walk rather than drive..."

    The effect of the carbon tax will actually be the opposite with regards to transport. Because petrol sales are exempted from the carbon tax while carbon inputs (eg electricity) to public transport are not, driving a car, with its associated environmental and social costs, will now be more affordable and public transport will cost more.

    Perhaps not the best strategy to improve the environment.

    report
  4. Peter Evans

    Retired

    A brave, perhaps foolish prediction, by Christmas there will be few articles if any on the cost or impact of the carbon tax. They will still be articles on climate change and how to reduce carbon pollution but the carbon tax or price will be little debated. Why? The CPI figures will show small impact and that it fell mostly in the September quarter and blaming the carbon price for changes to your business will be a waste of time as there will be so many other factors. These as a group are called market forces, demand and supply.

    Much like the GST the impacts will be in a short sharp round of adjustments in prices etc and then it will become part of life and just one of many influences on business and personal decisions.

    report
  5. ricky schintler

    sales mercenary

    In my personal opinion with the time the labor government has been in power they have handed out multiple cash bonuses of 800-2000 dollars, and the process to to repeat with an average of 300 per household per year.

    with this being said, the simplest solution would have just been to offer a free solar installation to eligible households which also works towards the carbon emissions scheme. well at the same time lowering all household expenditures each quarter. all of this done at a price less of that which has already occurred

    report
    1. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to ricky schintler

      " the simplest solution would have just been to offer a free solar installation to eligible households "

      True. But its still an enormously costly way to reduce emissions ($360/tonne abated).

      Far better would be to get started down the road to nuclear energy. Only nuclear can replace most fossil fuels for electricity generation. Only nuclear will be able to provide the world's demand for electricity, now and in the future. Only nuclear can be cost competitive with fossil fuels (but, admittedly, not with the existing impediments to it).

      report
  6. Peter Lang

    Retired geologist and engineer

    What is this article - a Labor-Green propaganda sheet?

    Why do you spin and misrepresent the effects of the two party’s policies to such an extent?

    Is this what academia has come down to in Australia?

    Most of what appears on The Conversation is now just an outpouring of Labor-Green-Left ideological propaganda.

    Why haven’t you done an honest assessment of what the ETS will cost as it increases enormously over the years ahead? Why haven’t you carefully critiqued the Treasury’s net cost…

    Read more
  7. Peter Lang

    Retired geologist and engineer

    Why haven’t you done an honest assessment of what the ETS will cost as it increases enormously over the years ahead? Why haven’t you carefully critiqued the Treasury’s net cost analyses and their assumptions?

    Are you aware the ETS will cost $10 for every projected $1 of benefits? However, the benefits will not be achieved. The ETS will cost at least (probably much more) than $50,000 per family of four in total to 2050.

    Why haven’t you looked into this before spreading this nonsense?

    “What the Carbon Tax and ETS will Really Cost”
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/06/what-the-carbon-tax-and-ets-will-really-cost-peter-lang/

    “The ultimate Compliance Cost of the ETS”
    http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13578&page=0

    report