With the debate on the carbon tax getting very emotive it’s essential to understand the economics of the tax and whether it will achieve what it’s setting out to do.

Interesting how the word economy is so small. Image: news.com.au.

Here the issue is very simple. Will the introduction of a carbon tax lead to a significant reduction in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions?

Given that the stated objective of a carbon tax is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it’s clear that the success or failure of the tax will depend on the whether or not a reduction is achieved and at what cost. Understanding the cost of the carbon tax is fundamental to understanding its impact on the consumer, particularly given that it’s the consumer who will ultimately pay the tax.

Since the tax is imposed on certain types of greenhouse gas emissions arising during the production of goods or services, it’s clear that the tax adds to that cost of production and this will be passed onto consumers. As the cost of producing the goods or services goes up, the tax-affected companies will push up the price of the goods or services to consumers.

As the carbon tax increases so does the price of affected goods or services. In fact, the proponents of the carbon tax freely acknowledge that the tax will push up prices to consumers and the Federal Government has even indicated that the tax will lead to increases in the Consumer Price Index which measures inflation in Australia.

What’s the purpose of the carbon tax raising consumer prices? The theory is that the higher prices are intended to lead to a reduction in the demand for those goods or services that generate or give rise to greenhouse gas emissions.

The theory continues that as the carbon tax raises the cost of producing goods or services any company affected by the tax would be looking for ways to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and its future carbon tax liability.

Now there are several problems with the practical application of the theory. First, a change in consumer demand for goods or services depends on not only the price of the particular goods or services, but also the availability of alternatives for those goods or services. Changing consumer demand or behaviour is easier said than done.

Seeking to change consumer demand through price rises is quite unpredictable as consumers may not be price sensitive regarding certain goods or services. For example, consumers will generally choose to pay higher prices and not reduce their demand for goods or services when it comes to basic necessities, or where there are no or few real alternatives to the particular goods or services.

Quite simply people will still need to buy food, heat their homes or use airlines when travelling around Australia. These are covered by the carbon tax and consumers will simply pay more for these rather than buying less.

In practice, therefore, the price of food, heating and domestic air travel will keep rising to reflect the ongoing rises in the carbon tax and consumers will be forced to pay those higher prices given the lack of real alternatives for those goods or services.

For other goods or services, any reduction in consumer demand and in greenhouse gas emissions will be linked to how price sensitive consumers are to price rises attributable to the carbon tax. The theory is that the higher the price increases attributable to the carbon tax the greater the potential reduction in demand and, ultimately, emissions.

That means that substantial price rises are needed to secure substantial reduction in emissions. The problem for supporters of the carbon tax is that the Federal Government has emphasized that the tax will initially only impose small price rises and this means that any reduction in consumer demand and emissions will also be small and take longer to achieve.

Significantly, if consumers don’t reduce their demand for particular goods or services, then reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in relation of those goods or services will become increasingly harder.

Any meaningful reduction in emissions would then depend on those companies that produce the emissions actually changing their production methods to reduce emissions. The problem here is that if the affected companies are in highly concentrated markets the companies can simply pass the higher costs of the carbon tax onto end users, or more precisely consumers.

Given that consumers may not reduce their demand for the particular goods or services following the imposition of a carbon tax and given that some markets are highly concentrated allowing affected companies to simply pass the tax onto consumers through higher prices, there is a real danger that the carbon tax may not lead to any meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in key industries.

The problem with ongoing price rises as a result of the carbon tax could even get worse in highly concentrated markets as affected companies may seek to raise consumer prices well beyond any carbon tax-related increases.

A lack of transparency and real competition in highly concentrated markets creates an obvious environment for the few dominant market players to price gouge consumers.

This means that affected companies could actually hide behind a carbon tax to raise consumer prices by an amount beyond that attributable to the tax. Here the carbon tax could be used to justify existing or future rip offs by dominant companies intent on pushing up retail prices to the detriment of consumers.

All in all, unless the carbon tax changes the behaviour of affected companies and consumers in a manner that reduces greenhouse gas emissions in a meaningful way, the imposition of a carbon tax will become just another form of revenue-raising by the Federal Government.

With the carbon tax raising very large sums of money attention needs to quickly turn to how that money is going to be spent. The Federal Government has said that half of the money raised by the tax will go back to households. So for every dollar that households spend on the carbon tax, 50% will be returned to households in varying degrees.

This will mean that households will be out of pocket by at least 50% of the tax paid. This also means that having received compensation households will be less likely to change their demand for goods and services and that will mean fewer reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. This will disappoint those seeking significant reductions in emissions.

Programs assisting industries to develop new technologies to try and reduce emissions will be welcomed, but the development of new technologies will take time and put increasing demands on the revenue raised by the tax.

Then we will have the creation of new government agencies which will take a growing share of the revenue raised by the tax. The growth in government agencies certainly does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions and is likely to increase them as the agencies need to be accommodated and their employees will no doubt need to travel around the country as part of their responsibilities.

Most commented

38 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • ZSRenn says:

      06:12am | 12/07/11

      So far from this Tax Labor and the Greens have made $20,623,000,000 worth of promises. That is $40,124,000 added to each company’s bottom line. If companies pass on the full cost of the tax it’s $3750 in increased costs to every Australian household just to service the promises made.

      As Mr. Zumbo points out this is only the tip of the iceberg with the cost of the bureaucracy to be added.

      Another blood letting will probably come from the share market and Jobs lost when companies move over seas.

      Macarthur Coal a $5 billion company announced that with a fall of 2.8 in its share prices yesterday it is considering for the first time in 2 years accepting a bid from an overseas company.

      It is impossible to tell if this company is one of the famous 500 because the Government is using the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 Part 4 sect 23 to not release the names of the 500 company’s.

      There is no Treasury cost done on the $23 / tonne Carbon Tax!

    • Frank says:

      12:16pm | 12/07/11

      well thats Capitalism and the Market Economy for you

    • Smatty says:

      02:04pm | 12/07/11

      Wow - can I buy some of them fallen shares from you?
      Would make a good profit today with the shares going up - HOW MUCH!!
      Dont believe what you are being told by the right wingers.
      They are not conservatives, just rent seeking ratbags.

    • Smatty says:

      07:06pm | 12/07/11

      No Seriously - do you have any of those Macarthur shares - would love to get some at that low price.

    • Reg says:

      07:45am | 14/07/11

      I didn’t realise that the government’s buyout of Australia’s dirtiest power stations will be financed from the budget’s contingency reserve until just now…

      This is the same money, the emergency money as it were, that Gillard & Co would not use to help Qld rebuild after the floods and cyclone earlier this year…?

      Forget about people who lost their houses in a freak flood and were sleeping on mattresses in a shelter, its more important for this money to be used to make the carbon tax seem less costly…? And we can slug the public with a flood levy as well?

      Jesus Christ that makes me angry…

    • Joel B1 says:

      08:12am | 12/07/11

      Well said and explained.

    • Dean says:

      08:16am | 12/07/11

      Brilliant article. So true .. what is happening with that other 50%!!! Funding of R&D and innovation?? .. please anything else than more public servants

    • SD says:

      08:38am | 12/07/11

      Socialism, Greece, here we come and we know the result, just ask any Greek.

    • Brad McT says:

      08:22am | 12/07/11

      Julia Gillard and her Labor mates are in big trouble. How long can Labor keep her in the hot seat before Stephen Smith replaces her?

    • Tom says:

      11:06am | 12/07/11

      Who cares about f&^$% Labor? Australia is in big trouble.

    • Joan says:

      08:35am | 12/07/11

      Gillard ready to slam a Carbon Taxon eveything but I hear no talk about securing Nations base load power. No where in the world has any country implemented a Carbon Tax without securing their baseload power. Gillard ready to shut down coal-fired Victorian powerstations, with no real alternative standby, except a hope that something will happen, at the same time she ships coal to China to fuel their 300+ coal fired power stations. Nuts.

    • dwgw says:

      08:05pm | 12/07/11

      and shut them down with contingency funds which weren’t mentioned in the first place, so this blows her figures out..again!

      Only telling half the story.

    • Lexi says:

      08:57am | 12/07/11

      Electricity demand is something very hard to shift - because like phone bills, the using and the spending are separated by significant time gaps. If you had to pay for power the old fashioned way (putting a penny in the meter) then it would change consumer behaviour.
      That said, those of us living in the coldest parts of the country will still use our central heating and electric blankets. Life without them is pure misery. And I won’t be a miser for the environment. Flame me all you want, inner city greenies, but while you’re enjoying Sydney’s balmy winter days of 20 degrees, I’m shivering though days with a maximum temp of 6 degrees, and as low as -5 overnight. Yes, that’s MINUS FIVE. While you complain of overnight lows of 14. So flame away.

    • Ray says:

      02:24pm | 12/07/11

      I agree with this comment and this article completely. People (other than those who can least afford it eg shivering pensioners) will not be able to reduce their electricity consumption and cost by any significant amount. I have a large solar grid system, solar hot water and energy efficient light bulbs plus NO home theatre or multiple TV’s in every room. Do they reduce consumption - yes, quite significantly. But the cost of getting that consumption reduction has been large. And guess what - the tarriff increases have totally wiped out any saving I have received. My bills have gone up 15% since installing the systems. People and businesses will continue to use the same level of power and the power companies will simply add on the carbon tax to bills. Net result for the environment - NIL.

    • Nafe says:

      09:07am | 12/07/11

      The RBA needs to be forced to declare its hand on what they will do with Interest rated due to the implementation of the Carbon Tax.

      Increasing interest rates are there for the purpose of slowing the economy, they are there to limit the inflation risk due to market supply and demand factors.

      Introducing the carbon tax wil significantly increase the CPI, reportedly by 0.7%, but thats on the treasury modeling which naturally would be best case. (we have seen today reported already that the grocery Council say these prices are well short of what they expect the price increases to be)

      The CPI increase would not be increased from market demand, rather than government manipulation.The RBA increased rated due to the GST increases unwarrentedly, and they will no doubt do the same this time.

      On mining though, the Government is out there saying the Carbon tax won’t adversly affect jobs etc, That may be so, but couple it with the proposed MRRT and the industry is doomed.

      This carbon tax needs to be stopped and it is up to everyone to write to their local federal minister (be it Labor or Liberal) to demand they listen to their constituants and vote No to the carbon tax.

    • Heinz Bauchler says:

      09:25am | 12/07/11

      My problem is not with the extra tax the government is seeking to raise. It is obvious that the financial mismanagement by our Government coupled with the effects of the GFC ( result of our combined greed) requires more funds to be collected to meet national commitments. My problem is with using the pretext of needing a “Carbon Tax” to save the planet to achieve this. I can see all of us paying higher prices, pay more taxes but I cannot see us driving fewer km’s or reducing our “Carbon footprints” greatly. Government 1- Planet 0.

    • Frank says:

      12:23pm | 12/07/11

      The fact is that unlike 90% of the other developed economies (US, Eurozone,Britain) we weathered the GFC very well and our economy is and will be growing for the next decade…yes look at Greece look at the US the only reason they are not imposing a carbon tax is because unlike us they don’t have the highest terms of trade in 140 years and that is not going to disappear just because of a $23 a tonne carbon price

    • John the Zombie says:

      09:37am | 12/07/11

      I think the more as time goes on and more information that comes out on the carbon tax you will find that more labor MPs starting to get cold feet. Most of labors seats held are in coal and manufactuirng industries and as jobs and viability of these mines becomes unstable these MP will be looking to ensure that they get elected next time by opposing this tax.

      One this I cant believe is the CFMEU. The union stattde that it would not support the tax if it lead to jobs and already we have heard of plants shutting down and jobs been lost but the union is supporting the tax. Is this the fact that the unions are just following party lines and giving the middle finger to the members of unions (the true workers).

      In regards to mining yes, more mines will be open but not in the states such as Melbourne, NSW and SA. There mining booms are limited to the land they have and it will be states such as Queensland and WA which will be the ones employing workers. So families will have to make the tough choice of moving from thier known areas to these states that themselves have housing problems and ever increasing cost of living pressures.

    • grumpy old man says:

      09:42am | 12/07/11

      a couple of points that were not included in Sunday’s announcements;
      1. if the price of goods and services rises, so does the $ value of GST collected from those goods and services, this increase is not compensated for.
      2. petrol is to be indirectly taxed, at the refinery level. This means all fuel will go up in price, which needs to be added to the direct increases in the costs of manufacturing. A double whammy, because GST $ value will also increase on fuel, so will excise.
      As everything is distributed using fuel somewhere, this really means everything goes up.
      Adding to this is absolute secrecy around which companies will be paying the tax, so we won’t know which price rises are directly due to the tax and which are indirectly due to the tax.

      this is a very dishonest and disgraceful way for a democratic government to act.

    • John says:

      09:53am | 12/07/11

      I wonder if this carbon tax is swindle just to bail out the US out of its 14 trillion dollars of debt. It’s seems to be pushed by an international cabal, i suspect the Rothschilds and their minions.

    • Vaunted says:

      01:35pm | 12/07/11

      Aluminium foil hat, anyone?

    • Harrison says:

      09:58pm | 02/08/11

      Vaunted ; my dog wears one,. . he’s frigntened of getting Brain Tumors from prolonged use of the mobile phone,. . .but still he gots to keep raps on his bitches, right?

    • 70 Liberal Punch Trolls says:

      10:50am | 12/07/11

      Your comment:Do things add up?
      Newspoll July 12 2011
      Liberal National 49% Primary vote
      Labor Party       27% Primary Vote
      Therefore Greens and Independents = 24% Primary Vote
      100% Total -  49% (Libs) - 27% (ALP) = 100% -76% ( Libs & Labs)
      Does that add up? Do you want an August 2011 election if USA defaults on its loans on August 2 2011??

    • Malleeringneck says:

      12:17pm | 12/07/11

      All the Labor Govt has done since they have been in power is increase taxes and then waste the money.
      This looks much like the same sort of deal.
      Tax the people, hand out a bit of the money received, waste the rest.

    • Frank says:

      12:31pm | 12/07/11

      One question…if someone asked you 10 years ago what the possibility of something like Facebook happening would you have not said ‘Not with dial up that would be impossible” the only commentators looking towards the future past the next 5 years is Labor…this is a major Logn term economic reform…the pain at the start will be minimal compared to the long long term goal of a clean energy future just wait and see in 12 months when the sky doesnt fall in and the Liberal party finally realise Tony is not going to get them anywhere

    • Heinz Bauchler says:

      02:08pm | 12/07/11

      Frank, most people are trying to make ends meet today and not in 5 years plus. In any case I am sure there are vacancies in fairyland for the dreamers that believe the Gillard rhetoric of climate change or global warming. She needs taxes to fill the holes she has dug for us all starting with the stupid $ 950 handout. So why not just says so and collect more tax, raise GST or whatever it takes. Obviously we cant let good old OZ go broke. But the Carbon Tax BS???? Spare us.The sooner these labour twits are thrown out the better for all of us. Gillard and believers can move to another planet where there is zero pollution. Wonder what planetary taxes our readheaded champion of idiots would find essential and important then?

    • Heinz Bauchler says:

      02:08pm | 12/07/11

      Frank, most people are trying to make ends meet today and not in 5 years plus. In any case I am sure there are vacancies in fairyland for the dreamers that believe the Gillard rhetoric of climate change or global warming. She needs taxes to fill the holes she has dug for us all starting with the stupid $ 950 handout. So why not just says so and collect more tax, raise GST or whatever it takes. Obviously we cant let good old OZ go broke. But the Carbon Tax BS???? Spare us.The sooner these labour twits are thrown out the better for all of us. Gillard and believers can move to another planet where there is zero pollution. Wonder what planetary taxes our readheaded champion of idiots would find essential and important then?

    • Ben21 says:

      12:38pm | 12/07/11

      Great Article. As far as I can see Frank’s logic is irrefutable - Someone care to prove me wrong?

    • Mork says:

      12:53pm | 12/07/11

      4 out of ten, don’t you guys have anything else to talk about?

    • kiraty says:

      02:48pm | 12/07/11

      Excellent article!  Thanks for the throrough analys.

    • Nathan says:

      03:18pm | 12/07/11

      Frank Zumbo was campaign manager for the Hughes campaign in the 2010 election. I somehow dont think that he is the most impartial person ...

    • Lesley Laurel says:

      06:09pm | 12/07/11

      Has economics ever added up in Australia? Please Name just once when it did??

    • dwgw says:

      08:13pm | 12/07/11

      Doesn’t anyone find it interesting that the party pushing us to cut down on our power usage is the same one espousing the great NBN which is going to revolutionise the way we are going to live our life by spending hours online using more electricity?
      A true oxymoron by morons.

    • Andrew says:

      09:18pm | 12/07/11

      The question of whether the tax will have the desired effect is almost irrelevant.  This tax is effectively a protectionist measure to artificially make “less carbon-intensive” products more attractive (by making carbon-intensive products more expensive).  So the theory is simple - tax those things that pump out a lot of CO2, making them more expensive, but use that money to compensate households so they are not worse off.  Makes sense, right?  Companies now invest in alternative energy, people change their buying habits to buy the more environmentally friendly products (which are now not quite as expensive relative to other products), and everybody is happy.

      But what happens if this actually DOES work?  Let’s take the “best case” scenario - every corporation and person in Australia completely changes their habits and we produce zero CO2.  We shift to alternative energy (now the same high price as normal energy), more efficient products (now also the same price as normal products), and so forth.  This will still cost more than we’re paying now, of course, but the same as the “carbon taxed” prices.  But there’s a small catch - the revenue raised by the carbon tax is now exactly $0, since we’re not polluting anymore!  So we’re still paying the higher, greener prices, but where’s the compensation coming from?

      And that’s the truth of the matter - developing green, energy efficient, carbon-neutral technology takes MONEY.  And somebody has to provide that money.  Saying that you’ll implement a carbon tax and that nobody will suffer is ridiculous in the extreme, because sure, you can compensate everybody 100% if habits don’t change, but if the point is to get people to move to more expensive, greener technology, then there will be a cost.  And by protecting these industries, the government is providing no incentive for them to become more attractive by themselves.  Instead of this stupidity, why not invest $20b or so in research and development into alternative energy?  That would create a whole new industry, more jobs, and hopefully allow for the creation of cheaper, greener energy in the future.  Yes, it will cost money, but so will this tax (if it works), and the result will be significantly better.

      Economics isn’t magic - you can’t create change without paying for it, and in the end we all have to foot our share of the bill.  So why not be honest about it, tell people “yes, there’s going to be pain initially”, and try to get something good out of it?

    • Jordan Rastrick says:

      11:36pm | 12/07/11

      I’ll leave the usual suspects to rehash the broader carbon debate here, but I want to raise a couple of technical objections to Mr Zumbo’s analysis.

      “This will mean that households will be out of pocket by at least 50% of the tax paid.”

      This assumes 100% tax incidence on households, i.e. that firms will be able to completely pass on their increased costs.

      While there are real concerns in under competitive sectors that Mr Zumbo talks about, his premise is wildly implausible over the entire economy. The reality is that some of the tax raised will come out of the profits of the taxed firms.

      “Quite simply people will still need to buy food, heat their homes or use airlines when travelling around Australia. These are covered by the carbon tax and consumers will simply pay more for these rather than buying less.”

      Agriculture is not in fact directly covered by the scheme. Retail costs of food are expected to rise marginally due to increases in secondary inputs (refrigeration costs etc) but its not one of the major areas of consumer spending impacted by the tax.

      As for heating, the idea that proximate demand for C02 is perfectly inelastic is farcical. There is a wide variety in how much carbon various types of heating generates [electric. reverse cycle air con, gas, co-generated steam, etc etc etc.], so even if demand for heating itself were fixed, there is still substitutability within the sector. And of course its not true that demand for heating is fixed, it has its own substitutes. Better insulated houses, and even just plain rugging up in more layers of clothes/blankets.

    • Greg says:

      08:41am | 13/07/11

      “Agriculture is not in fact directly covered by the scheme. Retail costs of food are expected to rise marginally due to increases in secondary inputs (refrigeration costs etc) but its not one of the major areas of consumer spending impacted by the tax.”

      I think you have very little understanding of the process of getting food from the farm to the table… Please tell me the name of the magical market from which you will be purchasing your goods once the Carbon Tax is introduced, I want to shop there!

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

@SquigglyRick likewise!

Daniel Piotrowski

Hurray racism is fixed no protesters at anti-Islam demonstration http://t.co/hRFbZq8u9h

ToryShepherd

OI TWITTER! Need your best misheard lyrics pronto for @891adelaide's #thebuzz! Hit me, please!

Daniel Piotrowski

@SquigglyRick I really meant without me writing any news

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter