Carbon scheme too high a price to pay: survey

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our or .

| Sourced From |

Australians are willing to put their money where their mouth is to address climate change, but not to pay anywhere near the expected costs of the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS).

That’s the key finding from a survey from researchers at the Australian National University.

The study by PhD student Sonia Akter and Professor Jeff Bennett of the ANU Crawford School of Economics and Government investigated the benefits of the CPRS and compared them to the costs of the scheme.

The pair surveyed 600 Sydney residents to find out their willingness to pay the extra household costs.

The study results show, yes, Australians are concerned about climate change and they are willing to pay for action.

But those levels of concern and willingness to pay are significantly less than the expected costs in Treasury modelling of the CPRS.

“The survey respondents were willing to pay an extra $135 per household each month towards the CPRS,” Professor Bennett said. “But when aggregated across the nation, this represents $8.46 billion a year – significantly less than the Treasury estimated cost of $14.7 billion a year.

“Does this mean that the Australian public is ill-informed about climate change?

“To the contrary, the study shows how clearly the Australian public is thinking through the matter.

“The results show that the uncertainties surrounding both climate change and the effectiveness of climate change policy weigh heavily on people’s minds.”

Professor Bennett said that debates about the relative merits of an emission trading scheme, such as the CPRS, and a tax on carbon emissions are misplaced.

Both would leave the country poorer, he said.

“Neither Treasury nor the Garnaut Review have tackled the task of estimating the full suite of uncertain benefits purported to come from the CPRS or any other mitigation policy,” he said.

“That means that policy measures that will undoubtedly have dramatic impacts on the lives of all Australians are about to be introduced without due consideration of their benefits and costs.

“This survey shows that mitigating carbon emissions either by tax or permits from the benefit/cost evidence will make Australia worse off.

“Rather, the debate should focus on the prospects for adapting to the negative impacts of climate change should they arise.

“That debate should similarly focus on the relative costs and benefits of adaptive strategies,” he said.