catallaxy files

catallaxy in technical exile

Where is that stat from?

with 2 comments

Peter Garrett has made a claim, reported in the Australian, that looks a bit suspect.

The Treasury modelling found that in 2013, the average price impact of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme on food bills will be around $68 a year — less than 1 per cent of household food bills.

I suspect the ‘Treasury modelling‘ is more quoted than read. Alternativily the full Treasury modelling is not in the public domain. I can’t find a stat in the publicly available modelling that suggests such a small price increase for food. Quite the contrary. In the Treasury reference case we find this assumption (emphasis added)

Agriculture is expected to grow more slowly, at around 1.9 per cent per year to 2050, largely reflecting land constraints. Agriculture’s share of real GDP is projected to decline from around 3.2 per cent in 2005, to 2.5 per cent by 2050. However, increased world demand for agricultural products, and supply-side constraint, such as land availability, is expected to drive strong prices for agricultural commodities, and agriculture’s share of nominal GDP is expected to increase to just over 5 per cent by 2050.

While later we read (emphasis added)

The inclusion of agriculture from 2015 would produce a further increase in the price of many food products. This inclusion also is likely to have a disproportionate effect on lower-income households, as these households spend a higher proportion of their income on food products.

As it turns out the government has now excluded agriculture from the CPRS, so that ‘further’ increase no longer applies. Yet as best I can see the Treasury modelling hasn’t told us what the initial price increase will be.

Written by Sinclair Davidson

December 28, 2009 at 9:50 am

Posted in Uncategorized

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Can anyone recall a moment in the pre-election debates between John Howard and Kevin Rudd when the latter claimed that his plans to counter climate change would cost about a dollar a week per capita?


    December 28, 2009 at 10:49 am

  2. Rafe, I believe that was in relation to the 20 per cent mandatory renewable energy target only. Am happy to be corrected though.


    December 28, 2009 at 4:10 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: