Look who's on special in the supermarket

TONY Abbott's plan to cut carbon emissions would cost $27 billion, not the $10b the Coalition claimed, according to new government advice.

TONY Abbott's plan to cut carbon emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 would cost $27 billion over 10 years, not the $10 billion the Coalition claimed, according to new government advice.

But Kevin Rudd's release of the data yesterday was partly overshadowed by his inability to explain the economic impact on average hip pockets of the government's carbon emissions trading scheme.

And Ageing Minister Justine Elliot sparked opposition ridicule when she was unable to answer a question about the impact of emissions trading on the running costs of nursing homes. But the Prime Minister guaranteed "absolutely" that no pensioners would be worse off under the scheme.

Climate change continued to dominate politics in Australia yesterday as US President Barack Obama appeared unlikely to win US Senate support for his proposed cap-and-trade system.

The opposition seized on news that Mr Obama was considering separating his plan from a green jobs package that was more likely to win Senate approval as evidence the emissions trading approach was friendless.

On Tuesday, the Opposition Leader announced a $3.2bn, four-year policy to reduce carbon emissions through direct measures, as an alternative to Mr Rudd's market-based Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Mr Abbott said a Coalition government would plant trees, subsidise solar hot water systems and provide incentives for the use of new emission-reducing technologies.

On Wednesday, Mr Rudd released analysis by the Department of Climate Change that showed the Abbott plan would fail in its stated target of reducing the nation's carbon emissions by 5 per cent -- or 140 million tonnes -- and would instead increase emissions by 13.5 per cent.

Mr Rudd told parliament yesterday that if Mr Abbott were serious about reducing emissions by 5 per cent, he would have to spend $27bn over 10 years -- all funded by the taxpayers.

The Prime Minister said the CPRS would tax big polluters and use the money to compensate 92 per cent of families.

But the Coalition began peppering Mr Rudd with questions about the effect of the government's scheme on people such as couples without children, each earning $65,000 a year.

Mr Rudd was unable to answer specific questions on the issue, even though they had been framed using examples from government documents that showed many families, particularly those without children, would be worse off under the CPRS.

Ms Elliot, asked to describe the impact of the ETS on the cost of running nursing homes, had no answer, and she was drowned out by the opposition's laughter and hoots of derision.

Mr Abbott started the day tickling the hip-pocket nerve, visiting a Canberra supermarket to highlight claims an ETS would cause grocery prices to increase.

Later, opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt said Mr Obama's overnight comments meant the US was unlikely to have an ETS, which he described as proof Mr Rudd's scheme was "dead in the water".