A SUGGESTED methodology for applying weightings in the kind of consumption tax suggested by the World wide Fund for Nature's Paul Toni is that used by the University of Sydney/CSIRO 2005 analysis 'Balancing Act - A Triple Bottom Line Analysis of the Australian Economy'.

However, the consumption tax proposal delivers little relief for ruminant livestock sectors unhappy with the financial toll that methane gas accounting would take under the CPRS.

Using the balancing act metrics, the beef sector would be rated against 135 other industry sectors as having 18 times the water use, 58 times higher land disturbance and 26 times more greenhouse gases.

As a result, beef cattle would considered a very high environmental impact activity and be taxed at the highest rate.

The 'poultry and eggs' category, on the other hand, is considered to involve only twice the average water use, three times the land disturbance and twice the average greenhouse gases.

It would be taxed at the lowest rate.

"It should be noted that there are significant opportunities to design beef production systems with lower environmental impact and such measures would be an appropriate use of a proportion of the funds raised through the environmentally-weighted GST," the paper said.

Analysis cited in the submission indicates that a consumption tax would have the greatest impact on more affluent Australians, who are also the most wasteful.

The submission concluded that the suggested tax would deliver a price signal discouraging overconsumption of environmentally-damaging products, encouraging producers and manufacturers toward forms of production with a lower environmental impact.

"It would also provide a reliable and transparent source of funding with which to correct the market-failure created by the lack of a financial incentive for ecosystem services," the paper said.